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.
realitycheck: your
To me snow burial should reduce the variance in the recorded temperature, not the mean?
No, it reduces the mean. Think igloos, which need no heat except the human body. The temperature is quite close to 0 deg C, inside an igloo, regardless of the outside temperature.
There is a reference over at RC, on temperatures of sensors buried in snow. The deeper it is, the less the response. At about 10 meters, it gives the same reading year round. As the instrument is a source of heat, the temperature would be considerably higher than ambient.
sorry, snow increases the mean temperature at the sensor.
It introduces a warming bias.
Brendan H,
Are you questioning this?: click
Or this?: click
They’re from GISS records.
D. Patterson (13:20:18) :
“Is there a database of all antarctic stations?”
If you mean a unified databse of AWS descriptions, I don’t know. I suspect NSIDC may have a databse for the data results, but unlikely to have the AWS station descriptions. The closest sources are the maps on the UWisc Website, one of which is already posted in the article above this thread. The Website does have links to the other national Antarctic projects.
“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”
Yes, the instrument is used to measure snow depth accumulation in an attempt to determine ow much is accumulated from blowing snow versus how much is accumulated from precipitation of snow.
See: Knuth et al. Estimation of snow accumulation in Antarctica using automated acoustic depth gauge measurements. U.S. Geological Survey and The National Academies; USGS OF-2007-1047, Extended Abstract 183
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1047/ea/of2007-1047ea183.pdf
Les Johnson (15:37:10) :
“There is a reference over at RC, on temperatures of sensors buried in snow. The deeper it is, the less the response. At about 10 meters, it gives the same reading year round.”
The reference at RC is incorrect. Sub-surface snow temperatures do experience diurnal and seasonal changes. See figures 5 and 9 in particular in:
Town et al. Temperatures, heating rates, and vapour pressures in the near-surface snow at the South Pole. Revision 2 for J. Glaciology, January 2008.
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~vonw/pubs/TownEtAl_JGlac_2008.pdf
Also see the measured temperatures surveyed in transects across Antarctica:
THERMAP: Ice Temperature Measurements of the Antarctic Ice Sheet
http://nsidc.org/data/thermap/antarctic_10m_temps/dates.html
Steven Hill (15:36:51) :
“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.”
If Pluto is struck by a Kuiper Belt Object, the meltwater is predicted by climate models to spill out of the sky and destroy GISS along with the rest of New York City and Real Climate under thousands of feet of water. Better take precautions!
@ur momisugly D. Patterson . . .
(a guilty snicker;-)
@Ric Werme
this may have been said before (since it’s rather obvious, it’s likely)
”
Are you saying that Harry is not used in the full reconstruction?
[Response: That is correct. – gavin]
”
If I understand the nomenclature correctly (I’m not competent to dig up the numbers and look myself), SM *found* the Harry problem only by looking for a step in the data which correlated to a step in the paper’s results.
While the bad-data step and the result step could technically be a coincidence (one cannot prove otherwise since, due to absence of code and intermediate numbers, SM cannot really re-do the calculation with repaired data), i.e. the “good” data they allegedly used has a “real” step just where Harry is broken, it is extremely unlikely, and Gavin’s statement above is a brazen lie which will prevent them from ever releasing a truthful, reproducable data/code basis for the paper.
Smokey: “Are you questioning this?”
I don’t remember “questioning” the data. I am merely pointing out that a short time ago AGW sceptics were apparently unconcerned about Antarctic data. They are now concerned. Why?
“They’re from GISS records.”
Are these GISS graphs? Or are the graphs were created using GISS data?
D. Patterson:
No, your reference (Town et al)confirms that under 10 meters of snow, the temperature is nearly constant.
Look at Fig 6. At depths of 6 meters or more, the temperature is a constant -50 deg F, through all 4 seasons.
Figure 5C, also shows this, with temps at around -50 year round, at a depth of approx 6 meters. The other charts in Fig 5 are at shallow depths, 3 meters.
D. Patterson: This is a repost. I used “lesser than” and “greater than” in the previous post, which the program interprets as HTML.
No, your reference (Town et al)confirms that under 10 meters of snow, the temperature is nearly constant.
Look at Fig 6. At depths of 6 meters or more, the temperature is a constant -50 deg F, through all 4 seasons.
Figure 5C, also shows this, with temps at around -50 year round, at a depth of approx 6 meters. The other charts in Fig 5 are at shallow depths, less than 0.8 meters.
Fig 9 has no depths greater than 3 meters.
