From World Climate Report: Antarctic Temperature Trends
Almost exactly two years ago, a prominent paper became a media darling as it, according to the alarmist website Real Climate “appeared to reverse the ‘Antarctic cooling’ meme that has been a staple of disinformation efforts for a while now.”
The Nature paper, by Eric Steig and colleagues, made the cover on the January 22, 2009 issue.

Figure 1. Cover of January 22, 2009 issue of Nature magazine (left) showing the map of temperature trends across Antarctica as determined by the analysis of Steig et al. (right).
Despite Real Climate’s predictable take on the situation, many long-time students of Antarctic climate change (including usn’s here at WCR) yawned. It has been known for decades that there is a net warming in Antarctic surface temperature that began during the International Geophysical Year in 1957. However, what is also well known, is that the vast majority of the observed warming in Antarctica took place from the late 1950s through the early 1970s and that since then—during a period going on 40 years now—there has been very little net temperature change over Antarctica taken as a whole.
What the Steig et al. analysis did do, was to alter the generally accepted spatial pattern of the temperature change across Antarctica. Whereas previous studies showed that the warming was largely limited to the Antarctic peninsula region of West Antarctica with vast areas of cooling occurring distributed across the other parts of the continent, the Steig et al. analysis effectively spread the warming across the entire continent, both during the complete period of record since 1957, as well as during the most recent two-to-three decades (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Spatial patterns of temperature change across Antarctica as determined by Steig et al. for different time periods (adapted from O’Donnell et al., 2011).
Almost immediately, speculation popped up across the blogosphere that something was seriously amiss with Steig’s methodology. Analysts zeroed in on the problems and went on to publish in the scientific literature their own version of the spatial patterns of temperature change across Antarctica using the same data as Steig et al. used (a combination of surface observations and satellite-borne measurements) but employing a new and improved technology.
Surprise, surprise. The “new” map of temperature change across Antarctica produced by O’Donnell et al. wasn’t all that much different from the pre-Steig vision of the temperature changes which had taken place. Once again, the warming was primarily constrained to the Antarctica Peninsula, and cooling could be found across large regions of the rest of Antarctica (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Spatial patterns of temperature change across Antarctica as determined by a methodology used by O’Donnell et al. for different time periods (adapted from O’Donnell et al., 2011).
The situation presented in Figure 3 is much different from that presented in Figure 2.
For those who still question whether or not the O’Donnell et al. methodology is superior to the Steig et al. methodology, there is an independent arbiter—the satellite-derived temperature of the lower atmosphere that has been compiled and maintained by Roy Spencer and John Christy, and which just celebrated its 33rd birthday on December 1, 2011. The Spencer and Christy temperature record employs a different sort of satellite-borne temperature instrument (a microwave sounder unit, or MSU) than the satellite data melded with the surface observations in the Steig et al. and O’Donnell et al. studies, and is as a completely independent temperature data source.
Figure 4 shows the south polar projection of the trends in the lower atmosphere as derived from Spencer and Christy’s MSU data from December 1978 through November 2011. Compare Figure 4 with the lower two panels of Figures 2 and 3.

Figure 4. Spatial patterns of temperature change across Antarctica as determined by the MSU satellite data, December 1979-November 2011 (figure provided by John Christy).
Notice that there is a lot of blue shading on this map indicating regions where the temperature trend is negative (cooling), and that the regions of warming are primarily located along the continental margins.
The Spencer and Christy trends from the lower atmosphere are a decent (although imperfect) match with the O’Donnell et al. temperature trends of the surface. The Steig et al. trend analysis as the odd-one-out.
In the two years since the big flash at Nature, further and better analysis confirms that what has been going on in Antarctica is pretty much what we knew to be happening all along—that during the last 3-to-4 decade period of rapid build-up of atmospheric carbon dioxide, the temperature has changed little at the continental scale, and instead is characterized by a complex pattern of regional warming and cooling. Such changes do not foreshadow a rapid loss of continental Antarctic ice nor an alarming Antarctic contribution to the rate of current and future sea level rise this century as a result of surface ice melt. In fact, measurements from a different satellite data set that begin in 1979 show that the extent of ice in the southern high latitudes is increasingly significantly.
References:
O’Donnell, R., et al., 2011. Improved methods for PCA-based reconstructions: case study using the Steig et al. (2009) Antarctic temperature reconstruction. Journal of Climate, 24, 2099-2115.
Steig, E. J., et al., 2009. Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year. Nature, 457, 459–462.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Its hard to believe that NATURE ever published this drivel by Steig et al., They are an affront to science. I hope that eventually there will be full retraction of this paper.
Fitzcarraldo says:
January 3, 2012 at 2:22 pm
As they say, Nature ain’t what it used to be. Same for Scientific American, now both owned by the same German corporation, with an agenda.
Additional stories recently re: those (ahem) warming Antarctica temps:
http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/12/ipcc-scientist-responsible-for-bogus-antarctica-warming-study-suppresses-his-critics-research.html
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/12/12/business-as-usual/
http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/12/ipccs-claim-that-antarcticas-ice-sheets-are-melting-due-to-global-warming-is-found-to-be-fraudulent.html
steig lied and science died…oh the humanity
Now map the research stations onto that. Can you say UHI?
