NASA Data: all 13 Antarctic Peninsula & nearby Island Stations Show Cooling Trend Over Past 21 Years! This is the area which alarmists say is threatening to melt down and cause sea level rise to accelerate rapidly. Yes the data from NASA from 1998 to 2019 shows cooling at every station in the area, some up to a full degree in just 21 years.

There hasn’t been any warming there so far this century. Data source: NASA GISS, Version 4 unadjusted.

What is the betting they will be rushing to use some undisclosed bull droppings homogenisation formula to eliminate this fact from their records, but they are a bit late.

So there you are fellers, right out of your song book, but without cheating, it sure AINT singing your song.

Dear Hasbeen,

How's it going old cock.

Still feeding us stuff from Notrickszone?

So they pick a bunch of stations out on the Antartic penninsula then announce breathlessly there is no global warming?

Well this is the temperature graph of the Henry station a little over a degree from the pole.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=AYM00089108&ds=14&dt=1

Here is the one from Nico, also within a degree of the pole;

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=AYM00089799&dt=1&ds=14

And finally one from Amundsen Scott, once again within a degree of the pole.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=AYW00090001&dt=1&ds=14

So to the peninsula. Base Marambino which Notrickszone mentions actually has records going back to the early seventies but of course they don't put up the whole graph. Well here is is;

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=AYM00089055&dt=1&ds=14

Only an utter fool would sit there and claim there is no warming trend in this graph and that all is well. Are you that fool?

Interesting. I would put good money on the usual suspects coming up with something to negate this information, though.

You can go to the map here:

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data_v4/

I had a look at temperature records for a number of bases and did not note a common trend one way or the other.

Cheers

For example, here is the plot from Davis:

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=AYM00089571&dt=1&ds=14

If there were a big warming trend, wouldn't all the bases show it? Isn't it supposed to be getting warmer much faster at the poles?

Cheers

SteeleRedux,

Hasbeen has hit upon something that actually has some truth about it. It appears that areas in the Antartic have been experiencing very low temperatures for several years.

However it is nothing to do with global warming let alone be an indicator that the planet is not getting hotter.

Something just as threatening to the existence of the human race is apparently the cause of colder conditions in the Antartic. Something extremely deadly is driving these colder conditions. Can you guess what it might be?

Come off the raw prawn SR, this is the area the scammers have been claiming it was melting, & the melt water would sink New York.

Those inland station temperatures are very doubtful, as much of the figures are guessed, not measured. Even if the data is true, it is meaningless. The temperatures at those altitudes are never going to cause ice to melt.

Interestingly the cooling area is one where many volcanic hot spots & probable actual volcano under ice volcano have been found. If it is still cooling with volcanic heat from below, it totally knocks out the global warming theory, that the poles will heat most.

The whole fraud is over fellows, the planet is about to shoot down the theory, & the sun spot shortage will make it colder again.

More is the pity, the planet would be better for a few degrees warming.

Hasbeen,

You are wrong. It has nothing to do with a cooling effect produced by local volcanoes.

Tim Flannery guessed the cause in one of his books, saying at the time that it was his educated guess that needed to be tested by scientists to see if if was correct.

Then last year it was revealed by NASA satellites that China is pouring massive amounts of CFCs into the atmosphere in complete disregard of the Montreal Protocol.

Result: Exactly what Flannery had guessed. The hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica was opening up again producing localised cold spots in its vicinity.

I would expect someone like you who is the only ever recipient of a BSc(Eng) from Sydney Uni to recognise the consequences of this but I guess you are also one on those who deny the existence of ozone depletion for the simple reason that it is the scientists who came up with it and not you.

If Antarctica is cooler as a result of the ozone hole, then it is a clear demonstration of the usefulness of geoengineering. Here we have all these global warming enthusiasts terrified that Antarctica will melt, dramatically increasing sea levels in the process, yet they vilify China for doing something that will delay that prospect.

The only problem with Tim's story is that the Ohole was the smallest on record last year.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2019/2019-ozone-hole-is-the-smallest-on-record-since-its-discovery

A graph of atmospheric cfc concentrations shows a gradual decline of cfc-11, cfc-12 and cfc-113 from early 2000s, but an increase in halon-1301, used in fire extinguishers, and a dramatic increase in SF6, an anti-arching gas used in wind turbines.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Southern-Hemisphere-atmospheric-concentrations-of-CFC-12-CFC-11-CFC-113-SF-6_fig1_319294204

So Fester reckons we should introduce CFCs into the atmosphere to open up the hole in the ozone layer.

Unfortunately what he doesn't know is that excess UV radiation will kill the oceans' phytoplankton, which produce up to 75% of our atmospheric oxygen.

The phytoplankton help keep the atmospheric oxygen levels at around 21% +/- 2%. Outside this range humans cannot survive. That's just how things happened to evolve. Killing off phytoplankton will put us below the lower limit making it one of our probable extinction events.

That's what Fester wants to happen. And I assume he has the backing of the AGW / climate change deniers.

Dear Fester,

You asked;

If there were a big warming trend, wouldn't all the bases show it? Isn't it supposed to be getting warmer much faster at the poles?

