UPDATE: the question has arisen about “occupied” aka “manned” weather stations in Antarctica (Stevenson Screens etc) versus the Automated Weather Stations. This picture on a postage stamp from Australia, celebrating the Australian Antarctic Territory in 1997, may help settle the issue. Note the Stevenson Screen near the “living pod” on the right.
Here is the larger photo of the first day of issue card, the Stevenson Screen is also just visible above the snowbank in the lower right. Rather close to human habitation I’d say. Looks like its in the middle of an AHI (Antarctic Heat Island).
Here’s another picture of a Stevenson Screen close to a building in Antarctica, from the British Antarctic Survey:
![[10004058]](http://www.photo.antarctica.ac.uk/external/guest/image/water/70/10004058)
Location: Fossil Bluff, Alexander Island
Season: 1994/1995
Photographer: Pete Bucktrout
It seems that folks are all “wild about Harry” over at Climate Audit, with the revelations occurring there, and no good kerfluffle would be complete without some pictures of the weather stations in question. It seems a weather station used in the Steig Antarctic study , aka “Harry”, got buried under snow and also got confused with another station, Gill, in the dataset. As Steve McIntyre writes:
Gill is located on the Ross Ice Shelf at 79.92S 178.59W 25M and is completely unrelated to Harry. The 2005 inspection report observes:
2 February 2005 – Site visited. Site was difficult to locate by air; was finally found by scanning the horizon with binoculars. Station moved 3.8 nautical miles from the previous GPS position. The lower delta temperature sensor was buried .63 meters in the snow. The boom sensor was raised to 3.84 m above the surface from 1.57 m above the surface. Station was found in good working condition.
I didn’t see any discussion in Steig et al on allowing for the effect of burying sensors in the snow on data homogeneity.
The difference between “old” Harry and “new” Harry can now be explained. “Old” Harry was actually “Gill”, but, at least, even if mis-identified, it was only one series. “New” Harry is a splice of Harry into Gill – when Harry met Gill, the two became one, as it were.
Considered by itself, Gill has a slightly negative trend from 1987 to 2002. The big trend in “New Harry” arises entirely from the impact of splicing the two data sets together. It’s a mess.
So not only is there a splice error, but the data itself may have been biased by snow burial.
Why is the snow burying important? Well, as anyone skilled in cold weather survival can tell you, snow makes an excellent insulator and an excellent reflector. Snow’s trapped air insulative properties is why building a snow cave to survive in is a good idea. So is it any wonder then that a snowdrift buried temperature sensor, or a temperature sensor being lowered to near the surface by rising snow, would not read the temperature of the free near surface atmosphere accurately?
As I’ve always said, getting accurate weather station data is all about siting and how the sensors are affected by microclimate issues. Pictures help tell the story.
Here’s “Harry” prior to being dug out in 2006 and after:
Harry AWS, 2006 – Upon Arrival – Click to enlarge.
Harry AWS, 2006 – After digging out – Click to enlarge.
You can see “Harry’s Facebook Page” here at the University of Wisconsin
It seems digging out weather stations is a regular pastime in Antarctica, so data issues with snow burial of AWS sensors may be more than just about “Harry”. It seems Theresa (Harry’s nearby sister) and Halley VI also have been dug out and the process documented. With this being such a regular occurrence, and easily found within a few minutes of Googling by me, you’d think somebody with Steig et al or the Nature peer reviewers would have looked into this and the effect on the data that Steve McIntyre has so eloquently pointed out.
Here’s more on the snow burial issue from Antarctic bloggers:
The map showing Automated Weather Stations in
Antarctica:
Click map for a larger image
The Gill AWS in question.
From Polartrec
Theresa was placed at this location partly to
study the air flow in the region. Looking out the window of the plane we can
definitely see the air flowing!!! Jim estimates the wind at about 25 miles per
hour.
Wind blown snow at Theresa
With the temperature around 0F the wind chill
was about 20 below, it is obvious this is going to be quite a chore.
Starting to dig out Theresa
The weather station has not been working, so
George needs to figure out what is wrong with it and then fix it. The station is
almost buried in the snow so we will also need to remove all of the electronics,
add a tower section and then raise and bolt all of the electronics and sensors
back in place.
George unhooking the cables.
