WUWT commenter Ian Cooper says:
I thought that this site may be of interest to those pondering the warming of the Antarctic Penninsula. I came across this while I was scouring the net to learn more about the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) and it’s influence on our local New Zealand weather/climate. I hadn’t seen this here before, so apologies in advance if someone has already brought this to your attention. I was particularly taken by the second paragraph of this page, which I have copied below.
Due to the southward shift of the storm track, a high SAM index is associated with anomalously dry conditions over southern South America, New Zealand and Tasmania and wet conditions over much of Australia and South Africa. The stronger westerlies above the Southern Ocean also increase the insulation of the Antarctica. As a result, there is less heat exchange between the tropics and the poles, leading to a cooling of the Antarctica and the surrounding seas. However, the Antarctic Peninsula warms due to a western wind anomaly bringing maritime air onto the Peninsula (Fig. 5.9). Indeed, the ocean surrounding the Antarctic Peninsula is in general warmer than the Peninsula itself and stronger westerly winds mean more heat transport onto the Peninsula. Over the ocean, the stronger westerly winds tend to generate stronger eastward currents. Furthermore, the divergence of the currents at the ocean surface around 60oS is enhanced because of a larger wind-induced Ekman transport. This results in a stronger oceanic upwelling there.
From: Universite catholique de Louvain
http://stratus.astr.ucl.ac.be/textbook/chapter5_node6.html
The Southern Annular Mode
The equivalent of the NAM in the Southern Hemisphere is the Southern Annular mode (SAM). Various definitions of SAM have been proposed: a convenient one is the normalised difference in the zonal mean sea-level pressure between 40 oS and 65o S. As expected, the sea level pressure pattern associated with SAM is a nearly annular pattern with a large low pressure anomaly centred on the South Pole and a ring of high pressure anomalies at mid-latitudes (Fig. 5.8). By geostrophy, this leads to an important zonal wind anomaly in a broad band around 55oS with stronger westerlies when SAM index is high.
|
Due to the southward shift of the storm track, a high SAM index is associated with anomalously dry conditions over southern South America, New Zealand and Tasmania and wet conditions over much of Australia and South Africa. The stronger westerlies above the Southern Ocean also increase the insulation of the Antarctica. As a result, there is less heat exchange between the tropics and the poles, leading to a cooling of the Antarctica and the surrounding seas. However, the Antarctic Peninsula warms due to a western wind anomaly bringing maritime air onto the Peninsula (Fig. 5.9). Indeed, the ocean surrounding the Antarctic Peninsula is in general warmer than the Peninsula itself and stronger westerly winds mean more heat transport onto the Peninsula. Over the ocean, the stronger westerly winds tend to generate stronger eastward currents. Furthermore, the divergence of the currents at the ocean surface around 60oS is enhanced because of a larger wind-induced Ekman transport. This results in a stronger oceanic upwelling there.
The majority of the effects of SAM could be explained by its annular form and the related changes in zonal winds. However, the departures from this annular pattern have large consequences for sea ice as they are associated with meriodional exchanges and thus large heat transport. In particular, a low pressure anomaly is generally found in the Amundsen Sea during high SAM-index years (Fig. 5.8). This induces southerly wind anomalies in the Ross Sea (Pacific sector of the Southern Ocean) and thus lower temperatures and a larger sea ice extent there (Fig. 5.9). On the other hand, because of the stronger northerly winds, the area around the Antarctic Peninsula is warmer when SAM index is high, and sea ice concentration is lower there .
|
Both papers show that most of Antarctica is warming. The debate is over how the warming is distributed and which statistical methods are most suited to dealing with sparse data.
Funny how now, peer reviewed paper discussion in a blog became suddenly acceptable to the Team… LOL
Mike, Both papers show that most of Antarctica is warming. The debate is over how the warming is distributed and which statistical methods are most suited to dealing with sparse data.
++
Nope, and should you acquaint yourself with meteo data, only the peninsula is warming with a degree of certainty and this is of dynamic origin. In fact if “most” antarctica was warming, how would you account for more powerful anticyclones and associated depressions? That’s one of the reasons why Steig’s paper is in contradiction with meteo data while O Donnell’s makes perfect sense (i.e see David Smith post).
