UPDATE 1/25: Mr. Hays has has provided a follow up letter, posted at the bottom of this article. – Anthony
This letter below, reprinted with permission, is from Ross Hays. Ross was a CNN meteorologist for many years. He works for NASA at the Columbia Balloon Facility.
In that capacity he has spent much time in Antarctica. He obviously can’t speak for his agency but can have an opinion which he shared with several people. It is printed below in entirety, exactly as he sent it to Eric Steig today, the lead author of the University of Washington paper highlighted in a press release yesterday that claims there is a warming in Antarctica. There were some of the pronouncements made in the media, particularly to the Associated Press by Dr. Michael Mann, that marry that paper with “global warming”, even though no such claim was made in the press release about the scientific paper itself.
I agree with Ross Hays. In my opinion, this press release and subsequent media interviews were done for media attention. The timing is suspicious, with the upcoming Al Gore’s address to congress, he can now say: “We’ve now learned Antarctica is warming”. A Google News search shows about 530 articles on the UW press release in various media.
I ask my readers that share this opinion to consider writing factual letters to the editor (in your own words) or make online comments if any of these media outlets are near you. – Anthony
letter dated 1/22/09
Eric,
Let me first say that this is my own opinion and does not represent the agency I work for. I feel your study is absolutely wrong.
There are very few stations in Antarctica to begin with and only a hand full with 50 years of data. Satellite data is just approaching thirty years of available information. In my experience as a day to day forecaster that has to travel and do field work in Antarctica the summer seasons have been getting colder. In the late 1980s helicopters were used to take our personnel to Williams Field from McMurdo Station due to the annual receding of the Ross Ice Shelf, but in the past few years the thaw has been limited and vehicles can continue to make the transition and drive on the ice. One climate note to pass along is December 2006 was the coldest December ever for McMurdo Station. In a synoptic perspective the cooler sea surface temperatures have kept the maritime storms farther offshore in the summer season and the colder more dense air has rolled from the South Pole to the ice shelf.
There was a paper presented at the AMS Conference in New Orleans last year noting over 70% of the continent was cooling due to the ozone hole. We launch balloons into the stratosphere and the anticyclone that develops over the South Pole has been displaced and slow to establish itself over the past five seasons. The pattern in the troposphere has reflected this trend with more maritime (warmer) air around the Antarctic Peninsula which is also where most of the automated weather stations are located for West Antarctica which will give you the average warmer readings and skew the data for all of West Antarctica.
With statistics you can make numbers go to almost any conclusion you want. It saddens me to see members of the scientific community do this for media coverage.
Sincerely,
Ross Hays
Follow up letter, sent 1/24 and posted on 1/25 with permission:
Anthony,
A prerequisite to going to work for the Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility was to pass an Antarctic physical. During the southern summer each year CSBF launches large (up to 40 million cubic feet) scientific balloons that orbit Antarctica for up to 42 days with scientific experiments. Most of the payloads are astrophysics, but scientific balloons discovered the ozone hole over Antarctica.
The meteorologist job is to do daily forecasts for our launch site at Williams Field near McMurodo Station on Ross Island. When campaigns are going on daily briefings are provided to personnel and a written summary is provided for daily situation reports sent to the Balloon Program Office at Goddard Space Center. We also monitor the stratospheric winds while the payloads are being readied to launch and to make sure the winds are in the correct direction and the balloon will stay over the continent. We also forecast payload termination and impact areas.
I have only done two tours on the Ice but have provided forecasts from Palestine, Texas on the years between after the balloon launches we take over forecasts for the payload and handle termination from our command center. I will be returning to the Ice in November.
My main problem with the study is the data sets. I know of only 4 stations for all of Antarctica that have fifty complete years of data. I am trying to find the exact number now. Most stations have been on and off in operation for a few seasons during field experiments. One of our retired meteorologists, Glenn Rosenberger was a US Navy meteorologist that did tours in Antarctica. He helped install the first automated weather stations on the continent: In conjunction with Stanford University, believe it was in 1978-1979 that 4 were put on the ice. One was on Minna Bluff, one on the Plateau, one on the slope of Eribus. They were powered by the RTG (radiological thermoelectric generators) and the I was the Radiological Officer for the command. There is just not enough data to support the results in my opinion.
The discussion about the warming in West Antarctica is also questionable to me since the majority of stations with several years of data are on the Antarctic Peninsula, which is surround by warmer maritime air, and doesn’t give a good balance over the interior.