After refueling the plane, with the fuel in
the 55 gallon drums, Jim and Louie helped dig down to the electronics boxes that
were completely buried plus they built us a wind break that made huge difference
in helping us not be so cold. After about 4 hours we are almost through. As I am
hanging onto the top of the raised tower in the wind, one bunny boot wedged onto
the tower bracing, the other boot wrapped around the tower, one elbow gripping
the tower, my chin trying to hold the wind sensor in place and both bare numb
hands trying to thread a nut onto the spinning wind sensor I really appreciate
the difficulty of what is normally Jonathan’s job. After checking to make sure
Theresa is transmitting weather data we board the plane and head to Briana our
second station.
Notice the difference between this
picture and the first one of Theresa.
From Antarctic Diary
More movement
It’s been another flat-out week. The vehicle team have dug
up and moved the Drewery building, which was getting do buried snow was
almost up the windows. Team Met have been on the move too – all the
remaining instruments are now bolted securely to the Laws roof, so we headed
up the the Halley VI building site to relocate the weather station.
Jules starts digging out the weather station
Only 15km away, the Halley VI site looks a lot like Halley V. It’s flat,
white and snowy. Very snowy. The weather station had about 1.5m built up
around it!
Jules and Simon recovering the solar panel
In the hole!
The weather station was a survey reference point for the build project so we
had to find a suitable replacement. Could this be Antarctica’s first
pole-dancing venue?
Penguin Party memories…
After an hour or so sweating it our with shovels, the weather station popped
out and was loaded onto the sledge. Like the reference point, the station’s
new location had to be precise as vehicles are banned from the upwind
section of the site to keep that area ultra-clean for future snow-chemistry
experiments.
Weather station on the move
Driving on a compass bearing and GPS track, we found the new site just under
a kilometre away.
The final setup
UPDATE: here’s another buried station story from Bob’s Adventures in cold climes. Apparently this station is used as a reference for some sort of borehole project.
I dig weather stations
My main task for today was to get a start on raising my weather station. I’d installed it 2 years ago, and with the high accumulation at Summit, it’s getting buried. The electronics are all in a box under the snow, and the only things visible at the surface were the anemometer for measuring wind speed and direction, the thermistor for measuring air temperature, and the solar panel to keep the batteries charged.
The buried weather station. The flat green bit is the solar panel, which was about 1.5 meters off the surface when I installed the station. Can you guess why I would mount it facing down?
In the morning I downloaded all the data from the station, and checked to see that it was all in order. Then it was time for digging. I’d carefully made a diagram when I inastalled the station, so I knew exactly where to dig. A couple of hours later I’d found my box!
At the bottom of the pit with the datalogger electronics.
I brought everything up to the surface, and then was about to fill in the pit, when I realized at least one more scientist at Summit might want to make measurements in it; the pit’s already dug! So tomorrow I’ll help Lora with some conductivity measurements, then fill in the pit, re-bury the box just beneath the surface, and it’ll be ready to go for another 2 years!
And there’s more….
The Australians seem to have AWS problems as well. From the Australian Antarctic Division:
On Monday two groups headed out, with Largy and Denis going up to the skiway to check on the condition of the equipment stored there for the winter and beginning preparations for the coming summer flying season.
Bill, Brian and Ian went up to the Lanyon Junction Automatic Weather Station (AWS) to check its condition and retrieve some of the sensors in preparation for the annual servicing of the various remote units.
|
|
And the University of Maine, participating in USITASE, has the same troubles, they write:
We reached our first major destination at the end of today’s travel, the site of the Nico weather station. There are several automatic weather stations spread out over the surface of Antarctica. These stations measure things like temperature, wind speed and wind direction and then relay this data back to scientists via satellite. Anything left on the surface of the snow will eventually be drifted in and buried by blowing snow. This particular weather station (NICO) has not been seen in several years. They tried to locate it via airplane a few years ago and were unsuccessful. Our task was to find the weather station, record its position with GPS, and mark the location with flags so that in the near future, the weather station can be raised and serviced.
We arrived at the coordinates of the station around 10 pm. Our initial scans of the horizon were not productive, so Matthew and John took the lead tractor (with our crevasse-detecting radar) out to survey a grid near our stopping point. The radar should detect a large metal object like a weather station, but the survey was also unsuccessful. After a fine pasta and tomato sauce dinner, John went outside for an evening constitutional. He saw a shiny object out in the distance – further inspection with a pair of binoculars determined that it was the top of the NICO weather station! Several of us marched out to the station, which was actually about a half mile distant, marked the location with bright orange flags and recorded the position via GPS for future reference. Only the top foot or two of the station was still visible. John was in exactly the right place at the right time to see a reflection from this object while we were near the kitchen module, and so allowed us to complete our first task successfully.
