Claim: New research shows the South Pole is warming faster than the rest of the world

Hmmmmm, or not ~cr

Elaine Hood/NSF

Kyle Clem, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

Climate scientists long thought Antarctica’s interior may not be very sensitive to warming, but our research, published today, shows a dramatic change.

Over the past 30 years, the South Pole has been one of the fastest changing places on Earth, warming more than three times more rapidly than the rest of the world.

My colleagues and I argue these warming trends are unlikely the result of natural climate variability alone. The effects of human-made climate change appear to have worked in tandem with the significant influence natural variability in the tropics has on Antarctica’s climate. Together they make the South Pole warming one of the strongest warming trends on Earth.


Read more: Antarctica has lost 3 trillion tonnes of ice in 25 years. Time is running out for the frozen continent


The Amundsen-Scott South Pole station is the Earth’s southern-most weather observatory. Craig Knott/NSF

The South Pole is not immune to warming

The South Pole lies within the coldest region on Earth: the Antarctic plateau. Average temperatures here range from -60℃ during winter to just -20℃ during summer.

Antarctica’s climate generally has a huge range in temperature over the course of a year, with strong regional contrasts. Most of West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula were warming during the late 20th century. But the South Pole — in the remote and high-altitude continental interior — cooled until the 1980s.

Scientists have been tracking temperature at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, Earth’s southernmost weather observatory, since 1957. It is one of the longest-running complete temperature records on the Antarctic continent.

Our analysis of weather station data from the South Pole shows it has warmed by 1.8℃ between 1989 and 2018, changing more rapidly since the start of the 2000s. Over the same period, the warming in West Antarctica suddenly stopped and the Antarctic Peninsula began cooling.

One of the reasons for the South Pole warming was stronger low-pressure systems and stormier weather east of the Antarctic Peninsula in the Weddell Sea. With clockwise flow around the low-pressure systems, this has been transporting warm, moist air onto the Antarctic plateau.

South Pole warming linked to the tropics

Our study also shows the ocean in the western tropical Pacific started warming rapidly at the same time as the South Pole. We found nearly 20% of the year-to-year temperature variations at the South Pole were linked to ocean temperatures in the tropical Pacific, and several of the warmest years at the South Pole in the past two decades happened when the western tropical Pacific ocean was also unusually warm.

To investigate this possible mechanism, we performed a climate model experiment and found this ocean warming produces an atmospheric wave pattern that extends across the South Pacific to Antarctica. This results in a stronger low-pressure system in the Weddell Sea.

Map of the Antarctic continent. National Science Foundation

We know from earlier studies that strong regional variations in temperature trends are partly due to Antarctica’s shape.

The East Antarctic Ice Sheet, bordered by the South Atlantic and Indian oceans, extends further north than the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, in the South Pacific. This causes two distinctly different weather patterns with different climate impacts.

More steady, westerly winds around East Antarctica keep the local climate relatively stable, while frequent intense storms in the high-latitude South Pacific transport warm, moist air to parts of West Antarctica.

Scientists have suggested these two different weather patterns, and the mechanisms driving their variability, are the likely reason for strong regional variability in Antarctica’s temperature trends.


Read more: How solar heat drives rapid melting of parts of Antarctica’s largest ice shelf


What this means for the South Pole

Our analysis reveals extreme variations in South Pole temperatures can be explained in part by natural tropical variability.

To estimate the influence of human-induced climate change, we analysed more than 200 climate model simulations with observed greenhouse gas concentrations over the period between 1989 and 2018. These climate models show recent increases in greenhouse gases have possibly contributed around 1℃ of the total 1.8℃ of warming at the South Pole.

We also used the models to compare the recent warming rate to all possible 30-year South Pole temperature trends that would occur naturally without human influence. The observed warming exceeds 99.9% of all possible trends without human influence – and this means the recent warming is extremely unlikely under natural conditions, albeit not impossible. It appears the effects from tropical variability have worked together with increasing greenhouse gases, and the end result is one of the strongest warming trends on the planet.

The temperature variability at the South Pole is so extreme it masks anthropogenic effects. Keith Vanderlinde/NSF

These climate model simulations reveal the remarkable nature of South Pole temperature variations. The observed South Pole temperature, with measurements dating back to 1957, shows 30-year temperature swings ranging from more than 1℃ of cooling during the 20th century to more than 1.8℃ of warming in the past 30 years.

This means multi-decadal temperature swings are three times stronger than the estimated warming from human-caused climate change of around 1℃.

The temperature variability at the South Pole is so extreme it currently masks human-caused effects. The Antarctic interior is one of the few places left on Earth where human-caused warming cannot be precisely determined, which means it is a challenge to say whether, or for how long, the warming will continue.

But our study reveals extreme and abrupt climate shifts are part of the climate of Antarctica’s interior. These will likely continue into the future, working to either hide human-induced warming or intensify it when natural warming processes and the human greenhouse effect work in tandem.