Mike (February 5, 2011 at 8:05 am) says
“Both papers show that most of Antarctica is warming. ”
Both papers are talking about an increase from way incredibly far below freezing to slightly less incredibly far below freezing.
The point is, contra Gore and other non-scientific “alarmists”, the ice cap is _not_ “melting.” Any shrinkage in ice coverage — a proposition itself debatable — must necessarily be due to factors other than increase in temperatures from 31 to 33 degrees Fahrenheit; plus an additional incredible amount of heat going into heat-of-fusion. Simple physics, as they say.
Getting a handle on the precise nature of those other factors involves not-so-simple statistics. But it’s interesting to this layman that every half-way feckful statistician looking at the Steig paper said something about auto-correlation in data representing circular population distributions. The experts didn’t notice, or didn’t care any more about “Chaladni pattrens” or whatever than I do. But I expect better of my experts. I’m frequently disappointed.
Peer review is about ensuring that that process works.
…or at least that’s what it should be. We have learned by sad experience that the peer review process can and will be hijacked to promote particular viewpoints by “political scientists”.
pouncer says:
February 5, 2011 at 8:47 am
I’m glad you pounced—you are correct.
The heat of fusion (latent heat of crystallization) of water is a great energy hog. As warm air containing high humidity passes over Antarctica, it is stripped of heat and moisture very efficiently. Much air is processed at the expenditure of some ice amount. It depends on direction and strength of the winds. By the time it reaches the interior (if that is the direction at the time), the air is dry and cold and continues on its merry way towards the tropics, where it picks up heat and moisture.
This is an amazing attribute of Antarctica: the regulation of air temperature and humidity in the SH, then onward and upward.
The other point being discussed here, the confusion over the disparate conclusions of the two papers is perfectly reasonable. No two papers are identical; if they were, one would be plagiarism. Papers differ in: 1) methodology 2) assumptions, and 3) conclusions.
I have not the full text of each paper to dissect the differences. However, even when methodology is similar, it is often the assumptions that have the greatest variance. Sometimes opposite conclusions are completely justified when taking these factors into consideration.
BUT! Then a new paper emerges, sorting out these factors and distilling the verification process, doing better methods, especially statistical and instrumental, or eliminating biased assumptions. This then may give more credence retrospectively to one conclusion or the other. It takes time and more minds to sort these things out, so have patience!
Such is the scientific method in its best form, when peer-reviewed science is fully functional, as it has been for centuries (and still is for the “hard” sciences), and not dysfunctional, as the peer reviewed climate science has been apparently corrupted recently.
One of Steig’s responses in the comment section was:
“There is more work to be done, clearly.–eric]”
Translation: “We still need more funding.”
Mike says:
February 5, 2011 at 8:05 am
Both papers show that most of Antarctica is warming. The debate is over how the warming is distributed and which statistical methods are most suited to dealing with sparse data.
************
Mike- if Antarctica is warming, how do you account for the increasing extent of Antarctic sea ice during the satellite record. The increased sea-ice is also attested to by regular visitors to the Antarctic (eye witness).
Stephen Wilde says:
February 5, 2011 at 5:42 am
………………….
Hi Mr. Wild
Recently I’ve done some research into possible causes of the Arctic’s sudden stratospheric warming, and it consequences for the North Hemisphere’s winter weather. Preprint version has is currently available on the line here:
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/56/34/77/PDF/SSW.pdf
Hi Mr. Wild
Recently I’ve done some research into possible causes of the Arctic’s sudden stratospheric warming, and it consequences for the North Hemisphere’s winter weather. Preprint version is currently available on line here:
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/56/34/77/PDF/SSW.pdf
The southward shift of the SAM and resultant westerly wind anomalies also increases foehn winds in the northern peninsula. In 1984 Schwerdtfeger in his “Weather and Climate of Antarctica” described a foehn wind storm at the now defunct Matienzo station where the temperatures rose 24 C degrees in 3 hours and 40C degrees in 24 hours. He noted that foehn winds increased as the storm tracks center moved south, just as the SAM has generated. At Matienzo foehn winds compised about 20% of the winds. Foehn winds are well studied in Europe and the Alps. One studied has shown in the Carpathiansthat Foehn winds raise monthly temps by 1-1.5 C. Such rapid warming has also been noted by the Chinook winds in western USA,
Meanwhile at the southpole where nature provides the best place to test if GHG are raising temps, no such correlation with warming and CO2 is to be found.
