Antarctic Warming? Part 2 – A letter from a meteorologist on the ground in Antarctica

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.

ross-hays-mt-erebus
Ross Hays with Antarctica's Mount Erebus volcano in the background

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

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
235 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Neil Crafter
January 25, 2009 1:18 pm

Simon Evans (07:46:17) :
I’m rather confused Simon, is Steig’s paper correct or not correct? Your responses are quite contradictory.

Craig Moore
January 25, 2009 2:05 pm

Possibly a retrospective look at this WUWT column is in order: www. wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/03/winds-are-dominant-cause-of-greenland-and-west-antarctic-ice-sheet-losses/

January 25, 2009 2:32 pm

Thank you Ceolfrith (11:52:13) for posting that link, which mentions:

…Ross Hayes, an atmospheric scientist who has often visited the Antarctic for Nasa…

Some folks here might have a problem with the word ‘often’, but otherwise the article is an excellent rebuttal to the claim that the Antarctic is warming.
The comments section was especially interesting. One comment reports on Jack Kemp’s testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives in 1999:

“…to speak on the alleged threat of man-made global warming; that treaty’s implications for both the world economy and the American system of government; and proposed legislation concerning so-called ‘early action credits’ to reward hypothetical reductions in fossil fuel emissions. These credits are touted by some as offering a ‘market approach’ enabling us to regulate the future climate of the Earth. As I hope to demonstrate, they are nothing of the kind: instead, they are truly market socialism, an artificial device attempting to mimic market activity that really conceals a concerted campaign by international bureaucrats to seize control of the world’s energy supply and indeed of every facet of our economic life… The Kyoto Protocol, the idea of trading credits to facilitate implementation of that agreement, and the very concept of regulating the word’s energy policies through an international treaty together constitute a huge battle over power–not just ‘power’ in the sense of controlling the energy sources that drive the world economy, but political power in the sense of ‘who decides’; who decides how fast our economy should grow (or if it should grow at all), who decides…”

All in all, a great read.

E.M.Smith
Editor
January 25, 2009 2:54 pm

Eric Anderson (21:24:50) :
Is this really anecdotal evidence, or is it a statement based on actual December temperatures at McMurdo? Should be easy enough to verify.

From gistemp.txt, you can try the data used by GISS (not produced by them at:

Sources
——-
GHCN = Global Historical Climate Network (NOAA)
USHCN = US Historical Climate Network (NOAA)
SCAR = Scientific Committee on Arctic Research
Basic data set: GHCN – ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2
v2.mean.Z (data file)
v2.temperature.inv.Z (station information file)
For US: USHCN – ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn
hcn_doe_mean_data.Z
station_inventory
For Antarctica: SCAR – http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/READER/surface/stationpt.html
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/READER/temperature.html
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/READER/aws/awspt.html
For Hohenpeissenberg – http://members.lycos.nl/ErrenWijlens/co2/t_hohenpeissenberg_200306.txt
complete record for this rural station
(thanks to Hans Erren who reported it to GISS on July 16, 2003)

Simon Evans
January 25, 2009 3:29 pm

Neil Crafter (13:18:10) :
Simon Evans (07:46:17) :
I’m rather confused Simon, is Steig’s paper correct or not correct? Your responses are quite contradictory.

‘Correct’ is an absolute word. I think it may be that their analysis offers a better assessment of temperature trend over the period than we had before (though I reserve my judgment on that – further work will be done in this field, and levels of confidence will develop). By the same token, I don’t think UAH is ‘correct’ any more than RSS is ‘correct’ – clearly they can’t both be right, since they report different figures generated from the same raw observations.
My main interest on this thread has been to pin down a few matters of fact, which actually have little to do with my view on the status of the paper.
I’m sorry if my statements have seemed to you to be contradictory – I certainly wasn’t aware of that, and hope that I have clarified my view.

Craig Moore
January 25, 2009 4:10 pm

Why would Steig’s assessment be any better than this: http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2008/antarctica.jsp
Notice the map with the warming in the west but cooling over much of the rest of the continent.

January 25, 2009 5:24 pm

Thanks for a very good link, Craig Moore. The graphic in the article puts the size of the warmer area in better perspective: click

Chris V.
January 25, 2009 6:10 pm

Craig/Smokey:
The study that Craig linked to doesn’t seriously disagree with Steig’s; that image covers a different time period.
Steig discusses his results here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/state-of-antarctica-red-or-blue/

Craig Moore
January 25, 2009 6:35 pm

Chris Vallance-
Isn’t it possible that the last 35 years which show a cooling trend over the vast majority of Antarctica the most relevant to consider?

Alan Wilkinson
January 25, 2009 6:56 pm

John Philip, yes, that is a fair assessment. Neither have any statistical authority.

Chris V.
January 25, 2009 7:28 pm

Craig Moore (18:35:35) :
Steig also finds a slight cooling over the past 35 years in E. Antarctica, but he also finds a lot more warming in W. Antarctica, so the trend for the continent as a whole is warming.
I would think that the results for continent as a whole would be most relevant.
PS- Why do you keep calling me Chris Vallance?

