Photo Credit: NC State
From the New York Times:
West Antarctica has warmed much more than scientists had thought over the last half century, new research suggests, an ominous finding given that the huge ice sheet there may be vulnerable to long-term collapse, with potentially drastic effects on sea levels.
A paper released Sunday by the journal Nature Geoscience reports that the temperature at a research station in the middle of West Antarctica has warmed by 4.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1958. That is roughly twice as much as scientists previously thought and three times the overall rate of global warming, making central West Antarctica one of the fastest-warming regions on earth.
“The surprises keep coming,” said Andrew J. Monaghan, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who took part in the study. “When you see this type of warming, I think it’s alarming.”
…
To try to get to the bottom of the question, David H. Bromwich of Ohio State University pulled together a team that focused on a single temperature record. At a lonely outpost called Byrd Station, in central West Antarctica, people and automated equipment have been keeping track of temperature and other weather variables since the late 1950s.
It is by far the longest weather record in that region, but it had intermittent gaps and other problems that had made many researchers wary of it. The Bromwich group decided to try to salvage the Byrd record.
They retrieved one of the sensors and recalibrated at the University of Wisconsin. They discovered a software error that had introduced mistakes into the record and then used computerized analyses of the atmosphere to fill the gaps.
…
Much of the warming discovered in the new paper happened in the 1980s, around the same time the planet was beginning to warm briskly.
They can’t find any recent warming, so they took a broken sensor with “intermittent gaps and other problems”, “recalibrated” it, “used computerized analyses of the atmosphere to fill the gaps” and “discovered” warming that “happened in the 1980s”. If you believe that this is science, then I strongly suggest you prep your telescope, lest you miss out on a spectacular sleigh sighting…
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mann’s going to sue them for stealing his “trick”.
Saw the article in “Science” daily News the other day: (www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/121223152408.htm)
What a load or rubbish!
14 stations in total used in the study. 13 show very little warming (<1.3 deg. F), one (Byrd) shows a warming trend of 4.3 deg. F. Have any of these pseudo-scientists entertained the hypothesis that there might be an issue with the Byrd station records? Of course not, it is the other 13 records which clearly must be in error. The map attached to the article is very revealing!
And to think that some of my tax moneys have paid for this nonsense via the National Science Foundation makes me cringe
Thierry Copie, Physics PhD Cornell 1988
You can download the Supplementary Information from the paper here:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/ngeo1671-s1.pdf
The above link includes 11 figures and 2 tables.
The significant (in the statistical sense) temperature increases occur in the months September – January, ie the austral summer when the station was likely manned (and the sun was up).
What did the occupants do every week in the summer:
Part of the house mouse duties — common housekeeping tasks shared by all at the station — included roof maintenance, he said. “[We spent] a day per week with an electric chain saw cutting snow blocks from over the buildings (standing on the roofs), and dropping them over the side into a snow melter. Hot water from the electric snow melter would then be drained into a hole in the bottom of the tunnel.”
http://antarcticsun.usap.gov/features/contentHandler.cfm?id=1793
UHI anyone?
I don’t know if Kreskin is still alive, but hey, even if he isn’t maybe NASA can hire him to divine the temperature in the Antarctic. I’m sure the IPCC would accept the results.
Charles Gerard Nelson says:
“It’s the middle of summer down here in Australia and so ’tis time for Climate Fear… except this year the rivers are full, it’s been a cool spring and summer and all the state capitals have had rain recently…so with no bushfires raging and no dry riverbeds to point to the Warmists have got their knickers in an awful tiwst.”
Just wait until they start claiming that average is the new extreme.
Also saw this on the BBC who having been found to have no scientific basis behind their alarmism (28) have decided to scream even louder.
With reports like this the reaction of warmists is clear…in the absence of facts they just make it up – at an alarming rate!
I may just print the report as I have a shortage of toilet roll
/sarc
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
Moving up on six thousands comments.
I’ve been posting on this story over at the Huffington post for the last two days.
In contrast to this site the general consensus over there seems to be that Global warming is a done deal, and only idiots don’t believe in it. The evil capitalists do believe, but claim not to so they can make lots of money before the earth dies in flood and fire.
I’ve also been informed that WUWT is a junk science site and it is a waste of anyone’s time to check out any links to it.
Have to admit to a large deal of frustration at not being able to pen cogent arguments. Could really use some help from some people who are better at expressing facts than I am.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/23/west-antarctica-warming-climate-change_n_2356287.html?utm_hp_ref=canada&ir=Canada#comments
Wrong link, sorry
Right. Look, is it too much to ask that these guys show me some actual sea level rise acceleration measurement before expecting me to pee all over myself in a panic? If this has been worsening since the 80’s, shouldn’t I see something OTHER than a picture perfect linear rise in sea level over the past 20 years? I mean, people have been telling me I should be alarmed about this my entire adult life. WHEN is sea level rise supposed to start noticeably accelerating? Get back to me then, thanks.
Steve Oregon says:
December 24, 2012 at 11:06 am
The idiocy and purposeful mendacity of the scientists is surpassed only by the wallowing naivety of the New York Times….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You might want to read what is behind the New York Times advocacy. link
Henry Clark says:
December 24, 2012 at 11:13 am
The real temperature history picture:
For 460 locations aiming to represent the high-latitude Southern Hemisphere from 60 degrees to 90 degrees latitude:
http://s8.postimage.org/70mmip0vp/Chapman_Walsh2007.gif
Chapman, W.L. and Walsh, J.E. 2007. A synthesis of Antarctic temperatures. Journal of Climate 20: 4096-4117.
