Talk:Antarctica cooling controversy

Warning of article bias

Human-induced Global Warming defenders keep on changing back revisions so that it stays, misleadingly, "proven" that there is no controversy about Antarctica cooling. There is little observed/factual data to Antartica's temperatures over time, as the article itself says. Recent research, the one concluded in 2009, uses a model to deduce past temperatures of Antarctic. Any '"deduced fact"' is not fact and is open to discussion and controversy. It should not be taken as incontestable truth as it is well-known that scientific bias works very heavily on deductions. If there is no controversy about this subject then I should suggest removing this article from Wikipedia altogether. Jamilsoni (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Verifiable sources

some of the sources seem self-published and not verifiable. --Neon white 01:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you please be more specific. Links to other Wiki articles were included, also, links to almost all of the sources, and transcription were properly quoted and referenced (even with pdf of the original when possible). When I finish adding a couple of scientific points of view on the issue (e.g. what the new 2007 IPPC says about this issue), and improving the format (and the English too, it is my second language), I will work on improving the format of the references, converting all references to standard wiki format. I was trying to follow the format of the main article [Global warming controversy]. In the near future I expect other people to contribute and enrich the article, even someone might included new research findings I am not aware of.

I found appropiate your deletion of the example I included, on a second-though it was not exactly neutral. It was just to ilustrate that this is a real controversy. As far as I can see, I did not included any personnal opinion, just the arguments from both sides, and the interpretation of reputable scientific institutions Mariordo 01:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

What is being cited as evidence for a 'controversy' as such. It seems to be more a theory. I think the opening needs to be rewritten, it should be a concise summary of the article, at the moment it seems to be identical to Climate of Antarctica --Neon white 18:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There is little independent evidence for a controversy. The article is a synthesis. Brusegadi 00:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Can someone verify the reputation of the sources/links I included at the beginning of the article? I do not want to included a well-known innapropriate organization. Mariordo 04:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm rather wondering if you read the abstract of C+W, since it says Trends calculated for the 1958–2002 period suggest modest warming over much of the 60°–90°S domain. All seasons show warming, with winter trends being the largest at +0.172°C decade−1 while summer warming rates are only +0.045°C decade−1. The 45-yr temperature trend for the annual means is +0.082°C decade−1 corresponding to a +0.371°C temperature change over the 1958–2002 period of record. Trends computed using these analyses show considerable sensitivity to start and end dates, with trends calculated using start dates prior to 1965 showing overall warming, while those using start dates from 1966 to 1982 show net cooling over the region. Because of the large interannual variability of temperatures over the continental Antarctic, most of the continental trends are not statistically significant. and thus supports a view completely opposed to the one you are editing for William M. Connolley 19:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Satellite pic

I've removed the sat pic, because its clearly wrong. The Pole has not cooled at 0.2 oC / decade from 1982-2003?4, or anything like it. Taking an annual mean from 1982-2004 the trend is essentially zero. From 1982-2003 (its not really clear what data the pic is based on) its about 0.006 oC/y by my calc. Or from 1958 its -0.0079 oC/y. None of these trends are significant. Data from http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/gjma/ William M. Connolley 14:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Dispute The editing by Colonel Warden was great for balance, but the latest from William M. Connolley I think was hasty and shows he did not make enough research or has other intentions. I do dispute the deletion of the NASA picture, which is properly referenced and hosted and explained in a NASA site. First, NASA's info is much more comprehensive than Doran et al, covering a wider area, and actually NASA's picture did not say anything about how much the temperature drop was. Second, read carefully the IPPC report, when they say the change in temperature is almost nill, they are talking over a longer period than the 20 years covered by NASA (which of course will reduce the mean and by the way, that text does not presents the citation for that conclusion), which is when the trend is detected. Here it seems to me the editor is trying to bias/skew the information presented directly from a reliable source. As Brusegadi at the beginning of the discussion to define deletion of this article: "There is no controversy behind this. There is only a cooling trend in some parts of the cold continent, which everyone agrees about". This latest editing is trying to hide this fact, or at least, trying to minimize the existance of the cooling trend, which I thought was not under question (there are plenty of references in the WEB, and will bring more if necessary).Mariordo —Preceding comment was added at 15:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Mariordo 15:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Follow up. The link provided by William M. Connolley is just the raw data from several Antarctic Stations, nothing to support his claim. This supports my complain of a inappropriate deletion of key data.