Thanks vukcevic.
I do agree that volcanic events can create individual stratospheric sudden warming events.
However I don’t think that is enough to get from MWP to LIA to date on its own.
In the longer term we have to look to the sun and it seems that chemical processes dominate rather than radiative processes.
The focus on radiative balance (alone or primarily) looks to me to have been an error.
The oceans push or pull the air circulation systems from below and from the equator.
The sun pushes or pulls the air circulation systems from above and from the poles.
The latitudinal position of the jets changes to hold an equilibrium between the two forces and in the process regional climate changes occur as the air circulation systems move to and fro overhead.
Absolute global temperature is of no real significance and in any event is highly variable in the troposphere as the speed of energy release from the oceans changes and as the rate of energy loss to space changes.
Whether energy in the troposphere is increasing or decreasing the jets shift to offset the forcings as an entirely negative reaction so as to maintain equilibrium between sea surface and surface air temperatures.
That is the global climate setup in a nutshell.
Philip Mulholland
February 5, 2011 at 4:14 am
I find the use of the word “insulation” in this statement to be curiously correct, but abstruse.
###
Curious, I guess its because my eyesight is very bad, but my mind saw the word “isolation”, probably because that was what I expect to be there. I wonder if this was a typo auto-corrected into a different word, thus exasperating the error?
re post by; Peter Plail says: February 5, 2011 at 3:03 am
This is a misunderstanding of the very nature of peer review. Probably a common one in the general public. Peer review isn’t about deciding which hypotheses or which experiments are or aren’t correct. Peer review is simply supposed to check for correct application of the scientific method in the experiment. In other words, are there any systematic errors made which would render any/every experiment moot? Blatant errors in methodology, or in failing to account for confounding factors (e.g., things like natural causes which could account for the results rather than CO2! and here is one area where peer review clearly fails dismally in climate science), or errors in the statistics used such that the wrong conclusions are drawn from the research data, or a failure to research the body of existing literature in the subject area sufficiently, even to some extent failure to address some directly relevant and well established research that is directly opposed to or directly affects the research they are reviewing, and so on. This is even true to the extent that peer review ought to rein in any conclusions which clearly go beyond that which is supported by the research data – this is another area where, it seems to me, peer review is more and more often grossly failing in general and in climate science research especially.
The very LAST thing you want is peer reviewers acting as judge and jury, deciding which research they BELIEVE is or isn’t correct. When that occurs (as it does all too often) then you wind up omitting new and valid conclusions – some of which might have the potential to entirely overturn whatever the current paradigm might be (flat earth anyone?).
The more complex the subject matter of the research, the more likely it is that you do wind up with conflicting research. Conflicting research, regardless, is generally a very very GOOD thing. This is how science winnows through the complex or difficult subjects to get down to the base truths. Truth not as in “I believe” but truth as in factual, observable, repeatable, verifiable, not explained as well or better by any other hypothesis, etc. In order to accomplish this you cannot have peer review serving as the judge. The research has to be presented, and then other scientists work to tear it apart, see if they can duplicate the original research (if not, there’s a major problem right off the bat), or come up with other, conflicting, hypothesis that answer the question posed even partially or as well or even better than that original research paper did.
Its pretty clear when one understands the process that you WILL wind up with conflicting research. The more complex the issue the more certain you are to see contradictions of this sort. If you don’t, then there’s almost bound to be a major problem with the application of science in that area.
So – peer review is to weed out problems with the process and methodology, with the math or statistics used, conclusions that go beyond what the data supports, etc. Peer review, done properly is NOT to determine just from what’s in the reviewer’s head and paper in front of them which research they happen to feel/believe is more likely to be correct. In science the ONLY way one is to determine which properly conducted research is or isn’t correct, is by further properly conducted research which manages to overturn or seriously question the conclusions.
Peter went on to say:
Here I have to disagree with you. There is nothing which says that all scientific discussion must occur in the refereed journals. I would argue quite the contrary. Discussion of the research with anyone bright can turn up useful insights, find otherwise missed flaws, point out other relevant information that could be of use, etc.