Well no, the southern ocean provides an enormous heat sink so Antarctica will not see the rises we see in Arctic regions which are bounded mostly by land.

The Davis plot you posted certainly shows a warming trend.

There are other peninsula stations showing solid warming trends;

Vernadsky

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=AYM00089063&dt=1&ds=14

And look at this plot from the Faraday station on the west side of the peninsula. A solid and pronounced warming trend.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=AYXLT290165&dt=1&ds=14

Dear old Hasbeen's nefarious lot have cherry picked stations and time scales to deliver their rubbish and he has dumped it in here without checking anything. He really is a sheep.

SteeleRedux,

As a sociologist, being someone who studies people, I am forming an opinion that the AGW / CC deniers are just a bunch of decrepit old timers with one foot in the grave who think that if they are going to die then they might as well take the rest of us with them.

So their strategy is to promote anything that will bring about the destruction of humankind. So they want the world to keep burning fossil fuels and producing CFCs - anything that will bring about our demise and bring on an extinction event.

I think Soot 'Beam up me Scotty' thinks along those lines as well. Except that Soot is only in his early 50s - he just looks like he's in his late 70s.

I think we could all do with a break from climate change. It has reached the boring stage, when someone - probably just looking for an argument - finds something that irritates someone else, and a silly yes/no brouhaha any 5 year old would enjoy, starts and drags on until tiny minds finally get sick of it. Nothing new is said, and the combatants have no power to do anything about the climate anyway.

I suppose that I'm just as bad for making this observation; I should simply ignore the waffle that is just second hand opinion from Google, and enjoy life for what it is. And, that's what I'll be doing in future - climate change is something that nobody can do anything about. Get over it.

Mr O,

For one thing the oxygen in the atmosphere is a result of water molecules being split into hydrogen and oxygen in the upper atmosphere by ultraviolet radiation. The heavier oxygen tends to accumulate in the atmosphere. If there were more ultraviolet radiation, more oxygen would form.

Also, the ozone hole requires light and very low temperatures to form, so there is probably a limit to how large it could grow. Lots of predictions about the utter catastrophe that would result, but I never saw actual evidence of harm presented, such as phytoplankton die offs.

Cheers

The ozone hole being caused by CFCs was simply a trial run for the scam of global warming/cooling being caused by CO2.

The banning of CFCs has had no provable effect on the ozone hole, which continues to grow or shrink at it's own choice.

As we know, it took the scammers a few years to decide whether CO2 would cause warming or cooling, they had to wait until nature chose which part of the cycle it was going to follow.

Now it is swinging back to cooling, hence the panic with global catastrophe ETC., as they know as well as us that it is about to get cold again.

It may be true that there is no fool like an old fool, but the useful idiots beat them hands down for being gullible fools.

Hasbeen,

Are you absolutely sure that you are the first and only person to ever have been awarded a Bachelor of Science in Engineering degree from Sydney University.

You definitely don't come across that way!

ttbn

I think you should take a break from arguing about climate change - permanently!

Take a big breath and shout "BEAM UP ME SCOTTY!"

Hasbeen,

You need to learn to not let SR refine the debate and what you said. You and Gosselin said that there'd been now warming at these sites this century.

So what does SR do.The same thing he always does, which is to completely misrepresent the argument and then show how the new misrepresented claims are wrong. Basic strawman stuff. Its his major form of attack.

You said 'A' but I'll pretend you said 'B' and then tell you what a fool you are for saying 'B'.

The facts are plan. There's been no warming in this location this century. Indeed there's been now warming there for the past 30 years which we are always told by the climate hysterics is the gold standard period.

Prof de Freitas, way back in the 1990s explained that even if the Antarctic were to warm by a few degrees, it wouldn't be a problem because the temperature would still be above 0c. That was way too logical for the hysterics who therefore ignore it.

SR write " [they] then announce breathlessly there is no global warming". Well they said no such thing. But that's SR for ya. Make up your opinion and then tell you how silly that opinion is.

But what this evidence does show that one of the favourite we're-all-gunna-die claims from the climate hysterics is thoroughly debunked.

But don't expect to see that highlighted on the GISS website.

One more interesting fact from the Marambino site. Of the 49years they have data, the average summer temperature exceeded 0c only 6 times and only 2 of those were this century. But shhhhh don't tell anyone.

Dear mhaze,

Gosselin and Hasbeen both have engineering qualifications but that is about it. Neither are climate experts.

To be saying to Hasbeen that I “Make up your opinion and then tell you how silly that opinion is.” is ludicrous. Gosselin may take a more nuanced view but Hasbeen is a full blown denier unless you can tell me otherwise.

As to general sloppiness on facts can we tidy up a few mate.

You claim “One more interesting fact from the Marambino site. Of the 49years they have data, the average summer temperature exceeded 0c only 6 times and only 2 of those were this century. But shhhhh don't tell anyone.”

Well no, the average Summer (D-J-F) temps over 0 degrees were 1993 – 0.14, 1995 - 0.83, 2000 – 0.16, 2002 – 1.09 and 2006 – 0.19, therefore only 5 times.

