Antarctic Agreements and Disagreements

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

Steven Mosher has pointed out a Science Magazine article (subscription only) about Antarctica. It is a discussion of the temperature changes in the West Antarctic Peninsula (WAP). And where might that be?

Figure 1. Location of the West Antarctic Peninsula. Yellow push-pin markers show the location of temperature stations. Yellow outline shows the enclosing area used for temperature calculations. This is the smallest area using 5°x5° gridcells that contains all of the WAP temperature stations.

The Science Magazine article contains the following statement about the WAP, which set my bad number alarm bells ringing:

Physical Changes in the WAP

Changes in the WAP are profound. Mid-winter surface atmospheric temperatures have increased by 6°C (more than five times the global average) in the past 50 years (14, 15).

I had never looked closely at the WAP temperatures. However, that seemed way high for the changes in the WAP air temperature, no matter what month we are talking about. The references for that statement are:

14. P. Skvarca, W. Rack, H. Rott, T. I. Donángelo, Polar Res. 18, 151 (1999).

15. D. G. Vaughan et al., Clim. Change 60, 243 (2003).

I couldn’t find a copy of either of those on the web … so I did what I always do. I went to get the data, to see what is happening.

Initially, the situation looks good. There are thirty stations on the peninsula. Figure 2 shows the location of some of these stations:

Figure 2. Location of the temperature stations in the WAP

So, what’s the problem? As you might imagine, many of these stations are only occupied part of the year. Others have been occupied intermittently, or have closed entirely. As a result, we don’t have anywhere near the coverage that thirty stations would imply. Here’s a graphic showing the dates of coverage for each of the thirty stations:

Figure 3. Dates of coverage for each of the thirty stations in the WAP. Only a half dozen or so show coverage over most of the last fifty years

Things are not as good as they seemed. Some of the datasets ony cover a few years. Others are longer, but very spotty. However, as they say, “Needs must when the devil drives”. Here is what all of the different stations look like:

Figure 4. Plot of all stations on the West Antarctic Peninsula. You can see the difficulty in determining an average temperature change over the area. Some stations swing quite widely, while others show much less variation.

Are the winters warming? Well … obviously, it depends on exactly which datasets you use to create your area average. Do we include the spotty orange dataset that starts about 1986, or not? What about the blue datasets that only exist for the sixties and seventies? Based on these decisions, our answers will be different.

Next I looked at the major datasets. As you know, there are several temperature datasets that cover the globe. For the land alone, we have the CRUTEM3, GISS 250 km, and GISS 1200 km land datasets. The two GISS datasets use the same surface stations. However, they differ in that they extrapolate the temperature of empty gridcells using all relevant stations within either a 250 km or a 1,200 km radius respectively.

All of these are available at KNMI, which is an outstanding resource. Here are the month-by-month trends for each of those datasets:

Figure 5. Month-by-month and annual (“Ann”) trends for the air temperatures (land only) for the area of the West Antarctic Peninsula outlined in yellow in Figure 1.

There are several interesting things about this graph. First, a simple average of all of the stations (“All Station Average”) gives results that are broadly similar to the CRUTEM results. I assume that this is because of the general similarity in the climate zones of the 30 temperature stations around the peninsula, which allows for a direct average rather than the more sophisticated methods (anomalies or first differences) as used in the global datasets.

Next, in several months there is a difference of a full degree (per fifty years) in the trends of the CRUTEM and the GISS datasets. The various datasets are often claimed to be in good agreement. But this is only globally. When we get down to a gridcell-by-gridcell and month-by-month comparison of the trends, they are often quite different.

Since they are (presumably) using the same basic data (the 30 land stations), this is odd. Note that the annual trends are in reasonable agreement, but the monthly trends differ … why should that be?

The effects of the GISS algorithm for filling in the empty gridcells are also curious. Depending on the extrapolation radius chosen (250 km or 1,200 km) they differ by up to a half a degree in fifty years.

Finally, none of the datasets show a temperature rise of 6°C in fifty years in any month, as the Science paper claims. My bad number alarm was accurate. So I’m in mystery about where that claim might come from. August has the highest trends, at three to four degrees depending on the dataset chosen. But that’s a long way from six degrees.

Now, it is often said that the warming of the Peninsula is due to warming of the surrounding ocean. So I decided to take a look at that as well. Here are the same datasets, showing both the land and the ocean:

Figure 6. Land and ocean temperature trends for the area outlined in yellow in Fig.1

Here, the differences between the datasets are larger. For the first five months of the year the CRUTEM+HADSST dataset shows a much smaller trend than GISS, up to a a degree and three quarters smaller. The rest of the year, the datasets are much closer than in the first five months. Why would they be different in part of the year, and not the rest of the year?