Kyle Clem, Research Fellow in Climate Science, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

153 thoughts on “Claim: New research shows the South Pole is warming faster than the rest of the world

    • Wowee a whole 2c increase in the anomaly.
      So Antarctica has warmed from Freeze Your A$$ Off cold to simply Freeze Your Nuts Off cold

        • as a colleague of mine would say during the winter: it’s colder than a whore’s tit.
          However, in the summer he would claim it was hotter than a whore’s tit.
          I think he was just a little bit too obsessed with the relative temperature of whore’s tits.

          • I don’t think these sayings are correct. The point about witches was that they danced naked around the fire no matter the weather. Thus, “Colder than a witch’s tit,” became a popular comparison.

            I admit to never having heard about something hot being attributed to witches or whores. I would volunteer that, “As hot as a N’Orleans sidewalk,” carries a lot of imagery including certain professions…

        • Only 1°C from the baseline? And that’s with 24 hour sunlight for more than three months! How is that possible?( it warms more than that in the first hour of sunrise at my house)
          It averages -40°F in the summer, too -70° Fahrenheit in six months of winter with zero sunlight. That’s only 30° colder. even the coast line never gets above freezing… it’s obvious there’s something else going on here because it makes their models seem to be created by Disneyland.

    • At that rate all the ice will be gone before we all die of COVID-19 in just a few millennia.

    • Everywhere is warming twice as fast as everywhere else.

      My thought exactly, when reading the header. 🙂

    • Everywhere is warming twice as fast as everywhere else.

      Which one would think leads to the conclusion that everywhere else is warming only half as fast.

  1. Cherry picking; which is what this breed of climate scientist climate alarmist does best. They select data from a few weather stations on the continent and ignore the satellite data which covers the whole continent. Sound suspiciously like the Mann trick of discarding tree rings he doesn’t like.

    When you look at the UAH temperature data since 1979 from satellite telemetry since 1979, which covers all of Antarctica, there appears to be no warming trend whatsoever.

    Graph of land temperatures measured by satellite for 60° to 90° south (Antarctica) from UAH over the last 40 years:

    http://yburbs.com/uah-temp-all/uah-temp-all.html?ga=0&spl

    You can also select other latitudes or global data and compare and contrast.

    • Very likely there is a lot of problems with a recording station at the S. Pole. Its height above the snow/ice can vary a lot and the device tends to end up under the snow, which can make it less sensitive and see larger swings. Sound familiar? Look at the graph. Well insulated the battery may actually heat the station. It would have to be restated regularly to be valid.

      • “a lot of problems with a recording station at the S. Pole”

        Really, you’ve been there? what’s it like?

        • I have, although that was in the 70s. Colder than a witch’s tit in winter. And that was in one of the warmer areas, in summer.
          Probably short sleeve weather by now. Go try it, pack light.

          • “Loydo June 30, 2020 at 7:59 pm
            “a lot of problems with a recording station at the S. Pole”

            Really, you’ve been there? what’s it like?”

            People like Loydo think they are being smart when they make comments like this, and then they run in to people like you Glenn that actually have ventured out to places like Antarctica.

    • “Cherry picking”, “They … ignore the satellite data…”, “no warming trend whatsoever”.

      I thought the post is about the South Pole, but they even mention “Over the same period, the warming in West Antarctica suddenly stopped and the Antarctic Peninsula began cooling.” But I get it, reposting something like this here is not about the “study”.

      Btw, you cherry picked, here’s one that isn’t:
      http://yburbs.com/uah-temp-all/uah-temp-all.html?ga=0&spl
      Well whaddya know?

        • I think that many people on here know that Loydo doesn’t know how to read a graph, and then some.

        • Mmm, thats odd, I just cut and pasted the temp-all plot address but it seems to default to the Southern Polar Land-plot. Oh well you’ll just have to go there and select ‘all’ yourself. ‘All’ because that is then no longer a cherry-pick…
          Btw thankyou to the generous, kind-hearted souls who’ve taken the time and effort to help me out.

          • Loydo, without any query parameters, the page defaults to the Global Average, like this:

            http://yburbs.com/uah-temp-all/uah-temp-all.html

            If you add any query parameters (for example ?gl&go to show Global Land and Global Ocean) it will display the default Global Average and the other plots. To turn off the Global Average you have to use ga=0. For example, to display only Southern Hemisphere (all), you would use:

            http://yburbs.com/uah-temp-all/uah-temp-all.html?ga=0&sa

            Sorry to make it so complicated. I haven’t figured out yet how to update the address when you select a different plot in the legend.

          • Yeah it was the Global average I was trying to link to. Is that your page? Well done if it is.