I hope this gives you some idea about me.
Sincerely,
Ross Hays
canarypapers (04:26:10) :
His opinion is, nonetheless, music to the ears of those determined, for whatever reasons, to deny the existence of climate change.
Can’t you people come up with anything besides ad hominem and straw man arguments, appeals to “authority”, consensus, and red herrings, none of which prove a thing except the complete lack of any real science, or indeed logic? For the umpteenth time, nobody here “denies” climate change. The very fact that you feel the need to use the ad hominem “denier” label proves the irrationality and lack of scientific basis for your arguments.
Try this.
Science, not ideology. You might want to give it a try.
[snip, this personal attack, with profanity, violates site policy ]
The Pew Research Center has pulsed public opinion on top priorities. See: http://www.people-press.org/report/485/economy-top-policy-priority
Of the priorities listed, global warming was last.
Now with the $825B stimulus package including something like $400 million for more scientists to study climate change perhaps there is a disconnect in more ways than one. Above you will find the reply I received from the University of Washington. See comment: 13:30:46). The UW comment was far from convincing that the science was settled on which way the Antarctic trend was going.
(It has been suggested that seeking to clarify the authority of personal experience that Ross Hays calims for himself is somehow avoiding the ‘real issue’ of temperatures in the Antarctic. I would point out that I had previously written a long post responding in detail to Mr Hays’ points (07:55:08), but never mind, let’s return to that question).
Ross Hays states:
One climate note to pass along is December 2006 was the coldest December ever for McMurdo Station.
As has been pointed out elsewhere (some won’t like my source, I guess, but the data can be checked), the data record for McMurdo does not support this statement:
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/mcmdec.jpg?w=491&h=363
As can be seen, there are twelve colder Decembers on record for McMurdo, with a year as recent as 2002 being colder and the actual coldest on record being most of 2 degrees C colder than 2006. Also, the December trend for the whole period is warming.
So, if the ‘real issue’ is Hays’ statements on temperature data, then he is demonstrably in the wrong as above. I think it may well be that he is passing on impressions he has gathered from those within his organisation (and I don’t object to that in itself), for example in his reference to conditions in the 1980s. It can be seen that there were certainly some warm summers in that decade, with the record warmest December at McMurdo in 1987, though followed by the second record coolest in 1988. Inter-annual temperature variation is considerable, and thus I would suggest that one should be particularly cautious in presuming a trend from a short period.
I’ve collected key references about Antarctica’s temperatures, just to have the prime, simple refuting graphs and URL’s handy and clear. Especially the temp records from 8 Antarctic weather stations from Antarctic Temperature and Sea Ice Trends, the 2006 paper which concluded there has been cooling not warming.
I don’t want an ICE HOCKEY STICK!
By the way, if you don’t like the phrasing of the question…or whatever…in the survey that canarypapers linked to, there is another recent survey of scientists in the geophysical and meteorological sciences on climate change conducted by a respected polling organization and it reaches similar conclusions: http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html
In particular, they find:
(1) 97% believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century; 84% believe that human-induced warming is occurring, with 74% saying that the “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence; only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming.
(2) 41% of the scientists surveyed believe global climate change will pose a very great danger to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years; 44% rate climate change as moderately dangerous; and only 13% believe there is relatively little danger.
(3) Al Gore’s documentary film “An Inconvenient Truth” rates better than any traditional news source, with 64% rating it as either very (26%) or somewhat (38%) reliable. This is as opposed to Michael Crichton’s novel “State of Fear,” which 1% or less rate as very reliable.
Sure, no survey is perfect…But this survey, if anything, is likely to underestimate the amount of support for the consensus view of the climate science community amongst actual climate scientists since the survey methodology presumably included members of the AMS who are meteorologists involved in weather forecasting, not climate science, and these folks are well-known to be, on the average, considerably more skeptical of AGW than the scientists actually working in the field. (The one other major downside of this survey that I see is that it does not seem to be possible to see the exact wording of their questions.)
[snip – I said I would not get into it here, yet you had to initiate a debate anyway, I’m not opening up another conversation. – Anthony]
Interesting link, Lucy. It’s a short paper, easy to understand, and it refutes the claim that polar temps are ramping up or down unnaturally. Polar temps are perfectly normal. As your PDF link points out, if CO2 was having an effect, it would show up at the poles first. But the temperature changes are less than in warmer latitudes. Another nail in the AGW coffin.