• Comment If NASA's picture is wrong why are they still displaying it? And it's a great way of displaying the issue. Putting it back. Colonel Warden 15:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the NASA picture is that its clearly wrong (or rather, its OK in its own terms, but it doesn't actually show the sfc T trends). I'm afraid that not everything put out by NASA can be relied on. This one is clearly just eye candy. It does indeed have a scale on it, so NASA's picture did not say anything about how much the temperature drop was is wrong - you can read it, roughly, off the pic. The article is wrong to take the cooling trend for granted - it depends very much where you look and over what time period. NASA's info is much more comprehensive... well no. But it certainly looks like that from the piccy, no? Which is why its so misleading William M. Connolley 15:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

So are you saying that Doran is wrong too when he says, "Our study did find that 58 percent of Antarctica cooled from 1966 to 2000."? He seems to think that weather station data, like you're citing, is too patchy to be really good. NASA's data appears to be better than weather station data in that it's based upon satellite sensing which provides a good view of the entire continent. Since their technique is different, it's no surprise that they get a different perspective. Why should we accept your interpretation rather than theirs? Colonel Warden 16:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

As I recall, Doran is only using the weather station data. Certainly there is nothing else in 1966. Doran relies on a dodgy interpolation to get from points to areas. The NASA data is sourceless, I had a quick browse and couldn't find which paper it was given in. [1] table 1 says -0.045 oC/y for pole, over 78-98, and the T at the pole has been higher since William M. Connolley 17:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• We're not supposed to be in the business of analysing raw data here and reinterpreting it - that would be original research. The NASA stuff seems to be a very relevant published work from a reputable source. I suppose we'd need a more substantial, published rebuttal to discount it. Colonel Warden 17:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not; I'm point out that the pic, which is sourceless, is incompatible with actual data published by Comiso in a proper journal William M. Connolley 11:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• NASA cite the following for their imagery: Comiso, J. C., Variability and trends in the Antarctic surface temperatures from in situ and satellite infrared measurements, J. Climate, 13(10), 1674-1696, 2000; Kwok, R, and J.C. Comiso, Spatial patterns of variability in Antarctic surface temperature: Connections to the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode and the Southern Oscillation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 29(14), 10.1029/2002GL015415, 2002; Schneider, D.P., E.J. Steig, and J.C. Comiso, Recent Climate variability in Antarctica from Satellite-derived temperature data, J. Climate, 17, 1569-1583, 2004; King, J.C. and J.C. Comiso, The spatial coherence of interannual temperature variations in the Antarctic Peninsula, Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, 1040, doi:10.1029/2002GL015580, 2003. Colonel Warden 17:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• If William M. Connolley thinks there is published research proving the trend does not exists or has reversed, then please go ahead and include it in the article, then we can talk of a scientific controversy, not just in the public domain. You can even do a nice summary of what the IPPC says in chapter 11, if the article survives, I will make it during the weekend, with transcriptions. But please be neutral. In the meantime read this paper [2]. It shows how the same analysis was used by Comiso to study the Artic, showing clearly the effects of the warming during the last two decades, and he explicitly mentions how his research is consistant with Doran et al. Even if you don`t like the findings, the same analysis (and satellite pictures) are valid for both poles. Mariordo 17:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• The following are Dr. Comiso's credentials (looks very reliable source to me): Dr. Comiso's research is focused on the following topics: (a) the detection of climate change from historical satellite and in situ data; (b) polynyas, Odden, and bottom water formation; (c) air-sea-ice interactions and biological processes in the polar regions; and (d) radiative transfer modeling studies and satellite algorithms for sea ice and snow. The primary research tool is satellite remote sensing in the microwave, infrared, and visible regions with emphasis on passive microwave techniques. He is currently a member of the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR) science team in both EOS-AQUA and NASDA-ADEOS-2 satellites and is responsible in developing standard algorithms for sea ice in both systems. He has generated and