In addition, this dataset makes it unlikely that the ocean is driving the warming. The trends including the ocean are almost all either the same or smaller than the land-only trends. This is particularly true of the CRUTEM vs CRUTEM+HADSST datasets.

Finally, I took a look at a shorter period, from 1979 to 2009, so that I could compare trends from the ground-based datasets with the UAH MSU satellite based dataset. Here is that data:

Figure 7. Ground and satellite data compared for the area outlined in yellow in Fig. 1. Note that these are thirty year trends rather than fifty year trends, as shown in the other figures.

Here, things get markedly odd. The satellite data shows cooling in about half the months. The overall annual satellite trend is … zero. Go figure. We see much greater differences between the ground based sets. The GISS peak warming is no longer in August, but in May. None of this makes a whole lot of sense … but there it is.

Final conclusions?

First, once again some mainstream climate scientists are exaggerating. There is no dataset in which we see a WAP air temperature rise of 6°C in fifty years as claimed in the Science paper.

Second, although it is widely claimed that there is good agreement between the various ground based datasets, as well as between the ground and satellite data, in this case we see that they are all quite different. Not only the amplitude, but in many cases the sign of the trend is different between ground and satellite data. The CRU/Hadley dataset varies from the GISS datasets. In all, there is not a whole lot of agreement between any pair of datasets.

All of which makes it very difficult to come to any conclusions at all … except one.

My only real conclusion is that it would be nice if we could get some agreement about one of the most basic data operations in the climate science field, the calculation of area averages of temperatures from the station data, before we start disputing about the larger issues.

DATA

The surface temperature data stations used for Figures 3 and 4 are identified in the GISS dataset as:

Matienzo

Teniente Matienzo (Ant South A

Racer_rock

Base Almirante Brown

Almirante_brown

Dest. Naval Melchior

Cms_vice.Do.Marambio

Palmer Station

Bonapart_point

Faraday

Petrel

Bernado O’Higgins

Larsen_ice_shelf

Deception

Dest. Naval Decepcion Sout

Deception Is. S Atlanti

Base Esperanz

Hope Bay

Santa_claus_island

Base Arturo P

Centro Met.An, Marsh

Bellingshause

Great_wall

King_sejong

Jubany

Arctowski

Admirality Bay

Ferraz

Rothera Point

Adelaide

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
142 Comments
John Blake
June 19, 2010 6:37 am

Since Mann’s “hockey team” first took to the ice c. 1999, virtually all Warmists’ academic/official articles and papers have displayed the same bias: If it’s cool it’s weather, if it’s warm it’s climate. Skewed samples, invalid methodology, spurious interpretations are climate hysterics’ stock-in-trade. Acting in bad faith, under false pretenses, the Green Gang covers their tracks by appeals to objective, rational fact-finding, whereas in actuality their self-evidently foolish findings lack any integrity whatever.
Good to have such exercises as this Nature report exposed for the misrepresentations that they are. In no other field, excepting politics, could such productions be so lavishly rewarded… come to think on’t, what’s the difference?

GregO
June 19, 2010 6:38 am

Willis,
Thank you for taking the time and making the effort to portray the data – data that fails to substantiate a 6 degree rise in temperature over 50 years as claimed by the Science Magazine article. If there is any substantiation of this extraordinary temperature rise I would like to see it in this thread if anyone would like to hazard a defense. If there is no defense, then this claim of a 6 degree temperature rise over 50 years goes beyond exaggeration and proceeds directly into fabrication.

phlogiston
June 19, 2010 6:38 am

Max Hugoson says:
June 19, 2010 at 6:18 am
hear hear

trbixler
June 19, 2010 6:50 am

Interesting to see how the sky has fallen and the data sets showing the event are weak. Many millions of dollars spent circling around the fallen sky but no millions spent to help produce future more accurate data sets. In fact the trend is to circle more and spend more in looking weak data wringing out subtle detail while spending less on getting accurate data. Maybe someone will shout just fix the darn thing, sort of a scientific effort that he thinks about every night.

June 19, 2010 6:51 am

Willis,
I like the display of the temperature stations in google earth. Is the plugin you are using available in the internet?

June 19, 2010 6:54 am

Even in this part of the world, there may be an UHI effect in the temperature records. For example, a research or military base is founded, with a weather station on it. As time goes by, the base gets more buildings and more human activity, which effect the temperature measurements.

DirkH
June 19, 2010 6:54 am

“John M says:
June 19, 2010 at 6:37 am
jcrabb
Always useful to read the whole abstract:
[…]
Thus for the present we cannot determine which process is the probable cause of RRR warming on the Antarctic Peninsula and until the mechanism initiating and sustaining the RRR warming is understood, and is convincingly reproduced in climate models, we lack a sound basis for predicting climate change in this region over the coming century.”
So what he says is that as soon as “it is convincingly reproduced in climate models,” he has “a sound basis for predicting climate change in this region over the coming century”? Remember, climate models NEVER predict anything. They only do unverifiable projections. Beginners mistake.