Even the above, though, effectively understated the cooling over the last couple decades of the 20th century within inland Antarctica (compared to such as Comisco 2000* finding substantial cooling there over 1979 to 1998), because the inland ice sheet is not the same as the whole high-latitude Southern Hemisphere zone that includes surrounding oceans.
The answer is in http://s10.postimage.org/l9gokvp09/composite.jpg particularly the bottom right (click to enlarge), http://s13.postimage.org/ka0rmuwgn/gcrclouds.gif
Now, look again at the composite image you linked to above. (Upper right graphic, showing emitted solar radiation levels through several sunspot cycles.
Notice the smooth “arc” or parabolic-like (?) rise and fall of the lower (minimum) emission levels? Those do closely and immediately parallel the late 20th temperature record. Perhaps we should be plotting (or trending) minimum levels (a running plot through each low point of each solar cycle over all solar cycles, rather than the average, the high points themselves of each sunspot count each day, or the change in high points, or minor “Wiggles” that happen each year and during each 11-year solar cycle.
Jeff Condon says:
The highest temperature reported in the entire reconstruction was -9.7 Celcius
Yet there is talk of “meltwater” in related articles. The melting point of water is only that low at more than 100 MPa.
Jack Bauer interrogates Santa.
http://dailybail.com/home/jack-bauer-interrogates-santa-claus.html
Dumb question, but if they found warming which happened in the 1980’s by teasing it out of a single old broken temperature sensor, wouldn’t the continued effects of the prior warming still be visibile on the remaining and functional temperature sensors? For warming to be the least bit worrisome, doesn’t it have to stick around for a while? If it just happened in the vicinity of a single sensor which happened to be broken/unreliable then disappeared before it could be captured on other more reliable sensors, isn’t that like the tree that falls in the forrest with no one to notice it?
Strange result, compare this with previous all Antarctica results starting with 1980 instead of 1957 – what appears to be more important in the context of AGW – the trends are negative (even Steigs), and significantly negative.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/28/steigs-antarctic-heartburn/
1980 to 2006 trend (AWS era)
Steig 3 PC -0.06 deg C./decade
New 7 PC -0.20 deg C./decade
New 7 PC weighted-0.20 deg C./decade
New 7 PC wgtd imputed cells -0.21 deg C./decade
and satellite data shows all Antarctica cooling as well since Dec 1979
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0162ffab1459970d-pi
“When you see this type of warming, I think it’s alarming.”
Now that’s funny! Of course it’s alarming – you are an alarmist – what else would it be???
On a less “alarming” note , we are looking at White Christmas here in the Colorado Front Range & Mountains with a nice little storm moving in this evening. Yeah !!
So the headline is:
West Antarctica has warmed much more than scientists had thought over the last half century, new research suggests, an ominous finding given that the huge ice sheet there may be vulnerable to long-term collapse, with potentially drastic effects on sea levels.
But what this research (let’s disregard the models all the way down) shows is that the warming was in the late 1980;s and does not affect current temperature measurements?
Can someone say how that justifies the headline above? What it should say is Antarctica warmed more in the late 1980’s than scientists have thought but since 1997 it has cooled.
I can see why the NYT and BBC would run with the first headline – but someone should call them on it. The fact is that this research has zero effect on the reported current temperatures and therefore cannot be claimed to be causing further melt as the temperatures are considerably below freezing.
“the temperature at a research station in the middle of West Antarctica has warmed by 4.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1958.”
Ummmmmm……..
From what to what?
I was really pondering the significance of the “warming” until I got to the end and realized the “warming” was yet more computerized finagling of sensor data.
Every day for the past 10 years one team member or another comes up with a new “It’s worse than we thought”.
But over same 10 year period, the temperatures recorded by thermometers have remained stubbornly constant.
Something’s wearing a bit thin, and it’s not the ice.
I finally understand AGW! Broken instruments, cherry picked data, biassed (not a mispelling!!) computer modelling. It says it all. These people should be arrested for the fraud that they have perpetrated on mankind and the taxpayerand as a punishment be banished to the coldest regions of the planet, because if they are getting warmer as this drivel claims, then the “scientists” will be fine!
It’s time to give the children their AGW Yuletide scare….
THE PENQUINS ARE DOOMED IF WE DO NOT SAVE THE POLAR BEAR ! ! !
With sunspot count down and consequently the variable solar magnetic output on the wane, an increase in the Antarctic ice coverage is more likely than not.
I saw this article on Antarctica warming worse than we expected using adjusted data and thought here we go again. So did a little analysis of my own on the hot days for Mawson using the raw data from the Australian BOM site that had a good continuous record from 1954 to present. I used a hot day definition of Tmax >=5C. There is a persistent decrease in the number of hot days over this period and in fact since 1994 the average number of hot days per year has been 2.6, compared to the long term average for the entire period of 5.9. There are also some interesting ups and downs along the way that appear to be consistent with Henry Clark’s comments on this post about warmer in the 70’s and cooler in the 80’s.
“To try to get to the bottom of the question, David H. Bromwich of Ohio State University pulled together a team that focused on a single temperature record”.
Say no more squire, say no more.