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

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
142 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Hector M.
June 19, 2010 1:12 pm

Oops. Here’s the missing link.
The BBC link to my previous comment is http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10342318.stm.

Hu McCulloch
June 19, 2010 1:19 pm

Stephen Brown says:
June 19, 2010 at 11:53 am
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.

Yikes — that’s a little like Long Beach or Charleston freezing up in winter!

jorgekafkazar
June 19, 2010 1:29 pm

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

It should also be in quotes:
… fifty years as claimed in the “Science” paper,” since their content is increasingly contaminated with elitist partisan propaganda.

Hu McCulloch
June 19, 2010 1:34 pm

Willis Eschenbach says:
June 19, 2010 at 12:49 pm
….
They gave the one sigma standard error (“s.e.”) on the 100° [11.0] 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 BAS page at
http://www.nerc-bas.ac.uk/icd/gjma/faraday.temps.html explains that Faraday data before 1950 is not consistent with the post-50 data. It gives the Faraday winter trend 1950-2009 as +.1035dC/yr +/- .0564, but then explains that this is the 95% CI (corrected for serial correlation a la Santer), and not the s.e. Evidently Vaughan et al were using the BAS convention, without telling anyone.
But if, as your Ukrainians note, the prevailing winds have shifted to being from the sea rather than from inland, that could account for the dramatic and atypical warming.
Sounds like a good note for you to send to Science, Willis!

June 19, 2010 2:20 pm

Leif Svalgaard says: June 19, 2010 at 9:14 am
Just because two cherry-picked curves look the same does not mean that one is a proxy [not to speak about a ‘good’ one] for the other.
Scientific scepticism is perfectly justified. Talking nonsense it is not;
and cherry-picked is not as you can see here:
Antarctica: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC8.htm
Arctic: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC16.htm
Equator: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC20.htm
Globally: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC23.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC6.htm

Michael
June 19, 2010 2:22 pm

The extended solar minimum should deliver a very unpleasant winter to the southern hemisphere. How many deaths will it bring this year, that is the question?
“Winter Solstice
June 21 (Southern Hemisphere)
The Winter Solstice has been celebrated in some way or another for thousands of years. In the Northern Hemisphere, the winter solstice is often connected with various religious holy days. Pagan religions associated the winter solstice with significant life changes, intricately linked with the universe and fates that determined the future and effected those lives. This significance can also be found in the Southern Hemisphere, where the Winter Solstice takes place in June.
For science-enthusiasts the winter solstice is an interesting astronomical occurrence that offers an opportunity to celebrate what we have managed to learn about the cosmos and affords us an opportunity to revel in the excitement of space exploration and the complexity of the universe.
Winter Solstice marks that day when there is less daylight than at any other time of the year. We commonly refer to it as the shortest day. The Summer Solstice, on the other hand, is the day with the most daylight (the longest day).”
http://www.secularseasons.org/june/winter_solstice.html

Dr A Burns
June 19, 2010 2:46 pm

I wonder what the impact of radiative heating on Antarctic weather stations from the walls of warm nearby buildings is ? Radiative heating is fn delta T **4 which becomes much more significant with low temperatures. The view factor is small though.

June 19, 2010 2:53 pm

Individual stations as well as CRUTEM3 5×5 grids can be plotted using a map interface at: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/climate.aspx
Click “Map Interface for Graphing” then select a geographical area.
For Antarctica, select 16: Global south of -45

Ed Caryl
June 19, 2010 2:55 pm

Willis,
for an example of UHI, check this picture of the station at O’Higgins:
http://lh4.ggpht.com/Raford2/RZLQhSiM02I/AAAAAAAAAC4/cbJtSC7rAgM/antarctica 101.jpg
Find the Stevenson screen.

June 19, 2010 3:16 pm

Hu McCulloch says:
June 19, 2010 at 1:34 pm

The BAS page at
http://www.nerc-bas.ac.uk/icd/gjma/faraday.temps.html explains that Faraday data before 1950 is not consistent with the post-50 data.

Heh – it’s also not consistant with the date stamp at the top of the page, “Last Revised: Thursday 27 May, 110” Somehow, it’s nice to see that not all the Y2K problems have been fixed, and this is one that can’t be blamed on only allocating two columns on a punch card. 🙂
FWIW, the Unix “cal” program says 27 May, 110 was a Monday.

Billy Liar
June 19, 2010 3:20 pm

Willis,
Thanks for your prompt response. Good pictures.

pat
June 19, 2010 3:31 pm

More not so credible science from science.:
“Ocean Changes May Have Dire Impact on People
ScienceDaily (June 19, 2010) — The first comprehensive synthesis on the effects of climate change on the world’s oceans has found they are now changing at a rate not seen for several million years.”

“These are driving major changes in marine ecosystems: less abundant coral reefs, sea grasses and mangroves (important fish nurseries); fewer, smaller fish; a breakdown in food chains; changes in the distribution of marine life; and more frequent diseases and pests among marine organisms.”
These are all true, but are hardly attributable to the non-existent acidification of the oceans trumpeted by the article. They are all attributable to incredibly destructive environmental practices by fisheries, sewage and waste disposal, poor land use decisions, the destruction of estuaries, greed and indifference, and such. We can never cure a problem if we insist upon dealing with a dream instead of getting down to business.

maksimovich
June 19, 2010 3:37 pm

as your Ukrainians note, the prevailing winds have shifted to being from the sea rather than from inland, that could account for the dramatic and atypical warming.
Their visualization of the changes in the quasistationary pattern in Antarctic troposphere is here
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh133/mataraka/ozoneap.jpg
There are however a number of problems with the NCEP-NCAR pressure sets ie they are bogus,(Connelly 2001 did note this) and a sensitive to initial condition’s (observations ) is detailed by Kalnay.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/wesley/paobs/ek.letter.html
The ongoing problem with initial dependency (Ghil 2008) and irreducible imprecision(Mc Williams 2007 ) are discussed by Trebneth 2010 eg incorrect isentrophic gradients invoke conservation law problems .

