A recent article in the online journal Futurism, titled, “Scientists Horrified as Huge Heatwave Hits Antarctica,” claims climate change caused a “huge heatwave” in Antarctica, bringing temperatures on the Antarctic Peninsula nearly 36°F above average and briefly pushing readings above freezing. This is highly misleading. A single weather event says nothing meaningful about long-term climate trends, and the article ignores both Antarctica’s enormous geographic variability and the exceptionally cold conditions simultaneously occurring elsewhere on the continent. The heatwave Futurism suggested wasn’t a continent-wide crisis, but was a localized, unalarming event.
The article is largely a rewrite of a Guardian story focused on temperatures measured on the Trinity Peninsula, the northernmost extension of Antarctica. Researchers reported temperatures reaching approximately 15.4°C (59.7°F) during a brief warm spell on June 6.
What readers are not told is that the Antarctic Peninsula is not representative of Antarctica as a whole.
In fact, the warmest part of Antarctica is the Antarctic Peninsula. Nicknamed the “banana belt,” it stretches northward toward South America and experiences milder maritime conditions. During the austral summer, temperatures can occasionally exceed 10°C (50°F). The peninsula extends northward toward South America and is heavily influenced by maritime weather patterns and ocean currents. It is by far the warmest part of Antarctica and has long experienced periodic warm-air intrusions, föhn wind events, rain episodes, and above-freezing temperatures. These events are unusual, but they are not unprecedented.
In fact, the article itself acknowledges that the warmth was associated with “extremely strong westerlies.” In other words, this was a weather event driven by warmer atmospheric circulation patterns, not a direct measurement of climate change.
What Futurism misses is the fact that weather is not climate.
Climate is measured over decades. A single day, a single week, or even a single season tells us very little about long-term temperature trends. If every unusually warm day is presented as proof of climate catastrophe, then intellectual consistency would require every unusually cold day to be presented as evidence against it. The media rarely applies that standard.
The timing of this story is especially revealing because while headlines were breathlessly reporting a temporary warm spell on the Antarctic Peninsula, much of the rest of Antarctica was experiencing brutally cold conditions.
According to observations highlighted by meteorologist Cap Allon, the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station recorded a temperature of -73.6°C (-100.5°F) on June 16, with a daily maximum of only -69.9°C (-93.8°F). That was the South Pole’s first sub–70°C reading since 2023.
One part of Antarctica briefly experiences an unusual warm episode, while another part of the continent drops below -100°F. That is how weather works on a continent larger than the United States and Mexico combined.
Yet only one of those events, specifically the anomalous high temperature one, generated international headlines.
The article further claims that the heatwave follows “decades of increasingly warm temperatures observed on the white continent.” That statement is false.
Antarctica is not warming uniformly. While portions of the Antarctic Peninsula experienced warming during parts of the late twentieth century, numerous studies have shown little warming or even cooling across large sections of East Antarctica, with East Antarctica making up the bulk of the continent. Antarctic sea ice has also exhibited substantial variability from year to year and decade to decade.
The continent is governed by complex interactions involving ocean currents, atmospheric circulation, volcanic influences (including subsurface heating under West Antarctica where the peninsula lies), sea ice dynamics, and natural climate oscillations. That complexity disappears in Futurism’s opinionated article.
Instead, readers are given the now-familiar formula: identify a dramatic weather event, attach it to climate change, mention the “Doomsday Glacier,” and imply catastrophe is around the corner. Climate Realism has debunked claims of the Thwaites Glacier’s imminent collapse repeatedly, previously. The article’s reference to Thwaites Glacier is a particularly misleading red herring, because it has nothing to do with the reported weather event. The mention serves one purpose: reinforcing a broader climate crisis narrative.
This is increasingly common in climate reporting. Any unusual weather event becomes an opportunity to recycle the same talking points about glaciers, sea level rise, tipping points, and future disasters, regardless of whether they are directly related to the event being discussed.
Concerning the Antarctic Peninsula, the facts are these: Antarctica has always been susceptible to periodic warm-air intrusions because of its geography and proximity to relatively warmer ocean waters; the Southern Ocean, atmospheric rivers, and strong westerly winds can occasionally transport substantial heat into the region. These processes existed long before climate change became a political issue.