Papers are often presented in seminars and annual society meetings also, in front of an audience. In those situations, you typically have a Q&A session after the presentation and quite often at that point other scientists (or at times even just interested laymen) pose either real questions or questions which are statements of where they believe they see flaws in your work. There is no guarantee that these people will be scientists from your own field, or even that they are scientists at all (although one surely hopes that they at least have a clue what they are talking about and they aren’t just asking something that is well known and simply answered!) In either case, hopefully you are able to sufficiently answer the questions – but if not, then they have done you a favor and found errors in your work that need to be addressed for your conclusions to be valid – or for you to realize that you were in error and you need to revise your hypothesis and start again. All of this serves to move the science, the state of knowledge, forward.
I see blog discussions as somewhat analogous to presentations with Q&A. There may even be added value in that folks with expertise in other areas may bring issues to light that hadn’t been considered – there can be tremendous value at times in having knowledge from other fields applied, from getting an ‘outside’ eye on the issue so to speak. The downside to blog discussions is that they often contain a ton of extraneous or very basic and easily answered, already considered type comments. From the flipside, however, with blog discussions there can be huge value in helping to educate truly interested folks who are either scientists from other fields or laymen. There is a real synergy that can occur from open discussions – and you can’t get much more open than blogs. Lord knows on the best discussions of this sort it is a very quick way for research flaws to get brought to light.
One has to keep in mind that even the most well known and lauded scientists aren’t important because of their credentials – they’re important because of their ideas, their contributions that moved our state of knowledge forward. Being credentialed just means that you are far more likely to be able to apply the scientific method well than someone who isn’t trained, and therefor also far more likely to be able to make meaningful contributions. That doesn’t mean someone can’t be very well self taught and manage to have meaningful solid input/inspiration. What does it matter if an excellent idea that furthers the research, or finds a real flaw, or even manages to move the state of scientific knowledge forward (no matter how incrementally) comes from a credentialed scientist or from a layman, from a referred journal discussion or a blog discussion, or just a casual conversation between friends or acquaintances? Its the concept that is important, not who or where it happens to come from.
The south pole during Antarctica’s polar winter provides a great contrast to the wind and temperature asymmetries generated by oscillations on the peninsula and west Antarctica . During the south pole winter without incoming shortwave radiation, there is a steady cooling as longwave radiation exports energy. Surprisingly from the end of March to the end of July the temperatures do no drop more than 2 degrees C. This is because an upper level supply of warm air is advected poleward. Due to the inversion layer of cold stable air their is insignificantly little vertical mixing at the pole. Thus the heat budget during the winter at the south pole is relatively the most simple to analyze Using the temperature data from Amundsen-Scott we see there is a heat budget equilibrium from March thorugh August which varies for the years 1955 to 1976 from -55 to -57. From 1977-2010 those winter lows have dropped -2 C on average- varying from -57 to almost -60.
If CO2 was increasingy holding more heat in the cold air mass at the pole it should be warming. If the poleward advected air mass held more moisture or CO2, it should be warming. The cooling trend also would suggest that the cooler air might move coastward more quickly and thus draw in a greater amount of upper level warm air to to replace the colder air flow towards the coast , but in contrast it is still cooling. The southpole winters suggest something very different is affecting it that overpowers any possible CO2 attribution.
Using south pole cooling trend as a background heat budget,the rising temperatures in the west Antarctica can on;y be attributed to changes in asymmetrical heat distribution through oscillations such as the SAM, etc
Stephen Wilde says: February 5, 2011 at 11:17 am
The sun pushes or pulls the air circulation systems from above and from the poles.
I think the science is correct on the TSI , i.e. direct solar energy input, providing more or less constant energy supply. The solar factors however can be a trigger for other natural events.
UV and magnetic can be such triggers.
UV and particle radiation (particle radiation is a function of solar activity and the strength of Van Allen belt via the Earth’s field strength) could have far larger indirect contribution by controlling plankton volumes and in turn changing the oceans’ clarity and CO2 absorption.
High UV/radiation = reduction in plankton = clear water = deeper penetration, more heat absorbed further down and retained = warming.
Low UV/radiation = more plankton = water less clear = only surface absorption and night time re-radiation = cooling.
Plankton is largest CO2 absorber, but also oceans are largest CO2 emitters, so if CO2 happen to be an important factor than:
High UV/radiation = reduction in plankton = less CO2 absorbed = warming.
Low UV/radiation = more plankton = more CO2 absorbed = cooling.