Jimbo
June 19, 2010 4:00 pm

Yet again we see Willis Eschenbach conducting peer review how peer review should be conducted. Alas, with climate science, all we get nowadays is “nudge, nudge, wink, wink say no more”. It’s a travesty and a shame. :o(
Thank goodness for the internet as all the details are being recorded and stored for future scientists to look at how modern science had descended into a paid for religion of the 21st century.

June 19, 2010 4:39 pm

Willis, check out Lawrence Solomon in his The Deniers Part IV: Polar Scientists on Thin Ice, 15 December 2006. Expert Duncan Wingham thinks the warming of the Antarctic Peninsula is probably not due to global warming but to the fact that it sticks out so far that it contacts a warm current.

Paul
June 19, 2010 4:45 pm

“Ed Caryl says:
June 19, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Willis,
for an example of UHI, check this picture of the station at O’Higgins:
http://lh4.ggpht.com/Raford2/RZLQhSiM02I/AAAAAAAAAC4/cbJtSC7rAgM/antarctica 101.jpg
Find the Stevenson screen.”
There is no excuse for putting the Stevenson screen there. They should know better at a research station. I would love to see an IR of that one.
http://surfacestations.org/ has there work cut out for them.

Ozzie John
June 19, 2010 5:03 pm

With difference being biased towards winter months I was thinking ….
One thing about measuring temperatures in very cold places is the difference in temperatures that can occur very close to the ground. If you look at this link showing Dome A temperature graphs you can see that there can be up to 20 deg C difference in 3m of elevation when there is no wind. And there is an insulating effect for a buried sensor at 0.1m
http://www.aad.gov.au/weather/aws/dome-a/index.html
Dome A (at ~4000m elev.) is abviously a much different place to the penninsula but I wonder if the automatic measurement stations used in the penninsula could have caused some of this difference ? – ie: if the sensors are not regularly cleared of snow and adjusted to maintain 1m above the snow in winter.

ES
June 19, 2010 5:57 pm

From your list of stations; 8 of them (1/4) are all on King George Island (KGI). It is approximately 95 kilometres long and 25 kilometres wide with a land area of 1150 square kilometres. Included are:
Centro Met.An, Marsh
Bellingshause
Great_wall
King_sejong
Jubany
Arctowski
Admirality Bay
Ferraz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_George_Island_(Antarctica)

Jimbo
June 19, 2010 6:10 pm

Maybe we should think of the Peninsula as belonging to a different climate zone. This was covere on WUWT on April 18, 2009

“….the climate of the peninsula has a significantly different set of temperature and precipitation norms than the majority of the main continent.”

Baa Humbug
June 19, 2010 6:28 pm

Regards data coverage, does that mean no T data was recorded, or T data was discarded?
Remembering the hpx83 article at savecapitalism back in December HERE
And the Wigley email to Jones…

From: Tom Wigley
To: Phil Jones
Subject: HadCRUT2v
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 15:16:28 -0700
Cc: Tim Osborn , Ben Santer
Phil,
Why is there so much missing data for the South Pole? The period Jan 75 thru
Dec 90 is all missing except Dec 81, July & Dec 85, Apr 87, Apr & Sept 88,
Apr 89. Also, from and including Aug 2003 is missing.
Also — more seriously but correctable. The S Pole is just represented
by a single
box at 87.5S (N Pole ditto I suspect). This screws up area averaging. It
would be
better to put the S Pole value in ALL boxes at 87.5S.

hpx83 states…

Tadaaaaa! Of the original 110 dataseries, only 18 are left. The original 2700+ datapoints are down to around 600. And what do you know – the series shows a whopping slope of 0.0447 which would mean a trend of 4.47 degrees of warming per century! I am sorry boys and girls, but there simply is no way in HELL that you can “accidentally” remove all series that show less of an upward trend, and settle for 18 of the most upward trending series (thus raising the warming / century by 3 degrees!)

Gail Combs
June 19, 2010 6:36 pm

DB says:
June 19, 2010 at 4:15 am
15. D. G. Vaughan et al., Clim. Change 60, 243 (2003).
Recent Rapid Regional Climate Warming on the Antarctic Peninsula
http://www.springerlink.com/content/u52n45201t383m4r/
Abstract:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed that mean global warming was 0.6 ± 0.2 °C during the 20th century and cited anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gases as the likely cause of temperature rise in the last 50 years. But this mean value conceals the substantial complexity of observed climate change, which is seasonally- and diurnally-biased, decadally-variable and geographically patchy. In particular, over the last 50 years three high-latitude areas have undergone recent rapid regional (RRR) warming, which was substantially more rapid than the global mean.
____________________________________________________________________
HMMmmm, I wonder if someone slipped a decimal point using this data as well as just skimming the Abstract instead of actually reading it.
“warming was 0.6 ± 0.2 °C …., over the last 50 years three high-latitude areas have undergone recent rapid regional (RRR) warming,”

Robert
June 19, 2010 6:37 pm

Sorry willis, couldn’t get the paper back to you yet
I get the message “We are currently experiencing difficulties with our electronic resources. Access may be affected. We apologize for any inconvience.”
When I try to access my university’s library. I’ll try again tomorrow, cheers.

Geoff Sherrington
June 19, 2010 7:53 pm

wsbriggs says:
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
Yep, I noticed the warmth in mid-winter also. Something is badly wrong.