Tomorrow, we drive on.
This regular burial and digging out of stations brings the whole network of AWS stations to be used as sensitive climate measurement stations into question.
MarkW (12:21:43):
At least some type of polar stations used a radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG).
It would be interesting to know where these RTGs are installed with respect to the temperature sensors. Depending on power and distance there could be a considerable amount of radiated heat, due to the very low electric efficiency (~5%) of these devices.
MarkW (12:21:43) :
“jarhead, enough batteries to last all the way through the winter?”
“The AWS unit is powered by six to twelve 40 ampere-hour 12 volt gel-cell batteries charged by one or two 10 Watt solar panels. At the South Pole, 12 batteries and two solar panels are sufficient to operate the AWS unit through the year, while six batteries and one solar panel are adequate on the Ross Ice Shelf. Several of the AWS units have operated on the same batteries and solar panel for 6 to 10 years.”
http://uwamrc.ssec.wisc.edu/aboutaws.html
Ruth (12:47:37) :
I am not quite clear on the reason for supposing that a warming trend will occur when a temperature sensor is buried by snow. If it is buried by snow of the same temperature as the air, and the sensor itself is not a heat source (or connected to one), I suppose it would continue to register the same temperature (assuming the temperature measurement is not affected by the wind).
The weather station is supposed to record the temperature at the surface. That temperature varies from minute to minute and from night to day and from day to day and from season to season and that information is recorded. If the sensor is snowed under the temperature being recorded will be literally insulated from those variations. It will record a temperature that barely changes. It might be a useful value for certain purposes if it were known how deeply it was buried and the thermal properties of the snow. But if those reading are mixed with readings taken previously on the surface or compared with readings of other stations that are on the surface you would have a meaningless bunch of noise. Apples and oranges at the very least. Of course if the sensor picks up heat from the battery or somewhere else then you now have apples, oranges and pears. Nothing useful to compare with anything else.
E.M.Smith, and others on the Antarctic heat island effect (I’m assuming that is what HIE represents)
First, Mr. Smith, as an old Fortran programmer myself, kudos for the yeoman work you are undertaking on GISStemp. I’m getting a kick out of reading your comments…brings back not-so-fond memories of reading and splicing ancient Fortran code written by refinery engineers (not computer scientists) who had little time nor inclination to do things right. Lordy, what a mess sometimes!
My take of the HIE in Antarctica: probably negligible due to wind-induced convection. And, the Island is very very small, not at all like the big cities. Therefore, the cold air whistling around the measurement station will overwhelm the small (but still existing) effects from radiating heat from an artificial surface. If the wind ever dies down, it is a different story, but probably still very small.
Another factor is that radiative heat transfer does depend on the fourth power of the difference between absolute temperatures. This means that the colder it gets, the less radiative heat is transferred even when the temperature difference remains constant. (i.e. body A at -80 F and B at -10 F will have less radiative heat transferred from B to A, compared to body A at -50 F and B at +20 F, even though the temperature difference is the same at 70 F. )
Roger E. Sowell
Marina del Rey, California
Shoulda looked closer at the pictures earlier…
It looks to me like an insulated battery box / electronics package at the lowest point with leads (with ‘drip loops’) entering from below. Next up the stack is the solar panel, then a cross beam with the antenna at one end, anemometer in the middle (could double as wind generator when not measuring speeds… if you designed it right…) and at the other end of the cross beam, two dangling cans that look like temp sensors. Decent design. Ought to work well right up to solar panel covering, then die from lack of power before temp / wind gages are covered (depending on battery size).
The other design has the sensing head remote from the power / electronics stack. Better thermal distance, but now they can be covered at different rates. Looks like the temp cans are taller than the solar panel (on the tee pee thing – don’t know what the white square is…) so again the system ought to halt prior to ‘thermometer’ burial.
