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







Can someone use their WordPress ID and post the link to Willis’ rebutal on the Time Internet Magazine Site?
Might was well “help the flow of info”.
Max
Willis, the paper mentioned and graphed two stations only. cant recall which they were. but looking at the antarctic data ( spent a month on a while back) I can say this:
The data is poorly organized, poorly documented, and poorly presented. That doesnt of course make it wrong, but the workmanship was shoddy to say the least.
Jonathan says:
June 19, 2010 at 6:32 am
Ask Connolley for a copy? Never. The man has done more damage to science than just about anyone I know. Not only do I not want to be beholden to him, I wouldn’t cross the street to micturate on him if he were on fire.
I don’t know (or particularly care) about just how cold it is in Antarctica but I DO know that it is really, really cold today 19th June) in Cape Town. The sea has frozen over. The ice is thick enough for people to walk out a fair distance on the ice. There’s snow on Table Mountain and some of the mountain passes in the Southern and Eastern Cape are closed by snow drifts.
I’d show a photo or two but don’t know how to put them up.
Rudolf Kipp says:
June 19, 2010 at 6:51 am
Yes, it’s a KML standard file available here.
Lars Kamél says:
June 19, 2010 at 6:54 am
Very true, Lars. In addition, the colder the weather, the more difference that the buildings and human activity make, which would fit with the greater trend in winter.
I’d have to see the actual location of the stations to say if that were an issue or not … maybe Exxon would pay me to go down to Antarctica, they’ve fallen behind on their payments to me … well, to tell the truth they’ve never paid me, but I wouldn’t mind a ticket to the WAP, as long as it was round-trip …
Willis
Giss pull its data from here
url_Antarctic1<-"http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/READER/surface/stationpt.html"
url_Antarctic2<-"http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/READER/temperature.html"
url_Antarctic3<-"http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/READER/aws/awspt.html"
its a ugly mess to read this all in with R, but its done.
“In addition, the colder the weather, the more difference that the buildings and human activity make, which would fit with the greater trend in winter. ”
bingo
and they also tend to “adjust” temperatures up a little now, and “adjust” them way down 100 years ago………………
I found the abstract of another interesting paper here, by some Ukrainian authors. (The Faraday station was taken over a few years ago by the Ukrainians and renamed “Vernadsky”.) It discusses the reason for the changes in the temperature at Faraday. Rather than saying anything about CO2, they say:
The Eastern Europeans seem to be more into science and less into CO2 than folks in the West …
Steven Mosher says:
June 19, 2010 at 11:59 am
Thanks, Mosh. If you cared to share the R code, it would save me stacks of time.
w.
Roger Knights says:
June 19, 2010 at 6:57 am
Done, Roger, thanks for the heads-up.
w.
Willis,
if I can get your email i’ll send you the paper. Secondly, the statement you said about Faraday may be from a paper but having visited Faraday on a glaciology expedition, there was discussion with the Vernadsky station over the temperature record and they certainly seemed apt towards indicating that CO2 is playing a role also.
Hey, Hu, good to hear from you. I’m not sure how they did it. I tried both direct averages and first differences, and found little difference between the two. In neither case did I get a 6° per fifty year trend.
The paper that was provided by Dave says that they used the method of Nychka, and I was able to replicate their calculations within reasonable error. However, they only applied it to individual stations, as near as I could tell …
Yes, there are a host of individual station problems, as one might imagine … for example if you look at Fig. 4 you see one lonely month that is obviously way high and in error. This lack of error checking drives me mad.
It is high time that `open access` to all data sets and all reviewers` comments on papers discussing these and related issues became standard procedure. How else is science to advance realistically and without bias and spin? Future generations will look askance at this lack of fully open discourse. The closed system stance adopted by some institutions (Royal Society, National Academy of Sciences) and journals (Nature, Science) runs completely at odds to scientific progress. What would Galileo, Einstein, Popper or Feynmann have said? Would they have laughed or cried at the present situation?