      • Loydo. Well done for making a fool of yourself, again. There’s no warming trend in that graph

      • Loydo, I think you probably tried to show a different plot from that data but selecting a different plot from the legend on the right doesn’t update the link in the address bar. You have to create the link manually using the instructions at the bottom of the page. I created that page to make it easier to visualize all the UAH lower troposphere data and compare and contrast different latitudes and ocean and land data. It’s a work in progress. Also, the data is only through February 2020. I haven’t updated it to the latest (May 2020). Soon.

        For example, to turn off the default Global Average and display only the Global Land plot:

        http://yburbs.com/uah-temp-all/uah-temp-all.html?ga=0&gl

        Or if you want to just display the Global Average (default):

        http://yburbs.com/uah-temp-all/uah-temp-all.html

        Could you re-post the graph you were trying to show? I’m curious to see.

      • Loydo: Thanks for confirming that there’s no warming trend.

        Hoist on your own petard.

          • To the extent that there might be a trend, without doing any complex mathemagic, the range is approximately 1.2 C° in approx. 40 years (approx. -0.4 °C before 1980 to approx. 0.8 °C in 2020). That works out to a warming trend of approx. 0.03 °C/yr. Not sure it’s something I would get terribly alarmed over.

            side note, if we (cherry)pick 1980 to make it an even 40 years, the range and trend are even lower.

            Please show me the apocalypse.

  2. “…an ensemble of climate models…” shows warming? U of Wellington must be looking for funding. And 3 trillion tonnes of ice loss over 25 years?

    • Do you think that would be a ‘net’ loss of ice Patrick, otherwise isn’t that statement pretty meaningless?

      • It is totally meaningless however, people who are fearful and easily lead, Loydo for instance, will believe the big scary numbers. Lets assume the average car weighs 1.5 tonnes. Three trillion tonnes is 1.5 trillion cars. It’s scary! But then they add “…over 25 years…” on a continent that is so large and covered in ice, permanently, that 3 trillion over 25 years won’t add up to much in the bigger picture when you factor in ice growth and we know ice mass and volume is increasing over Antarctica.

        • Thanks Patrick, I’ve come to realise that it’s often about the timeframe and the information that’s left out. Some people just don’t look at all the angles.

        • I’ve calculated that the loss of 3 trillion tonnes of ice from Antarctica is equivalent to the continent losing approximately 22 cm of ice. (Area of Antarctica = 14 million Km sq = 1.4 x 10exp13 sq m. Mass loss per sq m = 3 x 10exp12/1.4 x 10exp13 = 0.2143 tonnes/sq m, equivalent to a depth of about 22 cm. Somehow that figure seems less impressive than 3 trillion tonnes.

  3. one of the few places left on Earth where human-caused warming cannot be precisely determined

    I was not aware that human-caused warming had been precisely determined elsewhere. I mean that our knowledge of climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling has not been narrowed down in twenty years of mind-blowingly expensive “research”.

  4. If a tree falls in the forest during a hurricane, did it make a noise loud enough to hear? If you can’t hear it, how do you guess how loud it was?

    My model said it should be this loud, but doesn’t take into account the dampening effects of all the other sounds, because I think they’re all only additive. That’s my narrative.

    Happy Canada Day.

  5. WHY are there such large peak-peak excursions after 1980 in the “Annual mean surface temperature anomalies” graph?

    • *One* good question out of dozens of posts that might be interesting to follow. Is that good or bad result Charles?

  6. Thank goodness for models or they wouldn’t know precisely how much warming was caused by us

    • Remove what’s known, infer what’s not known, infill with brown matter what cannot be known, and what remains is plausibly an anthropogenic signal.

  7. Climate model nonsense plus one weather station with real data – quality of those data unknown

    More climate alarmist nonsense from the always wrong models.

    Show me real raw temperatures from real weather stations — not just one — and not just computer game conclusions.

  8. LOL! This is really confusing, since the paper below almost convinced me, that CO2 causes a “negative GHE” in Antarctica, which is why this region is immune to global warming…

    “How increasing CO2 leads to an increased negative greenhouse effect in Antarctica”

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL066749

    Serious: Antarctica is not warming because there are no (or almost none) contrails (not even close to it), which actually cause some warming, as opposed to CO2. But I totally understand how this problem must be “fixed”, either by claiming there was secret warming nonetheless (which went undiscovered so far), or building fancy new theorys.

    • Thanks for beating me to it and saving me from having to go search for it.

      I looked back up there to see if they had referenced this paper but, unless I missed them they didn’t reference anything. I also recall that when Schmithüsenet al. was published there was indeed a slight cooling trend across the whole of Antarctica:

      https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcReoE4-XCawX_q-wlUNaKK0slzAPHl_yfd0Qw&usqp=CAU

      Maybe both groups could go down there and duke it out.

      • Yep just as soon as they find a half-arsed explanation as to why it wasn’t following global warming, someone else claims it actually is…

    • Btw… they build this station in 2005 and then added a black facade to it. Could it be, that a large black complex in an otherwise totally white environment, thus being the only thing to effectively absorb solar radiation, have some impact on local temperatures?