Anthony…. Has a value for an Antarctic Heat Island Effect been worked out? You never know, you might get some funding to go and measure the effect!
If those data stations, both manned and unmanned, are not in accordance with the regulations set down for normal weather data stations, then these stations will have been affected by their surroundings. That warming bias needs to be assigned a value and then compared to Steig’s paper so that the real temperature is deduced.
never mind my post above, I see it’s been picked apart to even greater detail. (John W. (06:35:29) )
But this I have to ask. Gavin , quoted above, says: ”
Additionally, the quality of the AWS data, particularly any trends, has been frequently questioned. The main issue is that since they are automatic and not manned, individual stations can be buried in snow, drift with the ice, fall over etc. and not be immediately fixed. Thus one of the tests Steig et al. did was a variation of the AWS reconstruction that detrended the AWS data before using them – any trend in the reconstruction would then come solely from the higher quality manned weather stations. The nature of the error in the Harry data record gave an erroneous positive trend, but this wouldn’t have affected the trend in the AWS-detrended based reconstruction.
”
Maybe I don’t understand plain English (no my first language, and I don’t know what “detrending” means mathematically) – but if you see a trend at all in detrended data, doesn’t that mean it’s not detrended?
I need to clarify/correct an earlier post to realitycheck:
The temperature under 10 meters of snow, will closely reflect the long term average ambient air temperature above it. As long as no heat source is present.
The instrument will have a cooling bias, if the short term annual air temperature is warmer. the air is warmer, but the instrument still reflects the longer term average temperature trapped in the snow. There will be a warming bias, if the short term annual temperature is colder.
Again, the above is only true if no heat source is present in the instrument. If there is a heat source, even a small source, there will probably be a warming bias, as the heat is trapped by the insulating snow.
Excellent discussion on this interesting topic.
Lets see if I can get some answers in order
1) You point solar panels down so they get maximum power production.
In an environment where there is constant snow, there will be constant
power reflected from the ground. But constant snow accumulation will
occur on TOP of panels. If you point the panels down you do not have
to worry about snow covering, and thus disabling the panels. Panels
pointing up would be covered, and thus unable to gather energy from the
sun, in short order.
2) CVS, VSS, RCS, and SCCS. Be careful about using old SCCS source
code databases. Old SCCS has a Y2K bug. Most SCCS systems from
ATT Sys V fail at Y2K. This was a production problem here at my day
job, so I am quite certain on the point.
3) Where phase change is concerned, be careful about the concept
of temperature. As others have noted, it is easy to get ice to form on
a “warm” night. As humans or thermometers measure temp, that is.
At nigth a pool of water, or isolated undisturbed air, “sees” only space.
If pool is insulated from the earth on 5 sides, and the heat capacity
of its container is low, very quickly it only “sees” the coolness of space.
On a well-insulated house, like mine, the roof will freeze over with frost
when dew sets on the grass. The grass is being warmed by the earth,
but the roof “sees” only the coldness of space. I watch this ‘kitchen
table science’ at my house a few times a week in the SoCal winter.
In the Antarctic night, there will be a very long cooling period. A 10K
difference is on the low end of the range. Based on the numbers shown
CO2 ice should be possible. Air seeing the coldness of space is not the
same as dry ice in a Florence flask.
E.M.Smith (01:43:46) :
It’s lots of interest to me, however, when it’s scattered across many threads it’s nigh on impossible to review things. Nor is this the blog for it. Either a personal web site or its own thread on ClimateAudit would be better homes.
Congratulations on figuring out so much of the code. Not an easy task!
E.M.Smith (09:38:33) : Admired from afar in pleasant but lacking any water California…
(May it please the Rain Gods, just enough to reach 1/2 “normal” would be appreciated! – but that’s our pattern in this type of weather cycle. Just hope it doesn’t take 30 years for the Rain Gods to hear and shift the PDO back…)
From the Be Careful What You Ask For, You Just Might Get It department:
It is now cold and drizzling / raining in my part of California…
(WHY didn’t I ask for a few pounds of gold … )
Les Johnson (17:00:33) :
Les Johnson (17:03:57)
You neglected the second source. Town et al gives you a view of their modeling and their work at the South Pole station site. The second source gives you another perspecctive for numerous other locations in the Antarctic for the 10 meter survey. Since the topic of this thread are the AWs reports from the West Antarctic and the Peninsula, pay special attention to the wide range of temperatures and depths being reported for those areas closest to Harry and Gill versus other regions of the Antarctic. While the South Pole extreme may be -50C at 10m depth, other locations may be -24C at 10m or -4C at 5m. In other words, don’t get stuck using just the South Pole experiment, which is not representative across all AWS in the Antarctic. There are a wide range of actual measured temperatures and depths being reported across many time periods versus a fixed location using measurements and experimental modeling results.