analyzed more than 20 years of satellite data on ice concentration, surface temperature, albedo, and cloud statistics in the polar regions with a view of improving our understanding of recently observed global warming that may be associated with greenhouse gases. Also, he has been a principal investigator in three Antarctic field programs and was the chief scientist of a NASA aircraft flight program over a nuclear submarine in the Arctic. Mariordo 23:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not uncommon for organizations to publish over-simplified images for the general public when the same images would not survive the scrutiny of the experts in the relevant field. You are using the image to illustrate the point made by Doran et al. So, you are using an image that was not meant for peer-reviewed use to illustrate something discussed in a peer-reviewed publication. This association is dangerous because it guides the reader to an over-estimation of the image's validity. I think that if you want to illustrate the paper, you should try to find highly scrutinized visual aides. So, it is no WP:OR because we attack the way you pull sources together and not the sources themselves. Finally, wikipedia, at the end of the day, will be evaluated by the relevant experts. Given that Dr.Connolley is an expert, I would not take his advice lightly regarding a SCIENTIFIC issue. Note that he is commenting on a scientific source, and not a source about the public controversy. Brusegadi 01:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The presentation by NASA is, according to their web page, the responsibility of Dr Michael King who appears to be an expert. If William M. Connolley has a professional dispute with him or his work then he should take it up with NASA through his professional channels. Get back to us as and when they retract. Colonel Warden 10:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the explanation and your patience, but the picture is indeed based on research published on peer-reviewed paper, see The Journal of Science 13:1674-96, 2000 (you can read it at [[3]] There the sat pics for every year are shown. I know he is a reputable climate scientist (I Wiki his name), and just by chance, the two citations/transcriptions I put from the beginning in this article happens to be organizations that Mr.Connolley participate or work for. He has done research (regarding to the ice thickness) finding there is a better approach to make the estimates than NASA's approach. So, sorry, but he doesn't seems to be neutral about this discussion. In my view, the way the scientific method works, all serious parties are welcome to a scientific debate, thus the Antarctica cooling article should include his findings (even if only applied to the methodology/and I don't know if this violates Wiki policy), and some others peer-reviewed publications after (e.g. see Thompsom and Solomon, Science, 2002) and what the 2007 IPCC has to said about Antarctica. Science progresses by a bunch of people resolving parts of the puzzle and it is not reasonable to expect 100% consistency, or have one of the puzzle solvers type delete without consulting others. But now I am getting the feeling that this will show there are "normal" differences between Antarctic/climate researchers, which some Wiki editors seemed not to be confortable with. Anyway, so far I have not found a single scientific source denying the slightly cooling trend of some areas in the interior of Antarctica (particularly near the South Pole Area, which is exactly what the picture shows). Even RealClimate and the British Antarctic Survey (Mr.Connolley organization's) accept this trend as a fact. My intention in writing this article was to make available to the public hard facts and reliable scientific findings for those with a geniune interest in science, because unfortunately so far anything related to GW has been discussed more with passion than reason, and the comments, editing and suggestions all participants have made have been very constructive, except for the unconsulted deletion of the composite satellite picture, which I felt like censorship. The interpretation of the facts is up to everyone of us, and the article should have none, as you suggested from the beginning and I have been trying to do guided by you guys. Mariordo 03:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The removed image does not show up on the ref provided. So, it was not published in that paper. Brusegadi 04:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Yes, you are right. I said is based on research, Comiso's. The paper presents the information disaggregated, this is, one picture for every year, that's why it is not practical to put it here, there are too many photos. The actual picture available in Wiki says "NASA Earth Observatory image based on data provided by Josefino Comiso, NASA-GSFC" (just click the picture). For the specific references in NASA's website see [4], Comiso's research is cited below that webpage, together with others sources. Mariordo 05:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