On the wind blowing away a floating instrument stack with ‘stepper feet’: One can simply put ‘snow screw anchors’ on the feet. When wind is low, back out screws. Step up. Reset screws. Sleep 4 months charging battery for next step 😉 I’m going to propose this as a puzzle for my robotics engineer friend…
The Net Radiation Loss Rate
“If an hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings the net radiation heat loss rate can be expressed as
q = ε σ (Th^4 – Tc^4) Ac (3)
where
Th = hot body absolute temperature (K)
Tc = cold surroundings absolute temperature (K)
Ac = area of the object (m2)”
source: Link
Ruth
“I am not quite clear on the reason for supposing that a warming trend will occur when a temperature sensor is buried by snow. If it is buried by snow of the same temperature as the air, and the sensor itself is not a heat source (or connected to one), I suppose it would continue to register the same temperature (assuming the temperature measurement is not affected by the wind).”
Ditto here-I think the assumption that it will be warmer deeper in the snow is incorrect (unless closer to some heat source). Snow has insulating properties, it does not generate warmth. So assuming a deep snowbase-temps near the surface should be the same at a meter down.
Just saw the battery spec posting. That much battery says you can bury the whole thing while still running on stored charge and only find out when the signal can’t punch through the snow (or you start to wonder why the wind speed is always zero 😉
D. Patterson (13:20:18) : 40 ampere-hour 12 volt gel-cell batteries […] the same batteries and solar panel for 6 to 10 years
Can I get a couple of those 10 year batteries for my car!!!
If you take this report, and grant that it is accurate, then it falsifies the previous AGW prediction that a cooling Antarctic was predicted by AGW theory.
That the AGW promotion industry ahs been able to turn an about-face and use this study, which asserts a ‘strong’ warming trend since 1957 (even though apparently it has actually cooled for the latest ~20 years), then inquiring minds want to know why the AGW promoters still ahve credibility?
Ruth (12:47:37) :
“I am not quite clear on the reason for supposing that a warming trend will occur when a temperature sensor is buried by snow.”
Temperatures in the Antarctic snow can range from 0C down to somewhere around -24C. Whenever air temperatures are higher or lower than the snow temperature and the instrument is measuring partial or whole snow temperatures, you have an opportunity for incorrect measurement of the air temperatures.
Simon Evans (09:18:24) :
“The start date is the beginning of the records. How do you consider that to be a cherry pick?”
Easy, if they started in 1969 it would have shown cooling. Any lengthy set of data that can be used to show EITHER a warming or cooling trend by moving the starting date a couple of years is telling you there is NO measureable trend.
Now, if the data would have been reversed you can be sure the starting data of this paper would have been 1969. It is pure politics as evidenced by the media attention and comments by Mann claiming this was proof the critics were wrong.
BTW, I predict many more problems will be found with this paper IF they release the code. The fact they haven’t released it yet pretty much assures me that is the case.
E.M.Smith (11:59:59) :
Frankly, I wouldn’t trust GISS nor anyone trained in their methods to balance my checkbook or even tell me the weather with a window in front of them. I would eject them from any drug trial statistical analysis so fast they wouldn’t hit the ground for a mile. And don’t even think about using their ‘pasturized processed data food product’ for anything more critical than a coffee table yarn.
If they tried any of this on a drug trial they wind up in jail – the Office of Research Integrity would see to it. As to the rest …
But maybe I’m biased… I’m working with a friend on doing stock market prediction code. He wrote the real time control software for part of the flight controls of a fast not-so-detectable bomber that we are still using… I did some code for the Bradley Fighting Vehicle program and wrote accounting software that had to be accurate to the penny at all times. Period. Maybe my standards are just too high. I expect things to be provably correct and good enough to literally bet your life on.
You and I have some common work experience. I used to be a tool builder: debug, maintain, develop and apply (high fidelity) simulations for system analysis and system engineering. Now I’m a tool user. I’d fire any of my team who came back to me with work that shoddy.
Heh. I’d be willing to bet that they think the Earth is a sphere, and that gravitational potential is the same everywhere around it.