As your PDF link points out, if CO2 was having an effect, it would show up at the poles first. But the temperature changes are less than in warmer latitudes.
That is not true. Read the Steig et al paper. They find warming for the whole of the Antarctic which exceeds the warming for the Southern Hemisphere land area for the same period (Global Antarctica : 0.12°C/dec. SH land anomaly for the same period is 0.116°C/dec).
I prefer to side with Prof. Dyson. He is much more credible than Steig.
And see Lucy Skywalker’s PDFs. They don’t say what you are claiming.
I would say I agree with the moderator regarding bigcitylib. If you wish to partake of a delicious online self-destruction, spend a bit of time with Mark Steyn and “The Shagged Sheep” re: the big city lib.
Simon Evans (12:04:14) :
As your PDF link points out, if CO2 was having an effect, it would show up at the poles first. But the temperature changes are less than in warmer latitudes.
“That is not true.”
I note that you don’t say “I believe that not to be correct, based on Steig et all”, but a very categorical “that is not true” as if to say Smokey and Lucy are lying. And in bold font as well! It must be nice going through life so certain about things as the recent visitors to WUWT seem to be.
I prefer to side with Prof. Dyson. He is much more credible than Steig.
What on earth has Professor Dyson got to say about temperatures in the Antarctic?
And see Lucy Skywalker’s PDFs. They don’t say what you are claiming.
It’s not a matter of what I am ‘claiming’. This thread deals with a response to Steig et al’s paper (have you actually read it yet?). I am simply stating the facts of what they find, Your statement in this context, that “the temperature changes are less than in warmer latitudes” is simply not true. Yoiu can assert that Steig et al are wrong (whether or not you’ve read the paper), you can assert whatever you like, but I will clarify what the paper actually finds.
Neil Crafter (12:52:48) :
Simon Evans (12:04:14) :
As your PDF link points out, if CO2 was having an effect, it would show up at the poles first. But the temperature changes are less than in warmer latitudes.
“That is not true.”
I note that you don’t say “I believe that not to be correct, based on Steig et all”, but a very categorical “that is not true” as if to say Smokey and Lucy are lying. And in bold font as well! It must be nice going through life so certain about things as the recent visitors to WUWT seem to be.
I think you have misunderstood the nature of my statement. I am referring to what the Steig et al study found, therefore my statement is a matter of fact (see my previous post), not a matter of my judgment. You can check this out for yourself by reading the paper.
As ever, Christopher Booker has admirably summarised this sorry saga in the Sunday telegraph at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/4332784/Despite-the-hot-air-the-Antarctic-is-not-warming-up.html
Not all in the UK believe the BBC.
I saw the following regarding Antarctic volcanoes. See: http://www.tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/volcanoes-and-antarctic-warming/
>>>…A couple of readers responded to news of a warming Antarctica by noting that West Antarctica, where the warming is most pronounced, is home to a number of volcanoes. (It’s basically the bottom segment of the Pacific Ocean’s “ring of fire.”)
In addition to coming up with my own answer, I did ask the study’s authors. Eric Steig of the University of Washington replied:
Wow. Strange question.
Volcanoes under the ice can’t affect climate on the surface, 2 miles above!
To amplify that a little bit: The ice sheet covering West Antarctica, including its volcanoes, is about two miles thick. Also, Antarctica’s volcanoes do not appear particularly active at present.<<<<
Joel Shore:
“41% of the scientists surveyed believe global climate change will pose a very great danger to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years …”
I believe you Joel, which means 59% of these scientists do NOT believe there is a great danger to earth. I think the number is higher on the blog, but it’s nice to know the majority are in agreement with the skeptics.
This is essentially my position. I believe in AGW, but I do not believe anyone has proved CAGW. In fact, I believe the AGW will be beneficial to life on this planet. There may be a few partially flooded cities and relocations required but just think of what productive Canadian and Siberian extremes would mean to the overall production of food. Add in some additional precipitation in desert areas and the overall balance is likely to be positive.
BTW, this latter view is more inline with historical observations.
Phillip Bratby (13:44:58) :
As ever, Christopher Booker has admirably summarised this sorry saga in the Sunday telegraph at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/4332784/Despite-the-hot-air-the-Antarctic-is-not-warming-up.html
Booker’s article is unmitigated rubbish. He obviously hasn’t read the paper, or if he has he hasn’t begun to understand it. Witness his assertion that the study is the product of a computer model – it is nothing of the sort. Read the paper yourself and you will discover that Booker is talking nonsense.