Most importantly, a single warm event cannot establish a trend. Scientists understand this principle when analyzing climate data. Journalists should understand it as well.
A proper climate analysis requires decades of observations across the continent, careful examination of regional variability, and separation of weather noise from climate signals, not the slap dash presentation of misleading, sensational claims assembled by Futurism.
Antarctica remains the coldest continent on Earth. While the Antarctic Peninsula briefly experienced unusually mild conditions, the South Pole itself was simultaneously plunging near or below -100°F in multiple other locations.
That fact alone should remind readers that one weather event, no matter how dramatic the headline, is not evidence of a “climate emergency,” it’s simply weather. One warm spell on the Antarctic Peninsula becomes proof of climate catastrophe, while simultaneous temperatures below -100°F at the South Pole are ignored. That’s not objective journalism, that’s agenda-driven alarmism.
Anthony Watts is a senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute. Watts has been in the weather business both in front of, and behind the camera as an on-air television meteorologist since 1978, and currently does daily radio forecasts. He has created weather graphics presentation systems for television, specialized weather instrumentation, as well as co-authored peer-reviewed papers on climate issues. He operates the most viewed website in the world on climate, the award-winning website wattsupwiththat.com.
Originally posted at ClimateREALISM
One Momentarily Hot Spot on Antarctica Doesn’t Prove a Climate Crisis
Apparently so-
Scientists warn that parts of the planet might freeze – these are the safe spots | Watch
If you’re a bit confused just remember the science is settled
Future regional climate changes are more uncertain than changes in the global average temperature, which is determined by the Earth’s energy balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing longwave radiation (OLR).
The basic physics is settled: increasing greenhouse gas concentrations absorb more OLR and re emit some of it back toward the surface, reducing heat loss to space and warming the planet. This is why scientists expect global warming to continue as GHG concentrations rise.
“The basic physics is settled: increasing greenhouse gas concentrations absorb more OLR and re emit some of it back toward the surface, reducing heat loss to space and warming the planet.”
How much does it warm the planet?
Oh, that’s right: Nobody knows. People who claim they know are just guessing.
What about negative feedback? Some people claim CO2 has a net cooling effect.
The truth is Climate Alarmists cannot successfully assign any particular facet of the Earth’s climate or weather to CO2, including temperature increases.
It’s all speculation, assumptions and unsubstantiated assertions. That is what Alarmist climate science is all about.
The IR is reemitted in a spherical 360° so less than half is directed towards the surface.
Not exactly true. If there are sufficient molecules in a volume to ignore atomic randomness, the volume emits the same amount in all directions based upon its temperature. Although you have made the point that the same amount goes up as goes down, it is not half and half based on temperature.
That’s only true when the “energy” is reemitted. In the lower atmosphere, that energy is transferred to other molecules before it has a chance to be reemmitted.
Net radiative flux is determined by temperature difference.
CO2 does not affect the lapse rate that sets the vertical temperature gradient.
If there is no change in temperature difference, there cannot be a change in net radiative flux.
About 9% is absorbed by the surface.
I believe that Arrhenius published a paper in 1908 in which he concluded that increasing the carbonic acid (CO2) in the atmosphere would cause cooling.
Now you can explain the GLACIATION the Earth experienced when atmospheric CO2 was roughly TEN TIMES today’s atmospheric CO2.
Observations Trump theory, or in this case, hypothesis.
The science is not settled.
CO2 is only one factor among a multitude affecting climate. Solar variation, cloud cover, heat transport in atmosphere via convection in thunderstorms, and ocean currents all effect climate in unsettled magnitudes.
Science cannot yet explain why the 1930’s were warm and subsequent decades cooler—-even as CO2 rose. The recent decades of mild warming correlate to a decrease in global cloud cover. Science is not settled on the significance of this unexplained change in cloud cover.
False, as shown in one simple graph.
Please feel free to explain how the planet would warm when the strength of the greenhouse effect remains constant.