D. Patterson (13:20:18) :
Is there a database of all antarctic stations? There are so many nations and organizations involved. The wisconsin site you mentioned also lists sensors types. Among them, there is a “AWS Acoustic Depth Gauge Sensor”, without explanation what is gauged here. Snow height? http://uwamrc.ssec.wisc.edu/awsinstruments.html
For the records, besides “Harry” and “Racer Rock”, two more stations emerge with merged data:
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/READER/aws_corrections.html:
Corrections to AWS data
This is a list of corrections that have been made to the AWS data tables and a link to the table before the corrections were applied, any suspected errors should be reported to Steve Colwell
(2/2/09)The AWS data for Harry have been corrected after is was reported by Gavin Schmidt that data from Gill had been added where data for Harry did not exist. The incorrect data file for Harry temperatures can be accessed here
[http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/READER/aws/incorrect_harry_data/Harry.All.temperature.html]
(4/2/09)The AWS data for Racer Rock since April 2004 have been removed from the READER website as the values appear to come from a different station even though they were transmitted on the GTS (Global Telecommunications System) as 89261 which the WMO (World Meteorological Organization) still list as being Racer Rock. The incorrect data file for Racer Rock temperatures can be accessed here
[http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/READER/aws/incorrect_racer_rock_data/Racer_Rock.All.temperature.html]
(4/2/09)The AWS data for Penguin Point since January 2007 have been removed from the READER website as the values received on the GTS appear to come from a different station and this AWS is reported as being removed at the start of 2007. The incorrect data file for Penguin Point temperatures can be accessed here
[http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/READER/aws/incorrect_penguin_point_data/Penguin_Point.All.temperature.html]
(4/2/09)The AWS data for Clean Air since January 2005 have been removed from the READER website as the values received on the GTS appear to come from a different station and this AWS is reported as being removed at the start of 2005. The incorrect data file for Clean Air temperatures can be accessed here
[http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/READER/aws/incorrect_clean_air_data/Clean_Air.All.temperature.html]
OT, so please move to a more appropriate place idc, but the UN Sec Gen made the following comments in Delhi:
“Deserts are spreading. Water scarcity is increasing. Tropical forests are shrinking. Our once prolific fisheries are in danger of collapse,” said Mr Ban at the start of the conference in Delhi.
The BBC then move to the quote:
“Failure to combat climate change will increase poverty and hardship. It will destabilise economies, breed insecurity in many countries and undermine our goals for sustainable development.”
All the points in the first para are pertinent and true, but none necessarily follow from the second. Another case of Auntie Beeb splicing quotes (viz Obama’s inauguration speech) or just more proof that the UN is hawking the AGW voodoo for all it’s worth?
Mr. Smith,
“Again, many thanks for the encouragement! But really it’s something any decent programmer could do. The only really ‘hard bit’ is keeping track of the dozens of temporary intermediate files that parade across the stage endlessly for no reason (and the constant data format mutations…)”
I consider myself a “decent programmer” and I took one look at that code and my eyes glazed over. It takes a really dedicated soul to attack such a monster.
Fer the luv of ….. when will the fear mongering reach a level that scientists are laughed at for their asinine predictions?
Click Here for Antarctic ice melt story
This one says the earths tilt will be affected. Undoubtedly true, but do they say the process will take thousands of years, if and only if, the planet ever starts warming up again?
Mike Jonas (13:04:19) :
“On RealClimate, Gavin/Eric have stated that the Harry/Gill data was not used in Eric Steig’s paper, or that it had no impact (I would have to check back to verify the exact wording). It would be a good idea to check Eric’s data and workings to verify that statement too. If correct, then the paper is not discredited. If incorrect then Gavin/Eric’s credibility becomes zero.”
They FIRST said it would have no impact and later followed that with at .01 or .02 degree change in their results depending on who you ask. Keep in mind this is off a value of .1. So, its somewhere between 10-20%.
I agree with your conclusion. Their credibility is zero.
With more computer programers and “green” jobs being created there will be no future need to read weather stations as their projections of a warmer Anartica will then be the “offcial” records. I’m sure James Hansen of NASA would love to monitor and make needed corrections of the programed data.
Whoever got me thinking about this, it’s all your fault!
Autonomous Navigable Temperature Archive Recording Center, Transmission, Instrument Cluster:
ANTARCTIC is a robotic platform based on a well proven ‘crawler’ base. All batteries, motors, power modules, and other heat sources are housed inside the insulated tracked base. A central mast holds a combined arctic rated weather station sensor array and transmission antenna(s).
The mast has ‘stays’ or ‘guy cables’ to each corner of the tracked base to provide stability. Each corner of the tracked base contains a built in ‘snow anchor screw’ that is deployed once ANTARCTIC is on station. While the generally low center of mass and the massive strength of the tracked base provides great stability, the snow anchors are automatically deployed to provide assurances against even the worst that nature has to offer.