Les Johnson (15:37:10) :
“At about 10 meters, it gives the same reading year round. ” – that is consistent with my arguement that the variance of readings from the buried thermometer will be drastically lower than at the surface.
In the case of an igloo, there is a sizeable air cavity – is it not the air cavity that provides the insulation rather than the snow itself? The same theory with a duvet – it is the air gaps between fibers that provide for the insulation, not the fibers themselves.
In the case of a buried thermometer, I am assuming snow is in contact with the sensor and any air cavities are significantly smaller (basically the small air bubbles between each snow flake which of course would compact as more snow accumulated on top). I definitely accept that some minor heat will be released from the sensor, but in contact with snow, I wonder if that excess heat would be detectable as most of it would be used up in some minor local melting of contacting snow rather than in a discernible increase in temperature at the sensor. Its not like the sensor is in an igloo – it is in contact with the snow.
I think its time for some “paint on stevenson screen” type experiments….any volunteers….Andy?
My arguement about contacting snow v.s. air cavity above is also consistent with survival practices.
People survive in a snow cave because of the insulation provded by the air cavity. Many people die in avalanches through hypothermia even though they are buried in snow and can breath.
realitycheck (18:31:01) :
First, I don’t know that any data was ever used from a buried temperature sensor. The photograph of Harry illustrated the temperature sensor was above the snow surface.
Second, if it is assumed a particular temperature sensor was buried in the snow, the AWS did report the data, and the data was used; you still have a temperature sensor surrounded by a radiation shield under the snow. If the radiation shield was not infiled with snow in contact with the temperature sensor, you will have a cavity around the temperature sensor surrounded by the radiation shield.
Third, the temperature sensor will be less than 1 meter below the surface, otherwise the radio transmitter will fail and/or the Automatic Depth Guage will indicate the AWS is buried in the snow accumulation.
Fourth, once the AWS is underneath the snow, no one is going to be collecting the data and using it…unless….
John W. (14:08:11) : You and I have some common work experience. I used to be a tool builder: […] I’d fire any of my team who came back to me with work that shoddy.
I managed a compiler tool chain “build release and QA department” once. One set of sources, dozens of target compilers and cross compilers… When hundreds of thousands of other peoples programs are going to depend on your quality, you have a very high standard… tool building changes you.
Richard M (14:25:59) : 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.
Well, OK. I do have an excessive tendency to persistence… I’m sure no one has noticed 😉 But you’re right, the glaze factor almost got me too… I’ve had to take a time out for coffee a few times. So to correct my prior statement, I ought to have said:
But really it’s something any decent programmer with their own espresso machine could do.
Mine is the little stove top manual thing that makes 2 demitasse worth.
“” Sylvia (17:51:32) :
<>
Mr. George E. Smith, you are a gem. If you do end up going to visit Harry, Theresa, et al, email me and I will spin and knit a pair of cashmere (or qiviut if I can get some) mitten liners for you to wear. “”
“Who is Sylvia?
What is she? ”
Sorry I can’t remember any more of the words; but I believe that is from Franz Schubert; one of his delightful German Lieder creations. Hey it’s probably 50 years since I last listened to, that; I can only remember so much stuff.
You’re so kind fair Sylvia; now as to those mittens. Would you believe that before I left Auckland (UofA), in 1961. my mother knitted up a storm, out of New Zealand wools. Seems that we had this vision of Oregon, as being a land of perpetual snow, and Mink Farms; hence the knitting frenzy. I still have all of those sweaters and they still work.
So now we know that Sylvia is a very clever lady; because I think knitting is a lost art; so anybody who can do that is AOK in my book, since I have even forgotten how to knit myself.
But back at the CO2 snow factory.
Thanks to Ric Werme Phil, EMSmith and Steve Keohane for the comments; Phil; green flag; sail on, no foul on the idiot thing which was self inflicted.
I’m still in a state of confusion, on several grounds; but I am taking all of your criticisms under advisement.
#1 A pressure of one atmosphere has absolutely has no earthly significance, as regards a partial pressure of CO2 gas over CO2 solid; so why on earth would your phase diagram (once again thanx for that) cite the sublimation point of -78.5 deg C at one atmosphere (of CO2 partial pressure), which is hardly a condition that a block of dry ice out in the open would ever see ?