      I am just asking, since the “warming” apparently occured since 2005..

  9. Did I miss it? They didn’t say Antarctica is warming twice as fast as the rest of the globe. What kind of climate science is that?

  10. The time period chosen to determine recent warming seems poorly chosen (cherry-picked?) for an unbiased analysis. The beginning year, 1989, is an extreme trough, and the ending year, 2018, clearly looks like a periodic peak. Where is the 2019 data? Surely it must be available now. Why not use 1985 or 1992 as the beginning point…both years near the middle of the periodic rise and fall?

    • Temperatures did not exist in those early years.
      The thermometer was not invented until 1985.
      BUT, when it was invented, it was 3 times more popular than the average invention.

      • Don’t forget thermometer forcing:

        All those thermometers pulled heat out of the air so they read cooler than it actually is.

        According to the model I just built. A Tamiya one.

  11. A surprising finding … in a place where everybody is looking … are these folks smarter than everyone else, or are they just wrong?

    They look at a 1C cooling then a 1.8C warming. So the total is 0.8C but they look at the 1.8C and say it happened really fast. If I’m allowed to do that, I’m sure I can find some weather stations with some really dramatically fast cooling in the last ‘x’ years.

    • commieBob,
      “They look at a 1C cooling then a 1.8C warming. So the total is 0.8C but they look at the 1.8C and say it happened really fast. If I’m allowed to do that, I’m sure I can find some weather stations with some really dramatically fast cooling in the last ‘x’ years.”
      If I’m allowed to do that, I’m sure I can find some weather stations with some really dramatically fast cooling in the last – um, twelve hours!
      There. Better?

      Auto
      .

  12. So, instead of an average annual temperature of -42 C, it will now be -40 and change. Or colder if other estimates are more accurate for annual average temps at the South Pole. I would be really surprised if there was no wiggling of the long term temperatures a few degrees either way. That is what climate does. What caused the cooling during the 20th century, when CO2 was rising?

    Antartica is currently a desert with little atmospheric humidity, so if there is any warming to be seen purely from CO2 inhibiting heat loss to space, this is where we should see it. But is it caused by CO2 at a measly 412 ppmv, or as they alluded to that there is more clouds in this shorter weather/perhaps temporary climate cycle from a warm tropical Pacific Ocean? Either way, there is no melting going on at these temperatures for most of the continent, except maybe for the WIS where there is volcanic activity and maybe the peninsula where it juts out into the Southern Ocean. Yes, maybe it is slightly warmer, but so what? It is still extremely cold and it can’t warm up that much more at those altitudes for the majority of the continent.

    And 3 trillion tonnes of ice melt is not much compared to the entire Antarctic ice sheet that is the largest single mass of ice on Earth. It covers an area of almost 14 million square km and contains 30 million cubic km of ice. Around 90 percent of the fresh water on the Earth’s surface is held in the ice sheet, an amount equivalent to 70 m of water in the world’s oceans. I am not going to lose any sleep over this. Well actually, -40 and colder does give me nightmares so maybe I will wake up in a cold sweat now.

    • Earthling, that’s an important point. The AGW hypothesis depends on positive feedback from water vapor. That very dry climate doesn’t support significant, much less increasing, atmospheric water vapor. So, any ‘warming’ due to CO2 should be declining as CO2 saturates.

      While I’m not going to accept this data, if it were true, it would point to a flaw in their hypothesis.

    • 1. because it’s an island and it’s temperature is highly modulated by the surrounding water.
      2. you need to look at the ENTIRE AREA and asses area trends

      you basically made the same mistake they did. single station silliness

      • “…2. you need to look at the ENTIRE AREA and asses area trends…”

        You won’t find many asses to base your tends off of. I really don’t see how this is relevant to temperature, but then again, I wasn’t an English lit major.

        • I have been to Macquarie Island (1985 on HMAS Stalwart resupplying the scientists when the Nella Dan became stuck in the Antarctic ice).

          There are many thousands of asses on that island – penguins and seals

        • “You won’t find many asses to base your tends off of. I really don’t see how this is relevant to temperature, but then again, I wasn’t an English lit major.”

          tends?

          You will find many

          Go here

          https://moshpit.shinyapps.io/ShinyGHCN/

          I’m still working on it but have a look

          select antarctica

          there are more in berkeley earth.

          scroll down to the map

          82

          dumbshit

      • 2. you need to look at the ENTIRE AREA and asses area trends

        Well, you certainly have all the experience when it comes to asses.

        • I would not expect it to warm at the surface, any excess heat is going to go into melting ice first

      • re:

        Steven Mosher June 30, 2020 at 7:40 pm

        1. because it’s an island and it’s temperature is highly modulated by the surrounding water.
        2. you need to look at the ENTIRE AREA and asses area trends

        you basically made the same mistake they did. single station silliness

        IOW, “ignore this data point, year after year, and always.