“but the appearance frequency of the “ocean” wind (180°E±45° azimuth) has been increased threefold in the last two decades in comparison to 1950s-1970s”
wouldn’t that explain the precious build up of sea ice, then the break up of that same sea ice?
I know sea ice is “precious” but that should read “previous”
Bill Illis says:
June 19, 2010 at 7:57 am
Great, yet another dataset. That one differs from both the GISS and the British dataset, by as much as 12° in a given month. The situation just gets worse …
w.
The western peninsula is NOT representative of Antarctica – (trends there running opposite to elsewhere on the continent – [and trends are functions of spatiotemporal scale (!) that ignore RICH nonrandomness]).
Also, recall some graphs from a recent Bob Tisdale WUWT article on deep-south GISS-data-antics – too funny seeing how GISS handled that region – must’ve been too ‘inconvenient’ to do anything sensible.
This 6 degree C curveball sales-pitch got MSM coverage in Canada last week. I would have posted a sleazeball-media alert at WUWT “Tips & Notes”, but that page always takes WAAAAAY too long to load — suggested: DUMP IT HOURLY!!!
Mr Eschenbach how is it really to make a point in pointing out what you’re referencing. Usually most of us skeptics, even you if memory serves right, go above and beyond to make the AGW proponent to explain if they’re showing actual temperatures or anomalies from a predetermined reference (zero) line, and of course what time period and data was used to concoct that very reference line.
Take your second graph, what exactly are you trying to portray, anomalies or actual real temperature readings? Most wuwt readers can probably extrapolate the other graphs by now, but still make a point explaining the details of the graphs, otherwise you can prove whatever with statistics.
bruce says:
June 19, 2010 at 8:32 am
Not a simple question at all. At some stations they take 2 or 4 temperatures per day. They may just average the high and the low. Other stations have a “max/min” recording thermometer, and they average that. Other stations record the temperature electronically, and then average the high and the low. Of course, none of these give a true mean temperature …
Hu McCulloch says:
June 19, 2010 at 10:08 am
Yeah, I caught that as well. They gave the one sigma standard error (“s.e.”) on the 100° trend as 9° per century, which was obviously wrong if it was as significant as they claimed (1%). Upon checking their calculations, I found that rather than being the one sigma s.e., the ±9° was actually the 95% confidence interval … grrrr. Waste my time with their stupid errors. So their claim of significance was correct (I got 2%, close enough to their 1%), but the ±9°/century was not the s.e.
The bogus part to me in the Science Magazine study was to take the trend from one stinkin’ station and call it the trend for the whole peninsula. That just alarmism.
“Here warming was much more rapid than in the rest of Antarctica where it was not significantly different to the global mean. ”
Pardon? AFAIK, the rest of Antarctica is pretty much cooling, in the contrary of global mean. Vaughan et al, you are scientific prostitutes and bunch of liars on top.
David S says:
June 19, 2010 at 10:26 am
Pass. You’ll have to take up that question with the proxificators, I haven’t a clue …
Billy Liar says:
June 19, 2010 at 11:10 am
All of Rothera is at the airport, but I don’t think that means much in midwinter. However the location of the thermometer with respect to the buildings might. Here’s what I think is the temperature measuring station at Faraday …


I have no problem believing that when the wind is blowing from the buildings towards the thermometer, that there would be a UHI effect. Note that the citation above says that winds from the ocean are more frequent … and that is the direction that blows heat from the buildings towards the thermometer.
Off topic: The BBC reports on a study of seabed cores dating 2.7 million years, showing how a glacial climate developed in the Northern Hemisphere and was felt also in the Tropics. So far so good. But several commentators cited by the Beeb suggest the “culprit” (sic) was no other than CO2, since greenhouse gases would have “intensified the feedbacks” leading to glaciation. The usual suspect turns up after every crime, no matter the nature of the crime.