And we could easily write it this way, of the 49 years of data the summer average only exceeded zero once in the first 25 years but in the last 24 years it has done it 4 times.

Further this from you; “Prof de Freitas, way back in the 1990s explained that even if the Antarctic were to warm by a few degrees, it wouldn't be a problem because the temperature would still be above 0c. That was way too logical for the hysterics who therefore ignore it.”

Well no it isn't logical at all. Care to try again?

Look, I have no problem acknowledging there are cooling trends being recorded on some parts of the peninsula in this century, just as there are rising trends on other parts. But this “Yes the data from NASA from 1998 to 2019 shows cooling at every station in the area” from Hasbeen is demonstrably wrong. There is a very good reason why NTZ only picked 13 of the 19 weather stations.

Well lot's of assertions there.

SR wrote:" it isn't logical at all. Care to try again?"

Well, why isn't it logical? SR doesn't say. Perhaps just because he doesn't want it to be so. Perhaps water does melt at sub-zero temperatures if you really really want it to.

SR wrote (hoping to sneak it through):"There is a very good reason why NTZ only picked 13 of the 19 weather stations."

Yes there are good reasons. Because some of the stations have incomplete data. But then the whole scare is based on incomplete data so why let a little thing like that worry you, eh?

" the summer average only exceeded zero once in the first 25 years but in the last 24 years it has done it 4 times."

Well no cherry-picking there. No sireeeee. <sarc off>

"... Hasbeen is a full blown denier unless you can tell me otherwise."

So in SR-land, just making up stories about him saying that lack of warming in Antarctica this century shows "there is no global warming" is okie-dokie because he's a denier. So that means you can just fabricate any charge you want?

Yes, I'll tell you otherwise. None of us are deniers. What do we deny? Its just a charge and ad hominem you and the other climate hysterics have created to save you the need to actually think.

mhaze,

Yes you are an AGW denier. Underlying reason being that you do not understand the mechanics of the greenhouse effect.

Dear mhaze,

Hand feeding you is getting bloody tiresome.

For yet another time here is what you put. Please read it carefully;

"Prof de Freitas, way back in the 1990s explained that even if the Antarctic were to warm by a few degrees, it wouldn't be a problem because the temperature would still be above 0c."

Logical? Hardly.

Just ignore them, they lie to stir things up.

Now as there are wide arguments about warming or cooling
and statistics everywhere.
Do those on here (OPIN & SR please ignore) do you think it is possible
that the difficulty in producing definitive clear indications of trend
that the climate has changed and/or is changing indicates that there
is a real scientific gap in knowledge.

My own pet theory requires around this time that sunspot counts should
be high, but they are not they are quite low, but not as low as the
Maunder minimum.

The refusal to take into account all scientific information is a sure
indication that much is being missed.
So to my mind NO ONE has clue !

Dear Bazz,

Stop sooking mate. You are as acerbic as anyone on this forum and get constantly called out for your half truths and outright rubbish.

Now you are pulling sun spots out of your arse without any accompanying links or reference material and you are wanting to be taken seriously. Look at all the work our side put in backing up what we are contending, Max is a prime example, yet you lot hardly lift a finger but somehow think you are on an equal footing.

Give it a rest.

From this article on the BBC site it seems that land temperatures aren't all that relevant to ice melting.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51097309

What seems to be making a difference is the ocean currents, yet climate catastrophists become apoplectic at the thought of ocean fertilisation, believing that dumping a few tonnes of nutrients in the ocean would surely result in billions of people dying of thirst, as well as the extinction of almost all multi-celled marine life. The ideological cocoon they reside in insulates them from logical thought. They are oblivious to the current and ongoing ocean fertilisation experiments off the east coasts of China and the USA (a consequence of industrialisation),

https://www.weatherzone.com.au/climate/indicator_sst.jsp?lt=global&lc=global&c=ssta

and the absurd duality of actively sequestering carbon in terrestrial vegetation whilst believing such vegetation will become more prone to fire remains a tenet of the faith.

Cheers

Antarctica: The continent reached a record high on Thursday when a research station reported a temperature of 64.9 degrees Fahrenheit, or 18.2 degrees Celsius. Climate experts see the rare heat as an effect of global warming.Published in the NY Times today. Interesting, and surprisingly 'on-topic'. I wonder who will be the first to mention the BOM's dodgy thermometer, and who will call the NYTimes 'fake news'.

Come on Guys. Saddle up!

askbucco,
Just wait till next winter as the northern hemisphere is getting record snow falls: http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Felectroverse.net%2Fall-time-record-cold-invades-eastern-russia%2F%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR0ljH5xo1UyJixwIOW3m3Eit9epa_PZ4LVfgXyBtwydTt47ji_KEmm9RC0&h=AT3JIHWFYPJYSbV6wWMnODKPLN_zo2PV3YPqtBsD4l1Rsy1FeLiZTzb9vvNvkZgIbBnOz3N20_f_s48ofUA2jOnJJLVkJp88-tF4bVUGeITFDyDJQk9lKXO0eaKEYTrFckolPNx6CQZ7jvO170DdUHx5j-0I4cbeMg