        ‘k

        • “IOW, “ignore this data point, year after year, and always.”

          Ignore? why? It’s a data point.

          we know there will local areas that show more warming, less warming and some that will show no warming.

          as predicted

      • It’s an island? Really?
        Do you have any idea how far the pole is from the nearest ocean?

        • “I have been to Macquarie Island (1985 on HMAS Stalwart resupplying the scientists when the Nella Dan became stuck in the Antarctic ice).

          There are many thousands of asses on that island – penguins and seals”

          have someone translate for you mark.

  13. “Over the same period, the warming in West Antarctica suddenly stopped and the Antarctic Peninsula began cooling.”

    So one part of Antartica is warming but another part has stopped and one is cooling? Yet all they talk about is the warming part. Of course, models

  14. People who crap on about global warming by human beings should get their heads examined as sure enough they don’t display any common sense by believing in computer models. Picking on something that has been happening over 30 years or even 60 years is insignificant compared with what has been happening since before the Antarctic became glaciated 45 million years ago and the global warming that preceded the start of the Holocene interglacial warm period 12,000 years ago. You’d a bit of a luni to think that a CO2 increase of 0.01% over 60 years as measured in the tropical updaft at 3.4 km altitude on the slope of one of the active volcanoes with 48% CO2 in their emissions is going to warm the planet when photosynthesis that started global cooling some 2.7 billion years ago can’t get enough of it and is causing one ice age after another, called a period of glaciation. I think we could call it anarchistic delusion.

    • The whole concept of a “trend” is fundamentally meaningless when applied to a stochastic non-deterministic process like climate.

      • And within that stochastic non-deterministic process, 30 years of data is the mere blink of the temporal climate eye. ‘Seeing a trend’ in the last 20% of that climate ‘eye blink’ is a special form of hubris…. or willful deceit.

  15. “The temperature variability at the South Pole is so extreme it currently masks human-caused effects.”

    That’s like saying that unicorns cause pseudo-random number generators to produce numbers that are not truly random, but the range is so extreme that it masks the unicorn-caused effects. Therefore, the hypothesis cannot be proven. That’s how to do science. Propose an untestable hypothesis, and assume that it is true.

  16. arrg

    Several of us disagree with the framing of this finding.

    https://twitter.com/VariabilityBlog/status/1277718224096972801

    https://twitter.com/VariabilityBlog/status/1277718225804038150

    https://twitter.com/VariabilityBlog/status/1277718227754328065

    1. it is ONE station on the continent. Jesus. The long station fetish can be very misleading.
    2. The area average of the continent does not show the same level of warming.
    3. Antarctic stations are a bitch to assess for bias because of several phenomena
    A) Katabatic winds
    B) Sparse spatial sampling
    C) The lacuna in the temporal record.

    We think that station has issues. Our estimate shows that the station shows a warming that is
    out of coherence with it’s neighbors and suggest it is biased HIGH.

    https://twitter.com/RARohde/status/1277879490044219392

    https://twitter.com/RARohde/status/1277881055517777921

    • Mr Mosher said: “Several of us disagree with the framing of this finding.”

      Trouble is it’s too late, the headline has spun around the world providing more grist to the mill.

      It’s reprehensible unrelenting propaganda for a political cause, whilst unashamedly besmirching science.

      “time is running out for the frozen continent” are you freaking serious!!

    • Earlier you were telling us it’s an island. Now it’s a continent. Which is it?
      It’s your side who framed the claim. It’s your side that often picks a single station or a single region and uses it to prove the whole world.

      • Far be it for me to defend the drive-bv king, but he was referring to Macquarie Island in that “earlier” post (look at the post he was replying to) whereas here he’s referring to the topic of the article (ie Antarctica, which is a continent).

      • Guy asked about an island

        I answered his question.

        Now you know why drive by is vindicated.

        I can’t stay around for your stupidity

        • Because someone got something wrong vindicates your getting everything wrong with mindless drive-bys? really? Bwahahahahahahahaha

      • Because someone got something wrong vindicates your getting everything wrong with mindless drive-bys? really? Bwahahahahahahahaha

  17. Cherry picked a bunch of highs and lows.

    UAH data does not show any thang like that.

  18. CO2 has been increasing pretty much monotonically since around 1950, yet temperatures at the S. Pole did not start to increase until 2000.

    Either CO2 took 50 years to make it to the S. Pole, or something else is responsible for the warming.

  19. “The temperature variability at the South Pole is so extreme it masks anthropogenic effects. Keith Vanderlinde/NSF”

    We don’t know for sure it’s there, but if it isn’t we are all out of a job, no more grants or junkets, so we’ll just assume it is.

    Much like DLR that MUST be there, ’cause if it isn’t the whole show goes in the dumpster.