Solar magnetic input is via sunspots and magnetic storms http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/geomag/image/apstar07.jpg
but they act only in the Arctic and Antarctic. Direct magnetic power input is insufficient for a global effect. However, there is an impact on the Earth’s field http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC9.htm
GMF (geomagnetic field) in turn has enough power to affect in the long term circulation of the Arctic currents (North Atlantic Precursor)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CDr.htm
(note high correlation at both graphs 1860-prsent, period of the good instrument records)
and in the short-term via Arctic and Antarctica stratosphere circulation, with a direct effect on the polar jet-streams: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
@- Paul Deacon says:
“if Antarctica is warming, how do you account for the increasing extent of Antarctic sea ice during the satellite record. The increased sea-ice is also attested to by regular visitors to the Antarctic (eye witness).”
@- TomRude says:
“(you)…..should you acquaint yourself with meteo data, only the peninsula is warming with a degree of certainty and this is of dynamic origin. In fact if “most” antarctica was warming, how would you account for more powerful anticyclones and associated depressions?”
The best I can get from the two papers is that with sparse data with discontinuities from in-situ measurements and satellite observations even the most extensive mathematical processing cannot determine whether the Eastern and central parts of Antarctica show any trend in temperature. The analysis from both puts constraints on the magnitude of any temperature change, but is insufficient to determine the sign.
Both papers detect a significant warming of the peninsula, but disagree in detail about how far that warming extends over the WAIS.
It is a prediction from AGW theory combined with the influence of ozone depletion that the SAM will strength. So the increase in the polar anticyclone is supporting AGW theory rather than contradicting it. A cooler central Antarctic with a warmer border would also by the conventional understanding of climate in that region lead to an accumulation on the ice-cap and a possible increase in winter sea ice.
The observed increase in Antarctic sea ice is actually rather small, the sea ice varies between ~2M km2 and 16M km2. Neither value has altered by more than 1M km2 since robust records began. While the Arctic ice has decreased by ~2M km2 the Antarctic shows a trend at present of less than 1M km2. The most recent data I can find put the present ice extent as around 160,000 km2 UNDER the long term average. By most measures the change in Antarctic ice is around an order of magnitude less than that seen in the Arctic.
One significant change in Antarctic ice is the result of the large warming of the peninsula. Many of the ice shelves along that region have collapsed and retreated over the last few decades. The Wilkins in 2008 being the most recent. As far as I know there is no evidence that these ice-shelves are reforming. There is ice cover reforming over these areas in the cold season, but the thick, land-bound coastal sheets along the shores of the Antarctic peninsula seem to be gone for the moment. Here’s a list of whats been lost, compared to this the small variations in sea ice extent each season would seem less significant.
Müller
Jones
Wordie
Wilkins
Northern George VI
Prince Gustav
Larsen Inlet
Larsen A
Larsen B
Larsen C
The propaganda image most people have in their head for red is about 25 to 35 degrees celsius because that is the degree of color of the “abnormal” warm days during the height of summer, apparently.
So why doesn’t the “skeptic community” use proper degrees to gradient coloring scheme? If -45 is represented by dark purple in color then who truly believes screaming bloody red is a proportional representation for -42?
And scientist wonder why they communicate so poorly? :p
izen says:
February 5, 2011 at 2:31 pm
It is a prediction from AGW theory combined with the influence of ozone depletion that the SAM will strength. So the increase in the polar anticyclone is supporting AGW theory rather than contradicting it. A cooler central Antarctic with a warmer border would also by the conventional understanding of climate in that region lead to an accumulation on the ice-cap and a possible increase in winter sea ice.
No that assumption is incorrect as the two are incompatible, say a decreasing mid an upper stratosphere T due to say co2 would increase the ozone at these levels and the uv absorbtion capability, a conflict of doctrines so to speak.
As there are a number of problems with the resolution of statospheric chemistry in GCM and understanding in the IPCC ar4 the current ozone assessment (wmo2010 ) was asked to resolve the issue by the parties to the MP.
EG chapter 4
Observations and model simulations show that the Antarctic ozone hole caused much of the observed southward shift of the Southern Hemisphere middle latitude jet in the troposphere during summer since 1980. The horizontal structure, seasonality, and amplitude of the observed trends in the Southern Hemisphere tropospheric jet are only reproducible in climate models forced with Antarctic ozone depletion. The southward shift in the tropospheric jet extends to the surface of the Earth and is linked dynamically to the ozone hole induced strengthening of the Southern Hemisphere stratospheric polar vortex.
