Latest News
August 1, 2008
Wall Street Journal
Reid Wilson, Real Clear Politics
Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post
July 30, 2008
Jay Ambrose, DC Examiner
Cooler Heads Bookstore

Visit the Cooler Heads Bookstore at Amazon.com

Newsletter Sign-Up
Email*
First Name*
Last Name*
State
* Required

Upcoming Events

There are currently no upcoming events.

» view past events

Antarctic Temperatures: 1958-2002

Chapman, W.L. and Walsh, J.E.
December 19, 2007
Source:
Journal of Climate

What was done
Monthly surface air temperatures from manned and automatic weather stations along with ship/buoy observations from the high-latitude Southern Hemisphere were used to develop a gridded database with resolution appropriate for applications ranging from spatial trend analyses to climate change impact assessments. The data came from a total of 460 locations in the Southern Hemisphere. Temperatures over land were obtained from 19 manned stations of the World Monthly Surface Station Climatology network, most of which were located in coastal areas of the Antarctic continent, plus 73 stations of the Automated Weather Station network, many of which were situated further inland. Temperatures over the sea were obtained from the International Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data repository. Of particular importance in their melding of these diverse data, the authors used correlation length scaling "to enhance information content while limiting the spatial extent of influence of the sparse data in the Antarctic region."

What was learned
Chapman and Walsh's final results are presented in the figure below.


Annual surface air temperature anomalies relative to the 1958-2002 mean for the region of the Southern Hemisphere extending from 60 to 90°S. Adapted from Chapman and Walsh (2007).

What it means
The data in the figure above clearly indicate a post-1958 warming of Antarctica and much of the surrounding Southern Ocean. From approximately 1970 to the end of the record, however, temperatures of the region simply fluctuated around an anomaly mean of about 0.12°C, neither warming nor cooling over the final 32 years of the record.

This latter observation is truly amazing in light of the fact that the region of study includes the Antarctic Peninsula, which experienced phenomenal warming during this period. Nevertheless, the mean surface air temperature of the entire region changed not at all, over a period of time that saw the air's CO2 concentration rise by approximately 47 ppm (about 15% of its 1970 value, as per the Mauna Loa CO2 record).

Clearly, the entire continent of Antarctica, together with much of the Southern Ocean that surrounds it, has been completely oblivious to the supposedly "unprecedented" radiative impetus for warming produced by anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases over the last three decades of the 20th century ... and even a bit beyond.

 

Author:
Chapman, W.L. and Walsh, J.E.
Attached Document Link Text:
Download the complete document (PDF) here.

whatever

in case you havent heard THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GLOBAL WARMING!!!!

I must say what you saying

I must say what you saying is untrue.
Global warming is real. We wouldnt be going through changes in the universal like this.

Global waring

For those who do not see changes to the weather, well they cannot have been around very long. Global warming is a natural thing for the planet. But because it has a virus (man) its changes probably be on a much slower scale, but man has with his waste and consumption sped it up. leave a piece of meat in a cool room and it will take time to rot, but put it outside and the result is different. Man's natural greed will be his own down fall. As with techology soon it will reach its peak, and we will diversify only to find ours selves in a bigger piece of poop. Its about time we started recycling all that we use. if we keep taking, something will have to give. What replaces the oil that took a real long time to come about.

baby-bad-bitch your are so

baby-bad-bitch your are so stupid. Shut your mouth.

I must say, I am more

I must say, I am more inclined to believe Chapman and Walsh then one "baby-bad-bitch"...

Global Warming?

I'm not inclined to believe 90% of the rhetoric being spouted about global Warming. If you believe the harbingers of disaster we are in a period of unprecedented warming. If you look at the figures the upper atmosphere is not warmiong nearly as bad or as quick as the doomsayers pedicted, and surface temperature rises owe more to bad record keeping and changes in land usage (urban heat island effect, increased crop usage for rape and bio-fuel crops) than CO2 increases. water vapour increases and methane increases pose equal, and arguably worse, threats than hydrocarbon emissions.