  20. Fifty-year Amundsen–Scott South Pole station surface climatology

    https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0169809512002256-gr6.jpg

    Fig. 6. Annual mean temperatures for 1957–2010 (blue), 10 year running mean (black), and least squares linear regression line (dashed, r2 = 0.017).

    https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0169809512002256-gr5.jpg

    Fig. 5. Mean temperature for the 30-year climatology sets (1961–1990, 1971–2000, and 1981–2010) and for the 50-year climatology (1957–2006).

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169809512002256

    • Yeah, they need to go back to the very warm Early Twentieth Century before making claims about how much the temperatures have dropped in Antarctica. The year 1957 was a lot cooler than temperatures in the 1930’s.

  21. I read stuff like this and kind of long for the days bygone, when smog and inversion layers were a visible problem and the sky looked like someone had been smoking about 10,000 packs a day of Lucky Strikes.

    • Well hey, 20,679 physicians say “luckies are less irritating”*, so the science is settled smoking lucky strikes are doctor recommended!

      * actual Lucky Strikes advertising claim based off of a leading question survey sent to Doctors by the company that made Lucky Strikes.

  22. All of Canada, Chicago, and much of the northern USA, is happy that the Laurentide Ice Sheet once warmed faster than any other place on Earth, because no one can barbecue under a mile of ice.
    As George Carlin once said onstage, “We didn’t do it” [melt 3,000 trillion tonnes of ice].

  23. I thought all the latest research shows that everywhere was warming twice as fast as the global average (was posted here some time ago) so this is just normal.

    James Bull

  24. “These climate models show recent increases in greenhouse gases have possibly contributed around 1℃ of the total 1.8℃ of warming at the South Pole.”

    Did they include Vegan farts as greenhouse gas?

    But no matter how much they are powering generators and farting
    they are not going warm it up by much.

    Nothing of any scientific value is coming from this frozen continent.
    Frequently Asked Questions about Antarctica
    1/ Why doesn’t it rain in Antarctica ?
    The simple answer is that it’s too cold.
    2/ Where is the South Pole ?
    Unlike the North Pole the South Pole is inland.
    3/ What do you pack in your survival kits?
    Scientists in Antarctica generally live on a base or station where everything is provided for them
    4/ How do people survive the cold in Antarctica ?
    You wrap up warm in layers and several of them.

    They forgot mention the burning of fossil fuel.

  25. The temperature anomaly plot has no ferschlunginer error bars. Yet again. It’s meaningless.

    And the uncertainty in each anomaly is the root-sum-square of the error in the measurement and the uncertainty in the normal, making the anomalies less certain than the measurements.

    These people are scientifically clueless. Consensus climatologists continue to indicate incompetence as a class.

    • It’s a self-perpetuating incompetence, like an auto-regression.
      I think it was Richard Lindzen that said the whole climate science field needs about 95% reduction in funding for at least 5 years, force whole programs to collapse and eliminate most researchers to find new jobs. Then it can restart with only properly trained researchers without being wed to bad ideas and hopelessly flawed models.

    • Climate “Science” has reached such a peak of computer-modelled perfection that error bars are unnecessary.

  26. One of the reasons for the South Pole warming was stronger low-pressure systems and stormier weather east of the Antarctic Peninsula in the Weddell Sea. With clockwise flow around the low-pressure systems, this has been transporting warm, moist air onto the Antarctic plateau.

    So, it is warming (by one degree) because stronger low-pressure systems have been transporting warm, moist air onto the Antarctic plateau. logically this means that there is a lot more precipitation because of the moist air, more snow is accumulating and being sequestered than normal (whatever normal is), which results in slowing sea level rise.

    Maybe they need to change the headline.

  27. “we performed a climate model experiment”. Not scientists then. No need to read any further.

  28. In the prior interglacial, the Eemian, the WAIS had collapsed and that caused significant sea level rise that must have been catastrophic for the Neanderthals. It appears that this historic event has left a deep yearning in climate science for a similar catastrophic sea level rise event by way of ice melting in Antarctica midway into the Holocene. There is a long history of this yearning. It continues unabated. It is an obsession of some kind.

    Pls see

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/07/16/antarctica-slr/

  29. Is it relevant that Australia’s Antarctic base of Davis had a mean temperature of -10.24C in 1989-1998 and -10.30C in 2009-2018 – i.e. 0.06C cooler?

    Or a bit more recently that Davis had a mean temperature of -10.24C in 1989-1998 and -10.34C in 2010-2019 – i.e. 0.10C cooler?

    Or that Australia’s Antarctic base of Mawson had a mean temperature of -11.1C in 1955-1964, -11.4C in 1990-1999 and -11.3C in 2010-2019 – i.e. 0.2C cooler?

    Probably not.