What is the Climate Sensitivity to a doubling of CO2? If the physics is “settled,” it should be trivial to provide us with a commonly accepted value, with a small uncertainty, for this critical calculation.
I agree, all other things being equal, the planet will warm as GHG’s increase.
The problem for you is the fact that this warming will be at most a few tenths of a degree celsius.
This warming is not only, not a problem, it’s entirely beneficial. Both to man and the planet as a whole.
The enhanced CO2 is also entirely beneficial.
All other things are rarely equal.
The so‑called “global average temperature” is ultimately a statistical construct. It’s a single number created by combining countless local measurements – each taken in very different environments – and treating them as if they represent a uniform global system.
In reality, there is no single global temperature that anyone can directly observe. There are only local temperatures, averaged in various ways.
This raises an obvious question: how meaningful is a global average temperature when, before the satellite era, measurements across large parts of the planet were sparse or entirely absent?
Actually, measured data shows that the tiny amount absorbed by enhanced CO2 is passed to other frequencies, and there is an increase of OLR over a much broader band.
“,,,increasing greenhouse gas concentrations absorb more OLR,,,”
According to that hypothesis/theory, if I keep applying heat to water at STP it will boil at 100c then continue to increase in temperature?
Experiments were done that showed the absorption by CO2 actually levels out at around 280-300ppm.
Can Futurism and The Grauniad do a modicum of research into Forum Winds before badly writing Climate Corn?
Predictive text? I’m sure you mean foehn winds.
And “climate porn” not corn. 🙂
You knew what was intended although it wasn’t used.
Autoreplace SUCKS!
Don’t you hate it when spell check substitutes a completely different word for the one you wrote! 🙂
Autoreplace sucks!
Especially after I had caught it and changed it back to
forumfoehnAuto replace can be turned off.
Unfortunately not on my device
” If every unusually warm day is presented as proof of climate catastrophe, then intellectual consistency would require every unusually cold day to be presented as evidence against it. The media rarely applies that standard.”
The media doesn’t need to. An increase in average temperature makes unusually warm weather more common (see distribution shift below), so highlighting those events reflects an observable trend. Skeptics who point to occasional cold snaps as evidence against global warming are, however, cherry picking.
So show us the average conditions for the “banana belt” portion of Antarctica. I mean it is supposed to be globull. 😉
Alaska says “Hold My Beer”
Tuesday afternoon’s temperature hit 89 degrees in Deadhorse, Alaska. That shattered the location’s all-time record of 85 degrees set July 13, 2016.
Note – Deadhorse is above the Arctic Circle.
On top of that, it’s the hottest temperature ever reliably measured so far north in the state, according to a post on X by Brian Brettschneider, an Alaska-based climatologist.
The temperature is short of Alaska’s all-time record for any location in the state which is 100 degrees set in Fort Yukon on June 27, 1915. That location is farther south in Alaska’s interior and doesn’t receive cooling influence from the Arctic Ocean in the summer like Deadhorse sees.
It doesn’t work the way you’ve displayed in the graphic with the bell curve. If the overall average temperature increases, most of the increase is on the cold end. The magnitude and/or frequency of the warm spells may not even change at all. Extreme cold events, on the other hand, should become less common and less pronounced.
Meaningless chart, based on mindless anti-science conjecture.
Lets ignore the unscaled y axis of your bell curve, AI tells me the average temperature difference between the equator and the poles is approximately 80°C so referring to your ‘current climate’ curve each x axis division would represent about 40C.
Shifting the curve half a division represents an increase in the global average temperature of about 20C.
That is extreme global warming far outside any sane predictions, 0/10 try again, redo your graph showing a average T increase of say 2C.
You’re interpreting the graph incorrectly. The x axis is not the equator to pole temperature range. It represents the distribution of temperature outcomes for a given place/season relative to its normal climate. A modest increase in the mean shifts the distribution, making the former hot tail more common. The exact y-axis scaling is irrelevant to that basic point.
OK take Chicago where the annual difference mean maximum to mean minimum is about 60C making the x axis divisions around 30C, your climate shift is around + 15C way outside any sane predictions.