Scott Gibson
January 25, 2009 11:42 pm

The supplementary information section of the paper reveals how they processed the satellite data. They looked at the daily data, assuming that any deviation of the mean temperature of greater than 10 degrees C was actually contaminated with clouds, and then removed that data. I didn’t see any explanation of what they replaced the tossed data with, but clearly there is the possibility their technique preferentially removed cold days from the record.

Chris V.
January 26, 2009 6:49 am

Scott Gibson (23:42:43) :
The Antarctic night lasts half a year. Clouds re-radiate heat back to the ground at night, so the removal of extremely cloudy days would remove warmer days from the record for half the year.

Craig Moore
January 26, 2009 7:00 am

Chris, I sincerely disagree with your opinion. There is such a vast difference between continental warming west of the mountains and cooling east of the mountains. To homogenize the two results and proclaim a temperature direction for the whole of the continent is misleading in my opinion. Also, the 50 year time period selected by Steig is just as misleading where it obscures the cooling direction over the past 35 years. My point being it is better just to lay out the facts without drawing significance to arbitrary averages and time periods that tend to fit an answer into a predetermined theory. Look at the press release from the U of W. Just my humble opinion.

D. Patterson
January 26, 2009 7:03 am

Anthony, what is the basis for Ross Hay’s statement: “December 2006 was the coldest December ever for McMurdo Station”? When was it lower than -81C?
REPLY: I don’t know, perhaps he’s got some inside information we don’t know about. It would seem odd to me, that a person familiar with the working of the press and science (having been a meteorologist for CNN and working in a science facility) would make such a statement, knowing that it could easily be refuted, if he didn’t have some basis for it. – Anthony

D. Patterson
January 26, 2009 7:52 am

Agreed. Tamino, however, challenged the claim using a graph indicating the McMurdo temperature for December was -60C and nowhere near the lowest December temperatures. Tamino appears to be using a monthly mean temperature. Daily minimum temperatures have been at least as low as -81C in 1977 according to HADCRU. Perhaps Ross can shed some light on Tamino’s challenge of Ross’s comment?
REPLY: I’ll ask. Being a balloon met, he may have been referring to any level of the atmosphere and just didn’t qualify his comment well. Most of our discussion has been “grounded” so to speak, on surface data. – Anthony

Chris V.
January 26, 2009 9:01 am

Craig Moore (07:00:53) :
It sounds like your complaint is more with the press release than the paper.
You can read Steig’s description of his results, and get the abstract, over at Realclimate.
Steig gives results for the past 50 years and 35 years, for E and W Antarctica individually, and for the continent as a whole.

Craig Moore
January 26, 2009 11:07 am

Chris, they are inseparable coming from the same academic institution. Dr. Steig is responsible for the representation of his work.

Craig Moore
January 26, 2009 11:38 am

I just discovered that ClimateAudit raises a similar concern to mine regarding Dr. Steig being responsible for the representation of his work. See: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4945

Scott Gibson
January 26, 2009 3:48 pm

Chris V–
Most of my concern is that they say they removed data, without saying what they replaced it with. I would be skeptical of any such removal of data, regardless of whether it would warm or cool the data. Since they indicate their biases toward warming in past papers, I suspect that they would have been more likely to catch cooling influences than warming. (Note: I am not accusing them of lying, rather I am accusing them of bias, something we all have. It is difficult for most of us to avoid being trapped by our biases).
“Clouds re-radiate heat back to the ground at night…”
This may often be true, but one look at the Siberian weather stations shows that it may not always be true. They have a condition where ice fog forms during their dark winter, and the temperature becomes dreadfully cold. I don’t know if this occurs in Antarctica, and Steig et al (2008) don’t seem to discuss what happens under the clouds in their paper.

Vernon
January 27, 2009 10:29 am

Well, one issue is that RegEM introduces a slight warming bias. Sort of sound familer with the results. Also
Chris V: The RC post says that 35-45 was the warmest temperatures for the century. Why is the short warming period from 58 to 69 more important than the cooling from 45 to 58 or the cooling from 69 to present?
The problem with the paper for me is the use of a process that is known to introduce a warming bias (that may not be an issue for the AWG crowd) and cherry picking a start point that give the trend that supports your position.

Vernon
January 27, 2009 10:32 am

Oh, and I did ask Dr. Steig about this at RC and they declined to post it or answer it. I did cite the works that determined that there was a warming bias.

Neo
January 27, 2009 11:31 am

Eric Steig says ..

Volcanoes under the ice can’t affect climate on the surface, 2 miles above!

.. but if you follow the link in the story, you find ..

For Antarctica, “This is the first time we have seen a volcano beneath the ice sheet punch a hole through the ice sheet,” Dr. Vaughan said.

Craig Moore
January 27, 2009 11:55 am

Vernon-
Thank you for your effort at RC, and important questions put to Chris V.

January 27, 2009 8:36 pm

Yeah, well I’m just a fish biologist and reporter with an environmental bog of my own, but I know this is bullshit you two are peddling. When it comes to part time and ex-weather announcers and skepticism of global warming, it seems to go hand in hand. Try this assessment on for size: Amateurs on location are still amateurs. Take a class. Get a clue. Best science blog. LOL!
REPLY: “environmental bog” ? Mark, you might want to read this, and then rephrase:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/27/james-hansens-former-nasa-supervisor-declares-himself-a-skeptic-says-hansen-embarrassed-nasa-was-never-muzzled/
Anthony Watts