    • The inhabitants of the Amundsen-Scott South Pole station is in dire need for more funding, before they can extent the diesel power needed to run an industrial wind turbine assembly.
      Extra electricity is needed for heating gear oil and for deicing.
      A defense system against flying penguins is needed, in order to avoid turbine blade chopped penguins, which could lead to invasion of polar bears grilling the chopped penguins.

      Apart from the above slight sarcasm, it appears in the picture of the station, that there are solar panel arrays. If that is true, then the community is Green enough already.

  30. Has anyone else noticed the timing of these ‘studies’ being released?
    Always seems to come out around the Warm months of the year?
    Funny that.

      • Charles was clearly talking about NH publications, where and when the majority of humans live in the warmest weather. ( Remember how the extremist picked a summer heatwave to address the world, and turned off the AC? Yes, always expect more childish climate alarmist studies as we get into the NH summer.

          • Ok smart ass. The north and south are delimited by the equator. The east and west are delimited by the Greenwich meridian. Hence FOUR hemispheres!

          • hem·i·sphere – noun, a half of a sphere.

            Of which there are an infinite number in any sphere.
            You just happened to only pick 4 of them.

          • “Dennis Kuzara July 1, 2020 at 7:30 pm”

            Oh dear! Then why do we distinguish north and shout hemispheres about the equator? Nit picking I suspect!

      • No, Loydo, there’s actually more than that. There’s technically there’s an infinite number as a hemisphere simply refers to any division of the globe into two bounded by a great circle.

        But the most commonly referred to Hemispheres are the ones based on the 4 points of the compass: North, (the half of the globe to north of the equator), South (the half of the globe to South of the equator), East (the half that lies east of the prime meridian and west of the 180th meridian) and West (the half that lies west of the prime meridian and east of the 180th meridian).

        But regardless of how you wish to divide the earth into hemispheres, the fact remains that the majority of the population for whom the scare stories are targeted reside in what’s known as the Northern Hemisphere, so it should come as no surprise that those propaganda pieces tend to coincide most often with that hemisphere’s warmer months (the same reason that “a summer heatwave to address the world, and turned off the AC” as David A described it).

  31. “My colleagues and I argue these warming trends are unlikely the result of natural climate variability alone.”

    Why would you jump to that fanciful conclusion when the geology of Hallett Cove in South Australia can show an average SLR of 16.25mm a year for 8000 years beginning around 15000 years ago and then you look at the current tide gauges at Fort Denison NSW and Port Arthur Tasmania and there’s nothing like that currently in any living lifetime?

    Run along and pop some Saharan dust in all those computer models along with the tree rings etc and stop bothering sensible folks with weather worrying as there’s only one temperature proxy to rule them all down the ages and that’s SLR-
    https://www.msn.com/en-au/weather/topstories/saharan-dust-is-bad-for-health-but-it-s-also-crucial-to-earth-s-biology-and-climate/ar-BB16ahUm

  32. The graph in the ATL article is titled :
    “Annual mean surface temperature anomalies
    At Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station, from 1957 to 2018

    While the full Nature-CC article [ Edit : Note it was “Received – 20 November 2019” … ] is paywalled, the “Data availability” section includes a link to the underlying MET-Office / READER “raw” data, which can be used to confirm they used a “Reference Period” of 1981-2010 to calculate their anomalies.

    The graph finishes at 2018, anomaly = +2.34°C (to 2 d.p.).

    The READER data is now available to May 2020.

    The annual anomaly for 2019 is +1.03°C.

    NB : For comparison purposes, the GISS / GHCN V4 “Amundsen Scott, Unadjusted (Station-ID = AYW00090001” dataset has equivalent anomalies since 2010 of :
    2010 : 0.80
    2011 : 0.41
    2012 : 0.01
    2013 : 2.06
    2014 : 0.60
    2015 : 0.27
    2016 : 0.68
    2017 : 1.02
    2018 : 2.30
    2019 : 1.02

    • Although not statistically significant, the average temperature forecast (rounded) for the next 15 days at the South Pole is 4 degrees C less than the July average of -55 degrees C. Likewise for the last 10 days of June, the average temperature was 3 degrees less than that month’s average of -53 degrees C.

      Will the follow up figures, probably much less alarmist, ever be published for 2019 and 2020?

  33. How did sub-glacier and submarine volcanic activity fit into their model? Even though western Antarctica sits on a very active volcanic rift, I could find no mention of this in the article.

  34. I thought that WV caused the majority of the warming – it has massive effects at the poles for obvious reasons and insignificant effect in the tropics. Or is this too simplistic?

  35. ” we performed a climate model experiment ”

    And it is a good thin. No actual data was harmed by that “experiment”.

    In other word they ran numbers on their computers and committed acts of self abuse while watching the video.

    They better quit doing that or they will go blind.

  36. From the article: “These climate model simulations reveal the remarkable nature of South Pole temperature variations. The observed South Pole temperature, with measurements dating back to 1957, shows 30-year temperature swings ranging from more than 1℃ of cooling during the 20th century to more than 1.8℃ of warming in the past 30 years.”