A more realistic graph would indicate that warm extremes are very marginally more likely and cold extremes marginally less likely in a slightly warming climate and only marginally warmer than would otherwise have been the case but not as eye-catching.
And distinct weather events are irrelevant.
Yes.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/06/23/no-futurism-one-momentarily-hot-spot-on-antarctica-doesnt-prove-a-climate-crisis/#comment-4210193
Why didn’t you just cut and paste your earlier response, to which your posted link takes one?
Does that explain why the hottest summer temperatures in my area were in the 1930s and have yet to be surpassed?
Your graph is not of actual data. It is an artist’s view of what it might look like. This isn’t science, it is being a simple troll with made up graphs.
temperatures do not average. It is a conceptual fallacy. Think about it, is there any such thing as average beauty?
Anthony Watts clearly has no objection to temperature averages – the right sidebar of his blog literally displays the monthly average temperature anomaly from the USCRN.
You may want to explain your concern about averages to him rather than to me.
Anthony Watts knows very well how many of us deplore graphs of averages. Especially averages of mid-range temperatures with no indication of the variance of the data.
What you are using is an augmentative fallacy. Tu quoque (“you too”) — a subtype of the appeal to hypocrisy. You can’t justify yourself being incorrect just because something else is incorrect. That is hypocritical.
Oh, how I wish there were such a thing as average beauty. 🙂
Philip:
Yes. It depends upon the closing time of the bar. /sarc 😉
From NOAA: (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)
“The minimum temperature trend outcomes after 1985 climb significantly faster than do the maximum measured temperature trend outcomes. Since the average temperature is not a measured value but instead the calculated mathematical average of the minimum and maximum measured temperatures {(TMax + TMin)/2} the average temperature calculated trend outcome is controlled and dominated by the much larger increase occurring in the minimum measured temperature trend versus the maximum measured temperature trend.”
Your ‘graph’ is fiction, an increase in average can occur even if the max temp comes down.
That is correct.
One of the main points of the ATL article, however, was to indicate that “consensus” advocates who “point to occasional heatwaves (/ foehn wind conditions)” and loudly proclaim them to be “evidence for (anthropogenic) global warming” are just as wrong … to exactly the same extent … and for exactly the same reasons.
.
I am unable to find the equivalent of the above “illustrative graphic of what will definitely happen to the future climate” in the IPCC’s WG-I assessment report for the AR6 document cycle (2021/2), but managed to dig up the following from the AR5 cycle.
AR5, WG-I assessment report (2013), FAQ 2.2 : Have There Been Any Changes in Climate Extremes?, Figure 1, page 218.
Very odd …
Image loaded “inline” OK immediately after posting, even after logging out, but now the IPCC website complains about “hot-linking” images directly (again ?, I’ve seen this behaviour before, on an “apparently random” basis).
As it is difficult to imagine something more “in the public domain” than an IPCC assessment report, and I’m showing a lot less (/ fewer ?) than 10% of the overall figures, I’ll retry it indirectly, via my local hard disk.
Since my OP I also came across Figure 1.8 in the AR5 WG-I report, which looks like a more direct “inspiration” for Eldrosion’s OP.
The start of the original caption, on page 134 :
Typical climate science. A Gaussian distribution, where uncertainty disappears and everything is 100% accurate.
Here is another example of what the distribution may look like. No new extremes, just a skewed distribution. Have you plotted the data and used statistical tests to determine if it is actually Gaussian?
Pardon the mixed colors, I tired of having CoPilot mess up the graphs.
And here it was I thought Climate Science was Screwing us. It’s actually Skewing us.
Skeptics who point to occasional cold snaps as evidence against global warming are, however, cherry picking. Trying to have your cake and eat it too???
Your graph assumes a normal, unskewed distribution. That is not the case. There is a long tail on the cold side for global temperatures. The record high for Earth has not changed in 113-years. The average is increasing primarily because the lows are increasing. Your ‘cartoon’ is misleading.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/23/the-meaning-and-utility-of-averages-as-it-applies-to-climate/
Except it doesn’t. Per global warming “theory”, the so-called global average temperature (itself a meaningless arithmetic artifact) is increased my rising minimum temperatures, mostly at night, mostly in winter, and mostly in high latitudes.