Roger Knights
June 19, 2010 6:57 am

“science” should be capitalized in the following (near the end):
“… fifty years as claimed in the science paper.”

wsbriggs
June 19, 2010 7:03 am

OK, guys, I know this is a dumb question, but can anyone explain to me how the data shows the high temperatures during May-August, when I thought they were having Winter down there? It almost looks like the datasets have been inverted, by having a minus magically turn into a plus.

Joe Lalonde
June 19, 2010 7:05 am

Max Hugoson says:
June 19, 2010 at 6:18 am
How many good research papers were disqualified for NOT using warming in the research?
There are many areas that a ‘PEER-REVIEWER’ would have no clue as they are not experts in ALL areas of science.

Ed Caryl
June 19, 2010 7:18 am

Great work, Willis. One idea occurs to me: could the small increase you see be due to urban warming? Are the population and fuel use figures available for these sites? Over time, research bases tend to get “improved” with more people, buildings, concrete, asphalt, etc. We know this has happened in the north. This is likely why the satellite data shows no warming.

June 19, 2010 7:32 am

wsbriggs June 19, 2010 at 7:03 am
There is no data shown in the post. The graphs are temperature TRENDS, not temperatures. Since AGW is supposed to provide greater changes in winter, these trends are not inconsistent with the AGW narrative. Little surprise there!

Beth Cooper
June 19, 2010 7:37 am

I guess they took their temperature recordings on the Isle of Deception.

HaroldW
June 19, 2010 7:38 am

wsbriggs June 19, 2010 at 7:03 am
OK, guys, I know this is a dumb question, but can anyone explain to me how the data shows the high temperatures during May-August, when I thought they were having Winter down there?

Wsbriggs, the charts show temperature changes over the period (30 or 50 years), not absolute temperatures. The winter temperatures apparently are less brutal than they used to be.
It’s apparent by looking at Figure 4 that the winter temperatures are much more variable than summer temps. One can see the effect similarly in the Arctic temperature patterns — I remember seeing a “spaghetti chart” with perhaps 10 years’ Arctic temps plotted, and the summertime temps were fairly narrowly grouped while the winter temps varied greatly. [Sorry, can’t seem to locate the chart.]

Hu McCulloch
June 19, 2010 7:39 am

Willis — I haven’t looked at this paper, but one thing that occurred to me during the CA discussion of Steig (2009) last year is that the standard method (used by Steig and the global indices) of computing seasonal anomalies for each station and then averaging these across stations can greatly understate the fluctuations and even trends that do occur, when stations differ greatly in their time coverage.
A better method, recommended by some people at NCDC but not adopted by the principal indices, is to first compute seasonal differences, then to average these differences across available stations (appropriately taking geographical coverage into account), then to accumulate these average differences over time, and only then to compute anomalies relative to whatever reference period is desired. This is more like how price indices are computed.
Did the paper(s) in question use the “levels” method or the “difference” method to get their big trend? Having looked at the Steig data, which is similar to this data, I doubt that you could get a 6 dC trend either way.
Because the difference method will give bigger estimated swings in average temperature, it may also yield greater serial correlation, which is always a problem in computing trends with data like this (as Steig discovered last year). Do these papers make any correction of standard errors for serial correlation (if only by the simple Bartlett-Quenouille-Santer method)?
Note also that 6 of the Steig BAS stations (and probably several of these) are not even on the peninsula, but rather on K George Island in the S Shetlands. Others like Racer Rock are AWS stations that should be used with caution as they tend to get buried in between human visits. Racer Rock itself had a big error like Harry’s that was corrected by the BAS last year, immediately after mention of the problem on CA. One would hope they used the corrected data.

June 19, 2010 7:54 am

When convenient, AGW types point out that warmer winters mean more snow. In this case, it is an inconvenient truth.

Bill Illis
June 19, 2010 7:57 am

You can get all the monthly Antarctic station data here. (txt files also available)
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/READER/surface/stationpt.html
And the Automated Weather Stations is here.
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/READER/aws/awspt.html

June 19, 2010 7:57 am

Northern Hemisphere snow extent, 1967 – 2010.

