Antarctic Peninsula Temperature Record – The Beginning
Posted by Jeff Id on February 1, 2009
I’m going to do my best to understand the RegEm Antarctic paper when the data is released. At this point, I’m pissed at Steig and Mann and I want to see if they pulled some of the shenanigans I now fully expect to find. It’s time to start looking at the data.
David Smith provided an interesting graph on a thread at Climate Audit link HERE). This plot is the dates corresponding to the actual record as collected from individual temperature stations on the antarctic peninsula. These are a substantial portion of the data they used to establish trend in the antarctic.
This isn’t exactly a clean continuous temperature record. William Chapman made a similar attempt to Setig to put the record together in a paper HERE where he looks at the temperature trends in the Antarctic. He does make some odd statements in the article, so I’m not sure about his bias.
Marshall (2002); British Antarctic Survey (1981); Scambos et al., 2000 and Kejna (2003)) show that, aside from the Antarctic Peninsula and the McMurdo area, one is hard-pressed to argue that warming has occurred, even at the Antarctic coastal stations away from the Peninsula and McMurdo.
Why are we pressed to argue anything has occured? The thought process is so ingrained in these scientists that it is almost impossible for them not to have a warming bias.
His final plot was the most interesting part.
Well you can sure see the peninsula. I find it pretty amazing that the place we have the most instruments and probably scientists is where the warming is the worst. What are the odds of that? Maybe we should call this the scientist locater plot.
Either way, I wouldn’t be surprised if the antarctic had warmed. Why wouldn’t it warm after all everything else did? Oddly, the satellite data show otherwise yet the MSU satellites can’t measure the lower troposphere that far south. There is also the little inconvenience of the growth in sea ice level down there.
Just a little snark I can’t resist adding.- Ice growth seems to be about the only thing Mann (a coauthor of Steig’s paper) won’t use for a temperature proxy.
jae said
Since the following comment was snipped last night at CA, I’ll try it here. Maybe someone can tell me how it violates CA policies.
Who cares if Antartica is warming, anyway? It has nothing to dow with AGW, since Most folks are in agreement that the planet has been steadily warming since the Little Ice Age.
Layman Lurker said
I think that it matters in the context of being consistent with what GCM’s project. I definitely think that this work needs to be looked at carefully and verified. On one hand, one tends not to trust any work comming from the “team”. On the other hand, you would think that Mann and Steig would be anxious to produce work with clear, supportable conclusions which no credible scientist would take issue with. The last thing the AGW movement needs is another questionable piece of science from the team.
Jeff Id said
I don’t know why it was snipped. Which thread did you put it on?
page48 said
Jeff,
“I find it pretty amazing that the place we have the most instruments and probably scientists is where the warming is the worst. What are the odds of that? Maybe we should call this the scientist locater plot.”
Likewise, what are the odds that mankind, in it’s infinite ignorance, managed to accidentally mask and/or mitigate AGW to some degree with CFC’s and/or man made aerosols? Quite a feat.
page48 said
should have been “its”
Chris H said
@Jae
At a guess, you shouldn’t have mentioned the Little Ice Age, and especially how the world has been continuously warming since then (which can’t all be put down to man-made CO2).
Jeff Id said
#6 You’re probably right, I think Steve may agree with the comment but it was the editorializing which might have done it. So far I’ve been lucky over there and not been snipped, it’ll happen someday though. My Irish temper is bound to get the best of me.
Layman Lurker said
Speaking of CA, some interesting stuff going on their right now wrt west antarctic data. Read the comments after the post to get the latest:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5044
Jeff Id said
#8,
I’ve been emailing back and forth with Steve about this. I have a certain amount of determination right now on the antarctic paper simply because of the way they treated me. I think Steve is going to find most of the things wrong himself but I’m going to do my best on this one. One thing for sure, the data is too sparse to make the conclusions they do, another thing is the text describes the use of modified statistical methods. In team world that hasn’t worked out too well in the past, there has to be some magic in there.
James Mayeau said
I don’t try to comment at climate audit anymore – the stuff they do is beyond my ability to add a useful post, and more often then not that’s what Steve is doing by snipping a post. He’ll snip a post because he wants to focus the commentary on the issue at hand. Without his snips of side issues (which might be good things to read in a different context) alot of pertinant information would be lost in cross talk.
It’s best not to take it personal.
James Mayeau said
Back on topic – it’s definitely the end of Steig’s libel case against Marc Morano.