The southward shift of the Southern Hemisphere tropospheric jet due to the ozone hole has been linked to a range of observed climate trends over Southern Hemisphere mid and high latitudes during summer.
Because of this shift, the ozone hole has contributed to robust summertime trends in surface winds, warming over the Antarctic Peninsula, and cooling over the high plateau. Other impacts of the ozone hole on surface climate have been investigated but have yet to be fully quantified. These include observed increases in sea ice area averaged around Antarctica; a southward shift of the Southern Hemisphere storm track and associated precipitation; warming of the subsurface Southern Ocean at depths up to several hundred meters; and decreases of carbon uptake over the Southern Ocean.
Further it was also found that only ccm that use realistic observations of solar forcing ie monthly and annual variations can reproduce the annular modes SAM and NAM or as Roy and Haigh 2010 suggested clearly a knowledge of the solar cycle,would be useful in climate modelling
izen says:
February 5, 2011 at 2:31 pm
Here they go again:
I don’t have time for each mistake you have cited, it would take a while.
Two quickies:
1) The sea ice extent, takes into account these itemized losses you cite, of course, or else the report could not say extent, now, could it?
2) For ice shelves “to break off” as you mention, they have to grow past the cantilever support strength. If they “melt” then they recede and do not break. Breaking off is an admission that they had grown to that point. This has been dwelt upon in recent WUWT postings.
Melting is very, very difficult at average -20°C air temp, at any rate. The reports also do not take into account the volcanic activity that is poorly mapped at this point.
DesertYote
February 5, 2011 at 11:40 am
This is a lovely example of how a reader’s expectation can override the actually written word. The traditional description of Antarctica as the isolated (lonely)continent has morphed here into the term insulated (protected) continent, possibly because the following sentence is about heat. It may be an auto-correction error as you suggest or this might be an example of misattribution by the author in what is sometimes termed a linguistic “false friend” by translators.
Google Translate from English to French (no authority I agree) gives isoler for insulate but also gives isoler for isolate.
The original 2009 Stieg paper where widely published in media worldwide. In the largest daily paper in Sweden the “iconographic” view of yellow and red Antarctica was shown with the headline – now scientist have shown that also Antarctica is warming. Following the debate that followed Eric Steig was interviewed by a reporter from the Swedish public radio, where he “confessed” that the warming seen for the last 50 years basically took place the first two decades and that no warming had taken place for the last 30 years. This must be of some interest if the climate change should be linked to the recent warming period
eadler said:
Either you can’t read, or you are lying, or just did not actually read the thread and comments in which Jeff made the claim, which means you’re being disingenuous, but the whole clipped post is posted… since before your post here, I might add.
Mark
maksimovich says:
February 5, 2011 at 3:27 pm
Good points. But “The Team” cannot mention the sun elephant in the room, even though high energy UV moves up and down about 10% cycle on cycle. ITSS! (not you of course, and for anyone here, of course, unless the shoe?)
UV, especially short wavelengths, makes ozone, and other neat photochemistry. Meanwhile, low solar magnetic field leads to clouds via cosmic ray bombardment.
The ozone “hole” (a misnomer, as you probably know), moves around, I think in response to the migration of the magnetic field, since ozone is one of the rare gaseous molecules, since it is paramagnetic. We cannot, therefore, treat ozone passively, as lying within the domains of the Laws of diffusion.
None of these factors, and more that we haven’t “dreamt of in our Philosphie”, are operating in cyclical and complex ways.
It’s like solving for a dozen variables, but we have only six equations.
Frank K. says: “Eric Steig needs an extended vacation down in Vostok, Antarctica, where right now it’s -33F. That’s balmy for Vostok! Bring your flip flops and Bermuda shorts…”
Dr. Steig is well aware of the temperatures there. Putative warming is expressed as anomaly relative to average historic temperatures. The Antarctic can be cold and still be warming at the same time. His novel statistical methods smeared the warming over the entire continent, regardless of the presence or absence of sensor data. “It is hard to make data where none exist.” –Kevin Trenberth
Hard, but nothing is impossible to statistics.