The station is preprogramed to sense snow level (via ultrasonic and laser sensors) and when the wind is low enough for safe repositioning, will retract the snow anchors, crawl forward 5 meters, turn 90 degrees, and crawl forward 5 meters again. In this way, ANTARCTIC never moves far from the assigned location, yet never needs to be ‘dug out’. (An advanced GPS package is available to allow the use of ANTARCTIC on moving locations such that it will ‘self center’ at the desired latitude and longitude with each move).
All data are both transmitted and stored on board in non-volatile memory. A remote command can confirm that data have been retrieved and release the archive for reuse, but this ought not to be needed due to the standard 1 Terabyte of onboard storage. Computer monitoring and controls systems are doubly redundant to assure against equipment failures and all systems can be controlled either manually or by remote diagnostic computer in extreme cases of full computer outage. Remote vision is via forward, rear, and ‘down from the mast’ cameras. Video and still images can both be archived, if desired.
Orders are being taken now for initial delivery in 2 years. Price: TBD
Just send me your $100,000 down payment for each unit to reserve your spot on the waiting list 😉
Some great detective work here and at CA as usual.
I’m a little confused though. Surely the issue is not whether burying by snow causes a trend (I don’t see how it could) it is that an artifical trend was introduced to the “New Harry” station because it was a splice of 2 stations where the newer station had a higher baseline?
I think the question on the impact of snow burial is a red herring. The fact is the new station had a higher baseline (when the old station was reading x, the newer station read x+y, splice the 2 datasets together and hey-presto a trend!). Now the reason for the higher baseline (snow burial, station positioning, calibration, alien interference or otherwise) while an interesting line of debate is surely irrelevant to the fact that an apparent trend is in fact a statistical artifact (seems to be a lot of them when Mann gets involved) .
Now it seems that Steig et al. are claiming that this discovery (again climate scientists with no wish to do minimal due diligence themselves before publishing) would have no impact on their results – is that claim true?
Ruth (12:47:37) :
“I am not quite clear on the reason for supposing that a warming trend will occur when a temperature sensor is buried by snow. If it is buried by snow of the same temperature as the air”
Well, since snow is an excellent insulator and is not air, I’d say that is enough to question a temperature bias. Beyond that, I suspect that the many variables and conditions present in the Antarctic year are too complex to easily determine the amount and direction of bias. To assign any one value of bias for the purpose of “adjusting” sensor data uniformly across all stations that get buried may be unrealistic in view of the dynamics of Antarctica weather.
I’d tend to say that controlled experiments would have to be done comparing each site that gets buried to a site nearby that is kept above snow, and that would be harder than just to maintain the sensors or eliminate the ones that get buried.
Remember also that even coming closer to snow level may cause a bias, and that there is reason for a standard height for all ground stations.
E.M Smith,
“Just send me your $100,000 down payment for each unit to reserve your spot on the waiting list ;-)”
Just build a prototype and test it so we know it will work, then an order and check will be in the mail. Signed NASA, deep pockets with half a bil on the way for klimayt resarch.
By the way, for what its worth (1p).
My take on snow burial….
Suppose you have a sensor which is buried. Then at the surface a colder-than-normal (instead of being very very cold, it is very very very cold) airmass passes by. The thermometer in the snow would not see this colder-than-normal airmass and would read much warmer than it actually was in the open air.
Now suppose a warmer-than-normal (instead of being very very cold it is just very cold) airmass passes by. Surely the thermometer would not see this either?
To me snow burial should reduce the variance in the recorded temperature, not the mean?
Now a stevenson screen next to some buildings in the very very cold Antarctic as in the photos above – surely thats the same as putting a thermometer in Minneapolis next to a furnace? That source of warm bias I definitely agree with.
Stan: “Because your question contained a false assumption — one which was disparaging of Anthony and others.”
I’m not sure what assumption you have in mind, but I think Simon has a valid point, which is that scepticism should be ‘blind’.
Previously, the generally accepted AGW sceptic position on the Antarctic was that it was cooling, implying little, if any, doubt about the data. Now sceptics are casting doubt on the measuring equipment and resulting data.
The event that bridges this abrupt change of view was the release of a report claiming Antarctic warming. One can reasonably conclude that the newly discovered scepticism over the measurement of Antarctic temperatures is a response to the report and its findings.
Excellent news posted today…
Washington, D.C., could find itself under several more feet of water than previously predicted if warming temperatures destroy the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, a new study based on a model predicts.