Like most alarmists, you seem to be convinced that even a few tenths of a degree of warming will be catastrophic.
Let’s be frank, their claim is BS
Yes, every few years this same situation occurs and Climate Alarmists attribute the situation to CO2.
It warms for a couple of days in the portion of the Antarctic located the farthest north and Climate Change Propagandists seize on it every time. They don’t tell you why this warm spell only lasts a few days. Apparently, the CO2 that caused this warmth moves on to other areas after a few days and things then cool down again.
Climate Change Propagandists need to be held accountable for their attempts to destroy society. They have done enormous damage with their lies and distortions about CO2.
“Apparently, the CO2 that caused this warmth moves on to other areas after a few days and things then cool down again.”
That is despite CO2 being “well mixed” eh? It’s well mixed AND it moves.
The Trans-Reality Alarmists speck with forked tongue.
BS indeed, it’s winter down there and winters can be either freaking cold or mild AND be regionally different.
Seems so the current “unprecedented heatwave”, formally known as SUMMER, has indeed fried a couple of useless and braindead hardhat fillers to go out and publish this alarmist nonsense.
Getting pretty annoying from my point of view. They should better publish their actual bowel movements, since they’re dedicated to nothing else than shit…
“BS indeed, it’s winter down there and winters can be either freaking cold or mild AND be regionally different.
Seems so the current “unprecedented heatwave”, formally known as SUMMER, has indeed fried a couple of useless and braindead hardhat fillers to go out and publish this alarmist nonsense.”
So, do you think Antarctica is currently experiencing summer or winter?
So 30 degrees above the historical average? Monthly average, annual average? Average – some warmer some cooler, but certainly not hot. 😉
“This extreme event is associated with rare meteorological conditions.”
https://www.climameter.org/20260606-antarctic-heatwave
So not climate then.
Right. It’s not climate, it is weather. Recurring weather, btw. This isn’t the first time this has happened.
At -100ºF in the middle of Antarctica.. Yes.. That is winter. !!
The tip of the peninsula regularly gets arrant warm temperatures.
They are associated with a certain pattern of WEATHER.
It is only at 60ºS and Deception Island actually has pools that you can swim in because they are heated by volcanic action.
Similar pools in parts of Greenland too.
Yes, part of the Icelandic magma sac protrudes under Greenland.
Do you think those idiots publishing this crap are currently residing in Antartica? That should answer your question…
Yes, I picked that up too. June in Antarctica is equivalent to December in the Northern Hemisphere. It would be very unlikely for a high temperature record to be set there at that time of year. Suspiciously so, indeed. As you suggest, this looks like an attempt to cash in on the (manufactured) alarm about current temperatures in Northern Europe, which is not far short of 20,000km away and experiencing the opposite season from the site in Antarctica.
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-are-foehn-winds.html
I’m a bit surprised that the volcanicity of the peninsula and surrounding islands isn’t mentioned.
There are a number of active volcanoes there, not least Deception Island in the South Shetland Group, which used to be a dependency of the Falkland Islands.
I remember reading criticism of a “Climate Change” hoax article on WUWT in its early days. I seem to remember that it was written by Gavin Schmidt, around the time he took over from Jim Hansen as ‘Leader’ of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. So some time around 2004 or a bit later?
It was then pointed out that some of the hoax paper’s alleged measuring point were positioned incorrectly by hundreds of miles and that at least one was in fact long buried bu 20 feet (?) of snow.
Still, Schmidt and all his chums have made a good living out of this scam for decades, now. Even Mann has avoided jail, so far.
Yes, Deception Island is classed as an active volcano..
The whole area is geodynamically active.
Of course the climate alarmists would be attracted to a place called “Deception Island”….
I would like to see them all go to jail because they have lied people into a panic, which has caused them to do some very stupid, detrimental, and very expensive things as a result.
I don’t know that them going to jail will ever happen, but these Climate Alarmists *are* losing the argument. All that effort they made to fool the world, and they are still losing the argument they are trying to make. That must sting a little bit for these guys who think they are so smart. They are Losers in the end.
They are just waiting for the Democrats to regain majorities in the House and the Senate.
Just look how far that peninsular extends. Note the Antarctic circle. Now look at where the matching point is for the Arctic circle. It’s around Sundsvall (about halfway up the Swedish coast); it’s south of Andalsnes in Norway; it’s in the Faroe Islands; it’s about 1/4th of the way from Anchorage to Fairbanks in Alaska. Fairbanks record max temperature for June is 36C/96F and for July it’s 37C / 99F.
I notice that we’re not told anything about upper or lower level winds drawing warm air from the north (i.e. nearer the equator) down onto peninsular. Heat waves are typically caused by such movement of hot air. How CO2 emissions are supposed to cause this is never explained by alarmists.
That’s because Climate Alarmists can’t show a connection between CO2 and localized weather events. Or a connection to CO2 and anything to do with Earth’s weather.
All Climate Alarmists have is unsubstantiated assertions about CO2 and Earth’s weather and climate.
It’s been 50 years and they still can’t establish a connection between CO2 and the Earth’s weather and climate. So they pretend there is a connection. It’s all they have left.
They like to point to their new toy, the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2, which purports to provide a world map of CO2 emissions, but shows nothing more than columns of ordinary air uplifted by the continents and by tropical thunderstorms.
The Carbon dioxide variations in the stratosphere over Japan, Scandinavia and Antarctica show very little difference between the lower-troposphere and stratospheric concentrations other than a small time lag.
As for the observatory, the colorful maps the OCO-2 produces are from artifacts created by a discrepancy between the O2 levels measured passively and the CO2 levels measured actively by the radiosonde. Then, this mix of spatially unrelated data is adjusted to match ground-level CO2 ppv readings. See The on-orbit performance of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2
(OCO-2) instrument and its radiometrically calibrated products.
OCO-2 isn’t so new. It is 12-years old, which is getting a little long in the ‘2th’ for a satellite.
While the location is contiguous with what is called the Antarctic Peninsula, it is not even within the Antarctic Circle.
It would be good if people would study Ice Core Records. Ice accumulation in Polar Regions is always more in warmer times and less in colder times, Warmer times are necessary to replenish the sequestered ice on land. The ice is always flowing into the oceans and cooling the oceans, when there is enough ice flowing into the salt water currents, the saltwater is chilled to form sea ice and greatly reduce evaporation and snowfall, in these cold times, ice on land is depleting. When the ice is depleted, less ice is flowing into the salt water currents from the tropics and the sea ice is removed, evaporation and snowfall replenish the ice sequestered on land until the ice is flowing more and rebuilding the sea ice. This is a natural self correcting process, it must alternate between warmer and colder, between not enough ice on land and too much ice on land, there is no stable condition in between.
We no longer, and have not for many, many years, enjoyed objective journalism.
Schools now conduct classes in advocacy journalism, which is disappointedly pursued by many.
All advocacy journalism is, in a nut shell, is an editorial or opinion piece published as news.
I agree.
I don’t know why you got a down vote for your truthful comment, but I fixed that . 🙂
How can “advocacy” for anything be anything other than mindless regurgitation? Maybe these AIs will prove useful yet!
Don’t bet on it! My experience with LLMs is that their initial response is little better than a “mindless regurgitation.” They have to be pushed to defend their boiler plate, and when they back down, ask them to remember that they recanted their first claims.
This is the recent paper on CO2 absorption: Saturation of the infrared absorption by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere | International Journal of Modern Physics B, https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217979220502938
Any data set with ascending values is mistaken for its climate prediction capability. The data sets don’t matter because the atmosphere is already saturated with those very same greenhouse gases. In other words, more gas won’t make a difference. Except for Methane, which oxidizes into CO2 due to sunlight, so that Methane can’t have a long-term effect, either. Sites that still hold up CO2 as a villain also include Methane.
The additional warming caused by a saturated gas is too small to be anything but theoretical.
(You’d think Anthony would be out of a job, but no!)