REPLY: So no computer processing was used at all in the preparation of the paper? no grids constructed, no data matrices? No output rendered onto a 3D dimensional topo map? Be very very careful how you respond Simon. – Anthony
Craig Moore (13:56:27) : quotes Eric Steig …
“Volcanoes under the ice can’t affect climate on the surface, 2 miles above!”
OTOH, volcanoes may impact the temperature of the ocean and the volcanoes are generally close to the coast. From what I remember of Part I the SSTs were warmer on the west side. This lack of attention to other factors that could influence the claims bothers me. It makes it all too obvious the result was the primary objective rather than real science.
Even if the volcanoes were not the cause the west side could be warmer simply due to the warmer waters with CO2 being a non-factor (or minor). While the article did not, in and of itself, claim AGW was the cause, the press releases made it obvious where the intent lay.
Craig Moore-
In response to the comments attributed to Eric Steig:
I do not know enough about Antarctic volcanoes to say if the volcanoes have any activity whatsoever, but the answer as quoted is non-responsive.
No one is claiming that the volcanoes affect climate. Rather, the volcanoes could affect temperature readings and change the elevation of the surface of the ice, all without any eruptions. Even quiescent volcanoes often have higher and variable heat flow at the surface, often through many miles of rock. Ice is just another rock to a geologist, so even if the volcano is limited to being “two miles” below the surface of ice, surface heat flows can be variable.
However, all this is speculation because the real issue is not being addressed: Is there heat flow and/or inflation/deflation coming from the volcanoes?
Incidentally, Wikipedia lists 34 “active and extinct” volcanoes in Antarctica. Of these, about 5 are listed as erupting in the last 1000 years (give or take a few), with one (Erebus) erupting in the last year. They even show a satellite photo of a lava lake in the crater! Other studies have suggested unseen active volcanoes below the surface of the ice; if they exist, we just don’t know how much their influence may be. It would certainly be a mistake to just dismiss the thought out of hand, without even looking at evidence!
Joel Shore says: “By the way, if you don’t like the phrasing of the question…”.
Well, I liked the phrasing here:
Isn’t that what we would expect from believers, as opposed to thinkers? [BTW, I know of no one who disagrees that the climate gradually warms, and that it has done so since the LIA. And that it occasionally cools, too, sometimes for decades at a time. The climate fluctuates, and AGW is not the cause. So enough with the red herring that scientists don’t believe the planets is warming; it is the cause that is in dispute.] So let me write the poll questions, and I’ll get the answers I want, too.
And:
“…the consensus view…”
Please.
You have two choices: either dispense with the tired and discredited global warming is gonna getcha “consensus” meme [including this set-up poll], or explain exactly how the UN/IPCC’s 2,500 political appointees form your “consensus” — but that 31,000+ U.S. physical scientists do not. How does that work?
An honest way to determine a consensus [for those who believe that a consensus in science is necessary] is by a questionnaire, agreed to by leaders of both sides of the AGW-runaway global warming-climate catastrophe hypothesis [Lindzen, McIntyre, Ball vs Hansen, Man, Tamino, for instance]; provided to all rank-and-file members of each relevant professional organization, and assuring complete anonymity to the voter. But since the committees of most of these organizations have been hijacked [see here], you can be sure that neither the organization nor the AGW contingent would ever tolerate an anonymous, unbiased poll as described here. Because the result would cause monumental consternation to the AGW contingent, and public humiliation for the government climate “adjusters.”
Simon Evans (13:40:55) :
“I think you have misunderstood the nature of my statement. I am referring to what the Steig et al study found, therefore my statement is a matter of fact (see my previous post), not a matter of my judgment. You can check this out for yourself by reading the paper.”
No, I have not misunderstood your statement. You are working on the assumption that the Steig paper is correct and uses legitimate methods, and so your statement is a matter of judgement. There are others who think their methodology and findings are dubious. They can therefore just as readily claim “It is true” in response to your “It is not true”.
This is a recent discovery. For Steig to dismiss undersea volcanic activity out of hand indicates that he has reached a conclusion and is only interested in data that supports it.
Scott Gibson-
Thank you. What struck me odd about the claimed Steig comments about Antarctic volcanoes, is how off the mark they were. Not all of those vocanoes are 2 miles deep!!! The Mount Erebus picture graces this column. In my opinion if Steig actually said those things appearing in the NYT, that faux pas suggests the quality of his science.