the picture is indeed based on research published on peer-reviewed paper, see The Journal of Science 13:1674-96, 2000 (you can read it at [5] - clearly not, since the pic uses data up to 2003. Or is it 2004?, its hard to tell. Moreover, that paper clearly states that it uses only July and Jan data, so its not an annual average after all. Or is it? Perhaps its been updated. We just don't know, because from the nasa web page you can't tell. And the paper says its for cloud-free conditions only. Fig 17 (d) of the paper is a map of trends from the satellites; its clearly incompatible with the NASA web pic William M. Connolley 09:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to remove the image based on the points made above by Dr. Connolley. That would be like representing economic activity over several decades using only the same portion of the business cycle for every year, which can mislead tremendously. So, if the paper does that and the image does something else, we need a better image. Brusegadi 23:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Your attempt to reinterpret NASA's presentation is original research. What we're reporting here is what NASA said about the matter, as reported on their News. It's they that decided how their data on the trends is presented, not us. Colonel Warden 00:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

We are not obliged to parrot NASA as gospel, when NASA is clearly wrong. The purported trend of -0.2 oC/y at the pole on that pic is clearly wrong (as the Thompson and Solomon paper shows). I notice you have no answer to any of my questions above. We have a choice of a piece of PR eyecandy or a peer-reviewed paper; clearly we should take our science from the paper, which contradicts the picture: hence the picture must go. You did take a look at fig 17 d, didn't you? William M. Connolley 19:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The 17d figure in Comiso's paper shows the -0.2 oC/y trend somewhat to the east of the pole and a lesser cooling trend at the pole. The difference between this and the NASA news picture is presumably due to their different date ranges for the data. The 17d figure is for 1979-1998 while the NASA news picture is based upon a later date range covering 1982-2003 (see Scientific Visualisation Studio). The SVS presentation is fine because:

• a) it is more recent
• b) it is more of a secondary synthesis covering several papers besides Comiso's
• c) the picture is readily available to illustrate this article

And there is no significant distortion because both graphics show a similar cooling trend in the interior of the continent which is the essential point upon which all agree. Colonel Warden 23:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

both graphics show a similar cooling trend in the interior of the continent !?! nonsense - they are completely incompatible. 17d shows substantial areas of warming around the pole, and minor cooling at the pole. The SVS pic shows major cooling at the pole, incompatible with 17d and with observations. As for your point (b) - actually, we really don't know quite what its been built from - another reason for not using it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by William M. Connolley (talk • contribs) 10:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The trend at the exact pole is not a significant detail. The controversy is about the overall state of the entire continent. The NASA pic is consistent with the general finding which is the basis of the controversy. Colonel Warden 12:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The pic is (a) wrong (because its major feature, a strong cooling at the pole, is not observed at the pole) (b) inconsistent with published research. The pic, falsely, implies more knowledge than is availble and should be removed for that reason. You now appear to be reduced to saying that, OK, it may be wrong, but who cares because it shows what you want it to show? William M. Connolley 12:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I vote to keep the image, because

• If we simply delete the image, then other sites will use it without any commentary on its many problems

• The fact that this image exists, and is disputed, pretty much proves that there is a controversy and, therefore, that Antarctica cooling controversy should be included in wikipedia

That being said, and because this image is also used in Climate of Antarctica (which incorrectly implies that it comes from the British Antarctic Survey), I suggest that the data problems be spelled out at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Antarctic_temps.AVH1982-2004.jpg, not here. (Actually, I am surprised that no one has done this yet.)

On the Antarctica cooling controversy page, it should be explained that part of the controversy is due to NASA publishing (providing) data that shows changes in only the surface temperature (not air temperature) and that instrumental readings taken at ground level often disagree with satellite data. (I was taught that a 2 oC difference between satellite and ground measurements was typical and could not be calibrated out or explained.) It would also be good to see data from other sources (those that disagree with NASA) presented in a similar way so that everyone can see the differences. Q Science 01:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The state of Antartica is significant because of the worry that its ice might melt - affecting albedo and increasing the ocean level. In assessing the state of the ice, the surface temperature seems more useful than the air temperature. In any case, it's the trend that is at issue, not the absolute value. Colonel Warden 12:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The image is disputed HERE. It is not an image that is being disputed anywhere else since it has not been published in a journal, only at a news page. Brusegadi 04:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there no fuss about this elsewhere? If not, why not? Surely we're not the only people to be debating this matter? Anyway, since no substitute for the NASA section has been put forward yet, I am restoring it again. Without it, there are dangling references in the article which are not sensible. Colonel Warden 14:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

dangling refs is a poor reason for restoring something; I've solved it instead by removing the refs. No-substitute is also not a valid reason for restoring something that is wrong William M. Connolley 20:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

NASA's own comments about the temperature trend pic. "Please note, these are preliminary findings and there are errors associated with these trends." http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003100/a003188/index.html

The Amundson-Scott (South Pole) data from William's link clearly shows no significant trend and clearly contradicts the NASA temperature trend image. http://www.nerc-bas.ac.uk/icd/gjma/amundsen-scott.ann.trend.pdf If there's no copyright problem to using the graph, I'll convert it to a .jpg Sagredo^Discussione? 07:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that graph shows a 0.5 oC cooling for the 48 year period (using linear regression) ... a very significant change that partially supports NASA's image. I suggest that you plot the data yourself (I used Excel) because the image you reference is lacking grid lines. From 1980 (-48.7 C) to 1999 (-50.5 C) there was a temperature drop of 1.8 oC. All of the heating has been since 2001, except that the average for 2006 was -50.4 oC. To be kind, it appears that NASA's image should say temperature change "per decade" and definitely not "per year". Q Science 22:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I dont think linear regression is the best way to model this... specially given that excel does not handle time series well. Also, if there is a trend, as you claim, then you need to make significant changes to the linar regression model, since the unit roots from the trend will invalidate some of the assumptions necessary for the linear regression model nullifying any result that you get. I have to ask, what exactly did you do? Brusegadi 23:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I plotted the data (I repeated this with both *line* and *xy*), right clicked the graph and selected Add Trendline.... Then I played with the 4 available options - linear is one of them. Q Science 23:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The BAS calculates the trend for the Amundson-Scott Station as −0.0079 ± 0.0116 °C a−1 for the 1958-2006 period. Find me a mortgage company that will calculate interest as"per decade" in place of "per year" and I'll buy! Sagredo^Discussione? 23:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Since the AfD is closed, I am back. This discussion is very interesting, but as I learned during the AfD debate, this talk should be kept here, and not reflect in the article. So I partially reverse the article to the text when closing the AfD process (including Sagredo's figure, which is nice, but the article is not about melting nor a scientific debate where proofs need to be presented --Please go and read the AfD archive, we are supposed to be presenting only the public debate), but kept the controversial NASA pic out (even though I think it should be here, it was published by a reliable source), just in an attempt to have a more balanced text, but, NASA's reference is there, just in case someone is interested in the details of NASA's preliminary findings. I kept only NASA's literal transcription of the possible explanation for this latest short-term cooling trend. And now, I jump into your discussion guys.

I do not think we should be doing our own math and graphs in order to put anything in the article, any of that will clearly be original research. But the discussion is very interesting, so this is what I think. If you read carefully the Chapman and Walsh abstract, in simple terms they are saying that there is a slightly cooling trend in the short-term (20 years), but on a longer term it shows a slightly different trend. I found this so obvious, if you observed a new trend, you do the math (regression) analysis on it, you get one result. Then, you take a longer period, you are including in the "average" other values that do not belong to the trend, and obviously, the answer is different. This is a silly attempt to mask the latest trend. Image you do this for global warming, analyzing only two periods: the visible warming starting in the 70's, and then, making the average on a longer term, but only considering the 40-70's, when the allegedly cooling appeared. The result is completely biased of course. So C & W is there, because is published research, but my reading again, it was just an attempt to cover the recent cooling trend with data out of the observed trend. Finally, if we were serious about the analysis of this or any trend, we need to know the at least the goodness of fit and all the other relevant statistical indicators. Mariordo 01:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

PS: Sagredo's figure is also in the article Climate of Antarctica, where I think it properly belongs. Over there is plenty of facts about the climate, no controversy (so far).Mariordo 02:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sagredo made a great addition, the full C+W paper is now available through the refs. Now we have the data, the R2s, everything, no more guessing. Also compare fig. 11 (the latest T trend) with the controversial NASA's pic. Also compare fig. 11 with 13.Mariordo 11:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion continues in New Pic below Mariordo 19:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Intro text / NPOV

Someone added Chapman+Walsh to the intro, apparently in support of the "cooling", apparently without reading it. I added some text from C+W because it is highly relevant; CW removed this, I think because its inconvenient for the "cooling" folks [6]. But I think its very important to point out that the "cooling" depends very strongly on when you are looking. The C+W quote may be a bit wordy perhaps, but its saying something important which ought to be in the intro William M. Connolley 10:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

As your link shows, I just moved that block down into a more appropriate section. The intro is not the place for it as it is too anodyne to be a lead in to the controversy. Colonel Warden 12:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added an NPOV tag to this article, as its now quite plain to me that you are determined to remove any hint of warming from the intro. As the C+W text makes clear, over the longer term the region is actually warming - or at least, the only paper we have says so; there may be others covering that period that say otherwise. You appear to be insisting that only cooling be mentioned in the intro, and make it appear as though this is undisputed, though it clearly is not William M. Connolley 12:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Your paranoia is showing. The intro already contains a 'hint' of warming - "Several scientific sources [1] [2] including NASA[3], have reported that there is a cooling trend observed in the interior of the continent for the last two decades of the 20th century, while the Antarctic Peninsula shows a warming trend." This seems fair as a build up to the controversy. Putting in a great lump of indigestible stats in the intro interrupts the flow of the story. As we have it now, the article explains the background to the controversy, its development and then the detailed science. The latter section seemed the perfect place for your contribution and you might think of it as getting the last word. If I had been as biased as you suggest then I might have just deleted your addition outright, like you keep trying to delete the NASA picture that helps explain the mention of NASA in the intro. Colonel Warden 15:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That the Peninsula is warming is not in doubt, so including that does not help. Currently you've removed from the intro the IPCC piece - that the trends are negligible. Since this is the most respected climate summary, thats a very dubious thing to do. And you've removed C+W reporting warming of the interior, which is the point at issue. So I repeat: the intro you have produced is biased; if you're not prepared to consider that, I'll conclude that it stems from your bias. The pic, of course, remains as wrong as before William M. Connolley 16:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Per your addition, the IPCC's position was "little change over the rest of the continent". This made them a minor player in the controversy which was directed at a more extreme warming position - that Antartica was melting down and so we were all going to be swimming soon. The IPCC's lukewarm position is therefore not appropriate in the intro and is better in the more balanced and detailed exposition of what is really going on (insofar as we know). This is an editorial judgement - we can't cram everything into the intro as, by definition, it is just prefatory. Colonel Warden 17:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It makes no sense to present, as you insist upon, only one side of the matter in the intro. Asserting that scientists agree on Antarctic, outside the Peninsula, as cooling is utter nonsense William M. Connolley 19:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Your revert didn't make progress so I have remixed the intro to address your concerns while maintaining a coherent narrative flow. The intro now concludes with the IPCC current position which is nicely consistent with the rest. Colonel Warden 23:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Brusegadi has reverted with the comment "misleading edit sum". I'm not sure what that means so he is invited to discuss his objections here so that they can be addressed. Colonel Warden 08:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It means its misleading. Do you understand that if you say you're reworking the intro, whilst actually you're reverting back in the disputed pic, then thats misleading? Your good faith is coming into doubt William M. Connolley 09:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you said reworking the intro, but you did much more than that so I reverted. That is misleading. Brusegadi 09:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, now I *have* reworked the intro. It now states what the controversy actually is, and provides some background as to the state of scientific knowledge of what the trends actually are. I don't see how the controversy can be understood without this data William M. Connolley 12:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The stuff about the summary is ad hom nitpicking - I was just being brief and didn't understand Brusegadi's abbreviated summary either. Since summaries are optional, be glad that I'm using them at all. Anyway, the new intro is much better than your previous revision, being quite readable and comprehensible, which is what I wanted. I'm not sure if too many cites have been shed in this rewrite but there were too many of them before so, stylistically, this is better too. Colonel Warden 13:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Please understand that if you use an edit summary implying only changes to the intro, whilst changing another part that is very contentious, people will doubt your good faith. However, if we have a more agreeable intro thats good William M. Connolley 20:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

New pic

We seem to have settled down to not using the satellite pic. Sagredo has made a new pic, available here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Antarctic_Temperature_Trend_1951-2006.jpg#Summary Shall we use that? It is fairly close to fig 7 of C+W [7] which is good. It has grey areas for missing data, which is good. OTOH it does do a lot of interpolation, as do C+W, and thats not good. I would suggest perhaps using both it and [8] because its instructive to see how the trends change over time William M. Connolley 12:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this one shows the trend for half a century+, which is what the AR4 is talking about, but the public debate was explicitly over the trend for the last 20+ years. The C+W has a figure closer to the more recent trend - 1969-2000(Fig. 11), which is the period discussed in the article. What about putting both to avoid controversy or for the sake of NPOV? (Qs. just to be sure, aren't we including original research in the article? or shall we include the C+W figures with proper reference? is the material in the C+W paper public domain?) Let's hear other opinions. Mariordo 14:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

C+W is not PD, of course. The last 20y is why I suggested my link above... I don't suppose you checked it, did you? William M. Connolley 15:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I did, but I am confused, it says 1951-2006. Let me check it with time tonight Mariordo 19:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Any temperature history of Antarctica covering more than a couple decades, is necessarily and inescapably the product of a lot of averaging. To get an idea of how much averaging, it is instructive to look at the same GISTEMP image with the 250 km filter rather than the 1200 km filter. Personally, I think it is rather misleading on those long timescales to try and talk about a climate of Antarctica at all when the more honest description is closer to calling it the climate of a dozen isolated stations. The C&W figure 11 (top panel) feels a lot more reasonable to me. Dragons flight 16:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and/or the version from 1978 [9]. I'd be happier with 250 km than 1200 too William M. Connolley 17:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, so these are the two that satisfy everybody? 250 km filter and [10]? It's not that much work to do both. It wouldn't be that difficult to put 4 of these images into a montage, either, which I'd be happy to do if it brings everybody together. Sagredo^Discussione? 21:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Another thought is to crop away everything but Antarctica. [11] (Of course keeping titles and the scale bar.) This helps illustrate how little data there actually is. Sagredo^Discussione? 21:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• NASA's GISS Surface temp 1978-2006 is OK with me. You guys are the experts. And yes, it should only show Antarctica. Let's wait a little bit to see if there are anymore comments from the other guys who have contribute to the article. Just to make sure everybody agrees this is NPOV. Mariordo 00:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If all cool I am happy. I am busy busy right now!!! Laters, Brusegadi 01:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm still thinking of a montage of four images for here. The concept is still being discussed and refined at C of A [12] It's easier to do that where only one image is needed. You're all welcome to make comments there if you wish. When it's settled there, StephenHudson or I will be back. I had thought it would be contentious there, but seems to be going smoothly. Sagredo^Discussione? 17:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Still working on the multiview temperature trend pic. A few more days. Sagredo^Discussione? 07:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The picture you included in the article is great, but the size is too small (if you click to go to the original) and the text is way too long for a caption. I think your work is great, but still needs a little bit of improvement.Mariordo 12:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've made a few minor changes, please revert if you don't like them. I suggest removing all the references in the caption - but keep them on the image page. Also, what is meant by "consistent with Figure 4"? This image is labeled "Figure 1". Q Science 17:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether you would want to use it, but I made this: [13]. Dragons flight 08:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice, but I think you should remove "As the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide is expected to warm polar regions more rapidly than other areas". Its not true, its a very persistent myth. GCMs show only modest warming over Antarctica. William M. Connolley 12:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

. It's a simple physical argument that the temperature impact of a proportional increase in radiative flux should be larger in polar regions (because of T^4 in Stefan–Boltzmann law). What's the countervailing process? Dragons flight 14:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't. The polar amplification mechanism is quite different; and anyway the GCMs simply don't show it. You can see it quite clearly from TAR pix, and probably AR4 too. The contervailing process is the heat capacity of the southern ocean William M. Connolley 14:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not the Arctic sea ice-albedo effect (which is of course the largest feedback in the system), but I'd still have an expectation that warming at the Pole would be larger than warming at say Central Africa, in the absence of confounding factors. One of those confounding factors is anthropogenic ozone loss which is expected to have a significant effect in the Antarctic (ala Schindell and Schmidt). If the GCMs include an ozone hole (do they?) then saying that they don't show excess warming, isn't necessarily an argument for saying what should be expected via GHGs alone. Dragons flight 14:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Only in certain seasons and the effect isn't large William M. Connolley 20:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll probably play with the language a little later. I hope we can at least agree that cooling was an unexpected response in the face of rising GHGs. Dragons flight 00:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You know as well as I do that warming isn't expected everywhere, natural variation will lead to cooling in places where the warming isn't expected to be large. But thats not the point I raised, which is that the assertion of expected polar amplification around Antarctica is wrong William M. Connolley 09:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, the Antarctic ice cores show a significant (e.g. factor of 2) temperature excess during the glacial-Holocene transition relative to mid-latitudes. Dragons flight 14:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Equilibrium vs transient William M. Connolley 14:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

See-also http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/07/harry-potter-and-polar-amplification.html William M. Connolley 14:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The image [14] by Dragon's Flight is much better than mine. It should replace mine here[15], for sure. For Antarctic cooling controversy, I was thinking that an composite image with 4 smaller images each showing the trend over a different interval would best illustrate this sentence in the article's opening, -"The trends elsewhere, whilst tending towards cooling, are smaller and dependent on season and the timespan over which the trend is computed." I take that to be the gist of this article. This seemed the way to satisfy all the editors of the page.

The second image is from Schindell and Schmidt (full PDF here [16]. I ran across it rather late in the evening, and given that I would be cautious about re-writing something so technical when fully awake, hence the cut and paste. I welcome those of you who can claim expertise to rework it. A note would be to keep in mind that many readers have no technical background whatsoever. (I do have a little, but it was quite a few years back.) Sagredo^Discussione? 20:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Update from NASA I drew the discussion above to NASA's attention and they have been reviewing and refining their presentation. Their response concludes, "As a result, we have decided to publish an updated image on the Earth Observatory with Dr. Comiso's assistance. The image should be available in the next week or two. Once again, thanks for bringing this issue to our attention." Colonel Warden 18:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Here it is. [17] - Sagredo^Discussione? 22:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

They're playing tricks on you, Sagredo. Here is the proper link. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. -Funny how they put it up in the morning the day before Thanksgiving and replaced it later the same day. . . -Sagredo^Discussione? 05:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You linked to their "new images" page, which changes roughly daily. Dragons flight (talk) 08:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Revamp

Now that NASA has come into line :-) all the science seems to agree. So why not move the NASA pic up to the top and discard the map> Also, there seems to be no need to put NASA into a separate section any more William M. Connolley (talk) 09:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That work's for me if the rest agree! -Sagredo^Discussione? 16:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Good job. I am happy that now we all agree about the inclusion of the image! ;) Brusegadi (talk) 05:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I've done the image as a start. I added to the caption what amounts to a caveat. The pic should probably have more: eg None of the sensors were in orbit at the same time, so scientists could not compare simultaneous observations from different sensors to make sure each was recording temperatures exactly the same. Instead, the team checked the satellite records against ground-based weather station data to inter-calibrate them and make the 26-year satellite record. The scientists estimate the level of uncertainty in the measurements is between 2-3 degrees Celsius. —Preceding unsigned comment added by William M. Connolley (talk • contribs) 17:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

In the intro: "The trends elsewhere, whilst tending towards cooling, are smaller and dependent on season and the timespan over which the trend is computed[1][2]" Shouldn't this changed to, "Observations unambiguously show the Peninsula to be warming. The trends elsewhere show both warming and cooling but are smaller and dependent on season and the timespan over which the trend is computed[1][2]"  ? -Sagredo^Discussione? 18:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Rv: why

There is a huge controversy within the scientific community. Some computer models of GW do not seem consistent with observed data. The contrary should not be afirmed in this article.) is wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh please: here is a 200+ page petition [18] pointing all errors made by the IPCC; