West Antarctic temperature also displays a warming trend of about 0.1°C per decade over the same time period (Steig et al., 2009; [Reference needed: O’Donnell et al., ?]).
In fact he has only released the Figures from one chapter, not the text.
The text Terry quotes is from the ZOD not the FOD.
What does Jeff think of the implication that Steig et al and O’Donnell et al are in agreement about W Antarctica warming?
#2 The West had some warming but the methods both papers used caused bleeding of Peninsular trends into that region. I would have to go back and look but I believe Steig showed a lot more warming than we did in that area. Their methods were completely invalid though and any regions which happened to match were by luck only.
“What does Jeff think of the implication that Steig et al and O’Donnell et al are in agreement about W Antarctica warming?”
The entire premise of S(09) was that not only was the well-known Peninsula warming there, but it had spread to W. Antarctica (WA)- and it was important to show this even if some temperature increases from the Peninsula had to be transported there. By one of O(10) methods the warming of WA was shown to be just significant. O(10) was more important in what it showed as weaknesses and errors in S(09) methodology and using satellite measurements for trends over time and not limiting these measurements (suspect for stability over time) to obtaining spatial correlations.
I suspect the standard IPCC approach here will prevail and that is in referencing S(09) to make a point about AGW and without qualifiers about the quality of that reference. Quality of references is only noted when it goes against trend and cannot otherwise be ignored or misinterpreted.
What would be informative would be to see how this process will be handled in real time and determine whether the reviewers are really uninformed about counter evidence or alternatively have a special way of viewing evidence.
Also it should be noted that Antarctica warming and cooling tends be cyclical and that selecting the 1956 start can show significant trends for WA with the S(09) results that if pushed forward toward present time with the same S(09) results will no longer show significant trends . Ice core data shows this cyclical nature of Antarctica temperatures better as it goes further back in time – and is not in agreement with S(09).
surely the mature conclusion would be that there are mathematical ways of calculating temperatures for the rest of Antarctica but, without further empirical support, no claims can be supported about temperature trends.
Diogenes, as I view the process you get the paper published and then the IPCC or any other advocate/scientist can reference that paper with no questions asked. If pushed by an obstructive reviewer you might obtain a mention of a counter view from another published paper by the IPCC but you might also obtain a spin that the papers agree or better that there is no support for the counter view. After all it is review process and the final reviewers can spin it just about as they choose.
The sole purpose to the report is to cause confusion and alarm, it is propaganda pure and simple. Asking them to include the truth in the report is like asking the Government to decrease spending. Sometimes the only difference is the perspective.
A team has been reviewing the ZODs for only a couple of weeks and now the first mini-leak of a partial FOD has appeared, complete with a toned down “Hockey Stick”.
Will the Camel Team manage to produce anything worthwhile before a torrent of FODs and SODs makes us irrelevant?
Jeff, our society now seems to be in collapse and we are all trapped – together with the world leaders that created this mess – like rats on a sinking ship, . . .
Unless someone has the courage and the talents to work for the common good for all. Probably we will have to all agree to work together with those we have criticized.
That is the tone of discussions on E.M. Smith’s blog today:
No more Medieval Warm Period. Not even MWP. Just sad old MCA which apparently stands for Medieval Climate Anomaly. isn’t that pathetic? They’re trying to pass it off as an “anomaly” when what it was was a bloody hot period. Climate scientists who try to mess with history are surely bound to lose, right?
the Air Vent 
From 5-15:
So they are still promoting Steig’s version
In fact he has only released the Figures from one chapter, not the text.
The text Terry quotes is from the ZOD not the FOD.
What does Jeff think of the implication that Steig et al and O’Donnell et al are in agreement about W Antarctica warming?
#2 The West had some warming but the methods both papers used caused bleeding of Peninsular trends into that region. I would have to go back and look but I believe Steig showed a lot more warming than we did in that area. Their methods were completely invalid though and any regions which happened to match were by luck only.
“What does Jeff think of the implication that Steig et al and O’Donnell et al are in agreement about W Antarctica warming?”
The entire premise of S(09) was that not only was the well-known Peninsula warming there, but it had spread to W. Antarctica (WA)- and it was important to show this even if some temperature increases from the Peninsula had to be transported there. By one of O(10) methods the warming of WA was shown to be just significant. O(10) was more important in what it showed as weaknesses and errors in S(09) methodology and using satellite measurements for trends over time and not limiting these measurements (suspect for stability over time) to obtaining spatial correlations.
I suspect the standard IPCC approach here will prevail and that is in referencing S(09) to make a point about AGW and without qualifiers about the quality of that reference. Quality of references is only noted when it goes against trend and cannot otherwise be ignored or misinterpreted.
What would be informative would be to see how this process will be handled in real time and determine whether the reviewers are really uninformed about counter evidence or alternatively have a special way of viewing evidence.
Also it should be noted that Antarctica warming and cooling tends be cyclical and that selecting the 1956 start can show significant trends for WA with the S(09) results that if pushed forward toward present time with the same S(09) results will no longer show significant trends . Ice core data shows this cyclical nature of Antarctica temperatures better as it goes further back in time – and is not in agreement with S(09).
Kenneth
surely the mature conclusion would be that there are mathematical ways of calculating temperatures for the rest of Antarctica but, without further empirical support, no claims can be supported about temperature trends.
Diogenes, as I view the process you get the paper published and then the IPCC or any other advocate/scientist can reference that paper with no questions asked. If pushed by an obstructive reviewer you might obtain a mention of a counter view from another published paper by the IPCC but you might also obtain a spin that the papers agree or better that there is no support for the counter view. After all it is review process and the final reviewers can spin it just about as they choose.
“without further empirical support, no claims can be supported about temperature trends.”
But we had numerous different methods that resulted in matching our results. Nothing in history has ever matched Steig.
Why doesn’t that stop them?
Jeff Condon said – “Why doesn’t that stop them?”
The sole purpose to the report is to cause confusion and alarm, it is propaganda pure and simple. Asking them to include the truth in the report is like asking the Government to decrease spending. Sometimes the only difference is the perspective.
A team has been reviewing the ZODs for only a couple of weeks and now the first mini-leak of a partial FOD has appeared, complete with a toned down “Hockey Stick”.
Will the Camel Team manage to produce anything worthwhile before a torrent of FODs and SODs makes us irrelevant?
Jeff, our society now seems to be in collapse and we are all trapped – together with the world leaders that created this mess – like rats on a sinking ship, . . .
Unless someone has the courage and the talents to work for the common good for all. Probably we will have to all agree to work together with those we have criticized.
That is the tone of discussions on E.M. Smith’s blog today:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/02/02/poisoning-stalin-and-fdr/#comment
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
No more Medieval Warm Period. Not even MWP. Just sad old MCA which apparently stands for Medieval Climate Anomaly. isn’t that pathetic? They’re trying to pass it off as an “anomaly” when what it was was a bloody hot period. Climate scientists who try to mess with history are surely bound to lose, right?