    Well, according to the US surface temperature chart, 1934 was 0.5C warmer than 1957, so we need to add that amount to the 1C of cooling these folks found from 1957, to come to a total of about a 1.5C temperature drop.

    So the temperatures drop 1.5C for a few decades, and then they warm up 1.8C for a few decades. It looks like natural variation to me. Of course, I don’t have any of those fancy computer models to play with, either.

    Yes, I know the US isn’t Antarctica, but the Hansen 1999 US chart resembles regional surface temperature charts from all over the world, including in the Southern Hemisphere, in that they all show it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today, and I expect that is also the case with Antarctica.

    Hansen 1999:

    https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/uhcnh2.gif

  37. “Claim: New research shows the South Pole is warming faster than the rest of the world”

    Alternatively, the warming of the rest of the world has slowed down sharply….

  38. Anybody that references Steig 2009, like these people do has serious cockroaches in their brain. I don’t believe all the data for Steig 2009 was ever released. Steig 2009 completely ignored changes in cloud fraction in their reconstruction, among other many problems. A lot of electrons were spent on Steig 2009, a paper that should have been retracted. Among other issues, replication is not possible when the authors conceal data.

  39. So in a context of stronger catabatic winds sending high pressure cold air masses deeper northward, renewed advection of warm air along the mountain range reaches the geographical pole… Big deal.

  40. Was there a change in the type and number of diesel generators used at the stations next to the instruments?

  41. I have just trawled through all the responses as well as the article, and noticed that no-one has mentioned the line of sub-glacial volcanoes which separate east from west Antarctica. They affect ice and atmospheric temperatures above them (and remember that Mount Erebus, an active volcano, is one of them). I suggest that these volcanoes have more to do with the minor amounts of warming that everyone seems to be agitated about, than human’s minute addition to the atmospheric CO2.

  42. What else would we expect from Victoria Wellington University in New Zealand .
    James Renwick is now a professor there after his alarmist time as head scientist at NIWA.
    He has been pushing global warming for many years and is right up there with Mike Mann pushing DAGW.
    The satellite records show no warming so they ignore them but when the satellites show rising sea levels they jump aboard and tell us we are all going to be flooded when tide gauges show little change .
    At minus 55C we have nothing to worry about till the next ice age .
    Graham

  43. The biggest problem confronting humanity is, of course, that this warming will release the frozen Elder Things and their Shoggoth servants. You can kiss it all goodbye if that happens. Bill Nye predicted it!

    Sigh…

  44. Here is a big something which they have missed. Look at the winds which are blowing across the middle of the continent. … https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/500hPa/orthographic=-313.87,-89.47,481/loc=135.435,-85.350

    When those winds move back out across the ocean after crossing over land they are carrying very cold air to the north. There is a large cold bulge to the west of South America which stretches north to 23 degrees S. Take a look at 500 hPa at the cold later. When you drop to the surface you can see that the cold extends down to the ocean surface where a finger of cold ocean water emulates the shape of the cold layer at 500 hPa, … https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/500hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-119.77,-63.40,481/loc=-113.838,-31.318

  45. And they wonder why no sane person who’s only agenda is to make it through their daily travails as they work to take care of their families and enjoy life takes them seriously anymore? Why we don’t buy into their ever cycling redux of doom? Why “climate change” remains at the bottom of the list of concerns for everyday people even in developed countries? Why we don’t trust our government nor the “scientists” they fund?

    The lies just never end and the hype has made us immune. God help us if a real natural crisis that is an emerging threat to humanity comes to pass. With the credibility of government “scientists” and those in academia destroyed, they can scream from the rooftops forever and we will just think they’re crying wolf again and go on not taking their claims of doom seriously.

    Climate change and now COVID has done much to expose the agenda to many who did not see it before. https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/07/02/explosive-about-all-these-new-positive-covid-cases-state-health-departments-manipulating-data-changing-definitions/

    • Absolutely right, and worse, given how many people graduating in the sciences go straight into bogus “climate change research,” there might not be anyone remotely competent to deal with such a crisis.

  46. As usual this kind of research appears to conflate the temperature changes on one part of the Antarctic continent to all of this massive continent.
    Just think of the temperature changes that happens to any one small area of the USA over any arbitrary short time period, and the averaged temperature across the whole of the USA over the same time period. Does the small area change tell you much about all of the USA? No it doesn’t!
    Now remember that the continent of Antarctica is so much larger than the USA …
    https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/581238main_USA_Antarctica_size-orig_full.jpg

    and that it is mostly high land rising to average of about 3,000 meters (~7,800 ft) above sea level (from sea level up to Vinson Massif, the highest peak in Antarctica at 4,892 m (16,050 ft)), so much of the temperature changes are NOT the same as temperature changes that happen at sea level.

Comments are closed.