June 19, 2010 8:06 am

Decline in the GMF Z-component is a good proxy of the temperature increasing trend.
GMFz at western peninsula and at the opposite side of the Antarctic circle:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC8.htm

Daniel H
June 19, 2010 8:19 am

The full text of the Science article can be downloaded for free from the lead author’s home page at Rutgers. Here is the direct link to the PDF file [807 KB]: http://rucool.marine.rutgers.edu/media/downloads/papers/Science_1520_2010.pdf
As mentioned in other comments, the two papers cited in the Science article are available online for a small fee. There is also an AGU paper from 1996 by RC Smith, SE Stammerjohn, and KS Baker, entitled Surface air temperature variations in the western Antarctic Peninsula region, which found an increase for mid-winter WAP monthly temperature trends that is similar to the Vaughan et al paper’s findings. However, the authors conclude that WAP climate anomalies are strongly linked to extreme Southern Oscillation Index (SOI/El Nino/ENSO) events rather than anthropogenic mechanisms (which I suspect is at odds with the Vaughan et al paper). Here is the abstract:

Surface air temperature records from several Western Antarctic Peninsula (WAP) stations are examined. The annual progression of surface air temperatures show an along-peninsula gradient indicative of a contrasting influence of maritime versus continental climatic regimes. WAP temperature records also show a significant warming trend in mid-winter temperatures, with an increase of 4-5°C over the past half-century (1944-1991). Increased temperature variability in fall and winter is linked to the high interannual variability of sea ice coverage. Linear regression analysis shows a significant (99.9%) anticorrelation between air temperature and sea ice extent, even after accounting for serial correlation in the two time series. There are distinct seasonal lead/lag relationships between temperature and sea ice in this region, which underscore the complexity of polar feedback mechanisms. The more than 45 year Faraday air temperature record shows a significant (95% confidence level) correlation with the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) and coherences between both temperature and sea ice with the SOI suggest teleconnections between the WAP and lower latitudes. Because sea ice-temperature-SOI relationships appear to be strongly linked in the WAP region, the WAP is an ideal area to study ecological responses to the significant trends and relatively large interannual variability.

The paper’s summary restates the specific BAS stations that were used to obtain the temperature trends:

Monthly trends are strongest in mid-winter and highest in June at 0.114°C/year which represents a 5.5°C increase in June temperatures over the 48 year record (1944-1991). It is important to note that the trend for the region is strongest in mid-winter, which consequently will have important impacts on both maximum ice extent and the marine ecology associated with winter ice extent.
Several station records (Rothera, Faraday, Palmer, SSI) were selected as representative of the temperature gradient along the Antarctic Peninsula. In addition, the short Palmer record was shown to be strongly correlated with the Faraday record in particular. The annual progression of temperatures and the variability associated with these temperatures (Figure 4) show an along-peninsula gradient in the relative influence of maritime versus continental climate regimes. Increased temperature variability in fall and winter is linked to the high variability in year-to-year sea ice coverage and the corresponding increased continental influence when an extensive ice cover exists. Data from AWS Hugo, which is just 90 km seaward of the peninsula, show that standard deviations of daily temperature are significantly lower than those from a coastal station (AWS Bonaparte). Thus, in addition to the along-shore gradient, there is a sharp on/offshore gradient in maritime versus continental regimes. Much of the variability in both air temperature and sea ice in the Palmer LTER region is influenced by these contrasting climate regimes.

A more thorough analysis of the methods used can be found in the main body of the paper which includes an extensive discussion of the link between ENSO, sea ice, the WAP climate system, and other climate variables. It’s actually a pretty good read. The full paper can be downloaded as a PDF file [2.55 MB] here: http://pal.lternet.edu/biblio/lterfinalms/084lterc.pdf

June 19, 2010 8:24 am

“Yet global circulation models are unable to reproduce this warming. They conclude that properly targeted national adaptation planning requires a better understanding of regionally specific climate processes. “
Translation: “We’re going to have to study this further, so give us lots and lots of money.”

JPeden
June 19, 2010 8:24 am

Nice work again, Willis! I’d dismissed the claim because it sounded pretty wild, and of course is seen by now against a background of near 100% proven uncredibility of the CAGWers’ previous claims and predictions. But then someone always has to do the actual work of analyzing such claims, especially since the other Climate Scientists and most of the non-Climate Scientists don’t, so thanks!
For me, Climate Science = propagandistic thought control, the “means” essentially being the same as the “ends”. No thanks!

bruce
June 19, 2010 8:32 am

one simple question, for the layman: When recording temps for a location, are the days temps averaged, or is protocol to use a certain time stamp as reference?

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
June 19, 2010 9:04 am

It doesn’t matter how many times I read this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10342318.stm I just don’t get it! Are they saying that CO2 actually causes cold now? Genuinely, it’s a question, I can’t get my head around the wording.

June 19, 2010 9:06 am

John Trigge says:
June 19, 2010 at 3:24 am
It would be interesting to see what the ‘peer review’ comments were for the Science Magazine article, assuming that there was any ‘peer review’ conducted.
A good argument for publishing [electronic versions] the peer reviews as well.