What global warming?

I am still freezing my butt off this year. The .6 or .7 degree gain has just been eliminated. You watch, they will now start yelling, ice age. How arrogant can the human be when they think they control the Earth and its weather. I guess God died and left them in control. Kind of stupid huh.

If global warming isn't

If global warming isn't really here then why all the fuss about it? The very fact that there exisits a group of people actively denying hard scientific evidence makes you wonder could there be a political reason behind it? Can you really ignore the signs all over - melting ice, warmer sea surfaces leading to stronger storms, erratic weather conditions all over the world. Why does a simple concept like the greenhouse effect escape minds of supposibly intellectual beings? Or are we conveniently ignoring the signs and waiting for something really big 'n messy to happen before accpeting?

If global warming isn't

If global warming isn't really here then why all the fuss about it? ignorance is the answer. but before i explain the how and why i think a brief review on man made global warming theory is in order to explain what you are truly believing in.
The theory in and of itself has been around for some time and though originally based on greenhouse gas theory its evidence is a little bit less impressive. the original link to man made causes came about as a result of a study on historical tree rings. it found that at roughly the same time as the industrial revolution there was an increase in growth amongst a large number of the samples. Flaws for this theory come from its assumptions. there are several factors that go into an increased tree ring growth, rainfall nutrients and to a lesser degree temperature. their result should be questioned due to the variables within their sample. they were relying on specifically preserved tree rings from a variety of species with a variety of microclimates. their assumptions were also fundamentally wrong in regards to CO2 emissions during the industrial revolution almost everything was run on hydropower due to the inefficeincies in engines in addition because people were living closer together it required less fuel per person to heat their living spaces. the second shot in the arm came from climate models that decided based on man made inputs that they were more accurate when CO2 emissions were counted for. more accurate does not mean exact,before and after the target time frame the model has poor accuracy at best. the data for this model was eventually corrected by nasa finding that 1938 was the hottest year on record not 1998. im willing to bet carbon emmissions were not at a peak during the great depression. The final push came from al gore's presentation, political motives are probably important. even this was later found to be riddled with innacurracies as can be found by the list of 11 inaccuracies in the political presentation. so why is it that people continue to believe it's man's fault regardless of facts like the earth has been warmer before, or that global warming is affecting other planets even though man was not present at either location. Why do they continue to believe it is a massive threat to be dealt with even though surface air and water temperatures as well as deep ocean readings have found that if anything the temperature is dropping. the answers have nothing to do with the science it has to do with psychology. we believe in global warming because it soothes our personal fable that we ware more than an dust might on a giant rock hurtling through the universe. It is reinforced by our peers noone wants to stick out and it is further purpetrated by the authority figures around us. i myself stood out and argued with a professor on the subject refuting every argument he had with evidence, he finally resorted to asking the class if there was anyone else who didnt believe. noone raised their hand even though i knew 2-3 people who were very outspoking against man made global warming. we like to conform and most human beings dont look at any research relying solely on our peers for knowledge. thats why so many people believe it, and it has nothing to do with the evidence. why is there a group of people fighting this, because they are like me. they lose 25-30% of their paycheck to the government. If i am going to lose 25-30% of my 10.00$ per hour wage i dont want a dime of it spent on methods that are unproven and for a theory that is wholly unsubstantiated. i dont want to pay for a solution that might be effective for a problem that might exist. I also know that when human beings are whipped into a furvor they make stupid rules and policies. it happened during the crusades, in nazi germany, the middle east and now policy that has affected the price of food and gas. thats why people like me waste our time writing essays like this. For the record i have a bachelors in psychology and a background in chemical and biological engineering.

As a psychology major you

As a psychology major you should realize that the anti climate change dogma that you spew is done for the same reason pro climate change people spew theirs. Reality is always stuck on the middle.