#2 if the phase boundary reaches 385 ppm at some temperature somewhat below -135 C; then dry ice at say -87.5 deg C would be somewhat similar to a superheated water situation; if the ice wants to sea one atmosphere of CO2 partial pressure (at -78.5) and has only 385 ppm; why isn’t there an explosive sublimation of dry ice out in the air?
#3 By what mechanism does the CO2 ice surface molecule identify the species of a colliding molecule. If I’m a MAxwell’s demon in my CO2 suit, hiding in that surface layer on the ice block, I see nearby molecules occasionally heading off into the wild blue yonder, and other molecules coming in from the air at a distribution of velocities, and momenta, colliding with my mates ( and me too) interchanging momentum and energy at the surface; but I see NO mechanism by which I can identify any incoming missile as being a CO2 molecule, rather than a molecule of N2 or O2, CH4, or anything else (assuming we limit ourselves to molecular species which are not going to undergo some chemical reaction with the CO2. So that is my dilemma; I can’t identify CO2 molecules, so how the hell do I know twhat the partial pressure of CO2 even is.
#4 Now I guess I do see a gremlin in there, thinking in terms of a water under glass situation. Presumably, at -78.5 deg C, the CO2 block is emitting molecules from the surface at some rate, and if the CO2 were under glass, the rate of evaporation (sublimation) is equal to the sum total of collisions of all molecular species. (rate in =rate out) !!! BUT !!!, the dry ice block is emitting ONLY CO2 molecules; but most of the incoming are NOT CO2; ergo the block must be losing CO2 molecules, since only 385 ppm of the arriving molecules are CO2 to replace one that is lost.
I think you just convinced me; the total Dalton’s Law pressure from all species is in fact stopping the block from exploding; but it is losing CO2 at some rate depending on temperature; and the 385 ppm of CO2 can’t possibly keep up with that so it the dry ice block must completely evaporate; at least down to such a small piece that the molecular rate of loss is in equilibrium with the arrival rate of CO2 at 385 ppm in the atmosphere; now I can die happy, because even with just a stick to scratch in the sand of my desert island, I can see how that must be so.
Well my Supervisor ; who is an HP Fellow by the way (titular) is a laser physics guy. if my chemistry hadn’t stopped in my high school graduating year; I might have understood how this works.
Well the guy who was trying to measure radiation at the south pole, couldn’t understand why he couldn’t just turn his radiometer sensor upsidedown, and read the surface emittance from the snow; which presumably really wasn’t CO2 at all. (well he wasn’t an optics guy; just a climatologist or meteorologist).
Thanx again Phil and Ric et al; I learn something new every day.
George
Brendan H (15:25:17) : Previously, the generally accepted AGW sceptic position on the Antarctic was that it was cooling […] The event that bridges this abrupt change of view was the release of a report claiming Antarctic warming.
And that is all it takes. A sudden and unexpected report of ‘something changed’. I would expect a similar “What happened?” response if the trend had been up and suddenly was a degree down.
That the tone in one case might have a bit more ‘glee’ attached, yeah, sure. That not an eyebrow would be raised? Nope. People are curious about changes. Any changes. Just announce that ‘casual Friday’ is now ‘causal Monday’ and watch how much flack you catch…
It’s that whole ‘anomaly’ thing that the warmers are always going on about…
I’m not a climate scientist nor a statistician, but a long-retired chemical engineer who is fascinated by the articles and comments on WUWT. I particularly feel akin to the comments of E.M. Smith in this post, because I too started as a hands-on chemistry and electronics experimenter. We had to create our own amusements and deal with our own hazards, and I fear all the organized play of kids today will lead to a loss of creativity. I once blew up a flask containing zinc pellets and HCl, by holding a match to it, but escaped without a scratch. I have been interested in global warming for the past three years, originally by reading Wearth’s “The Discovery of Global Warming” I corresponded with him three times, but became disillusioned the last time when he would not respond politely when I ran across data on high CO2 contents in geologic ages and suggested it might pose a controversy. In my career I had to deal with thermodynamics of non-ideal solutions and design plants that work! And so I am shocked beyond belief at what Anthony and his volunteers have found about how the basic temperatures are measured, how relatively few there are, and how crass the authorities are about siting and paying insufficient attention to the urban heat island effect. Many times I have noted that temperatures at my home in NJ 25 miles west of NYC have been 6 or more degrees lower than the reported temperature in Central Park. I close with the definition of extrapolation by Stuart Chase over 50 years ago: plotting a few points on a curve and riding the curve to cloud-cuckoo-land.” This is what the AGW crowd are doing! Keep up the good work, Anthony!