Of course they never mention that a change from -50 to -40 still leaves a lot of degrees to go before we reach 32.
Interesting difference between the LT data and the Steig/ O’Donnell data for the peninsular.
Is this the difference between “hot skin temps” and TLT temps up to ~2000m? How is MSU data derived across the pole? This link implies that MSU TLT data is bounded at 70deg South:
http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#msu_weighting_functions
TIA for any pointers.
It is sad to see my old friend the Scientific American go senile. Once upon a time it was about science. Ah well, into the never renew box it goes.
Slightly off topic, but is there a prize for being the 100,000,000th visitor to WUWT?
First sentence – wouldn’t it be almost exactly three years ago?
Stephan Barski says: “Of course they never mention that a change from -50 to -40 still leaves a lot of degrees to go before we reach 32.”
Actually, Steig himself said something very similar to that early on, something to the effect that the Antarctic cap wasn’t going to melt anytime soon at the picayune heating rates achieved in his paper.
The importance of his paper was that GW theory says warming will affect the polar caps first. He purported to show some warming where the Warmists wanted it. Mission accomplished.
The spatio-temporal inconsistency of 30-yr “trends” over mountainous continents is apparent from relatively sparse vetted station records. It’s nice to see that data characteristic (if only for one temporal snapshot).with spatial resolution that only satellites can provide,
Funny…. change the start date to obtain the result you want….
long term net is almost zero….
GOT to love propaganda….
Tez;
That’ll be 100,000,000th page view, not visitor. And there’s still >300,000 to go. So you can exhale.
Fantastic work by O’Donnell, R., et al., but sadly, the Steig misinformation will remain as entrenched dogma by the Warmistas just the as the incredibility well debunked hockey stick has.
Bill H says:
January 3, 2012 at 6:13 pm
Funny…. change the start date to obtain the result you want….
long term net is almost zero….
GOT to love propaganda….
================================================
It’s easier than that.
Just change the base period !!!
@Al Gored: What do you know about the owners of Nature & Sci. Am? I thought they were British & American respectively. Any evidence of the parent company inserting “right-thinking” editors?
What Stieg did was exactly what Mann tried to do the MWP. He tried to massage data that didn’t fit the narrative of AGW. Mann tried to erase medieval warming to show that current global warming is unprecedented. Stieg tried to show that there actually was warming in Anarctica in order to show that current global warming is unprecedented.
JDN says:
January 3, 2012 at 7:27 pm
@Al Gored: What do you know about the owners of Nature & Sci. Am? I thought they were British & American respectively. Any evidence of the parent company inserting “right-thinking” editors?
Answer to first part here: (German multi-national)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_Publishing_Group
Second part: Good chance if you change it to “left-thinking” editors.
Why is looking at patterns rather than averages so prevalent in so many scientific fields these days? The patterns show clear hot spots which feed into progressively dispersed temperature increases at lower levels. This to any engineer would spell an area overheating but the heat being carried away and would immediately result in not an investigation as to why the average was higher but what caused the local heating.
When someone in the climate studies field discovers a hitherto unknown massive natural hot gas gun at the source I am amazed that instead of wondering if this might be the cause and investigating this further, it is used as justification for more panic. They appear to still be emphasising how the resulting gas is going to go into the atmosphere as a result of man made warming melting the north pole ice instead of whether the far more probably idea that this is melting the Arctic pole directly as hot gas.
Can climate studies still be seriously considered as a profession or has it had a whole generation of mindless conformists to AGW recruited, incapable of any non standard thought?
Better hold on to your January 22, 2009 issue of Nature if you have one. Like the1918 flawed U.S. postage stamp with its *upside down* biplane image, or the 2007 flawed George Washington silver dollar with its *missing* data, the Nature issue could become a valuable collectable.
Stephan:
Aren’t the temperatures measured in Centigrade?
Some seem think warmer=melting, regardless of the absolute temperature. Most of what melting occurs in Antarctic is due to surface heating which is much more than the air temperature, but still trivial. Other loss is due to subsurface heat from the Earth at bottom of the ice sheet (not exactly due to human causation…).
Not being a scientist of any sort and looking at this logically, do not the wind and ocean current patterns around Antarctica travel in a clockwise direction? If that’s the case, it seems only natural that the archipelago would always have a slightly warmer climate than the more eastern and central regions of the continent as the archipelago and South America act as a choke point. . If the water were even slightly (however little so over the last century) warmer, would that not increase the humidity of the air flowing to the east thereby making it proportionately colder (again, however small that decrease in temperature might be)?
Or, is there something wrong with my logic gland? 😉
I guess it would be interesting for some technical expert to review honestly just how good, accurate, reliable and reproducible the satellite measurements are, since this discussion appears to produce rather different conclusions in different publications, doesn’t it?
Or is some kind of ‘temperature fudging’ going on, turning the raw data into something else?
Do let us know…..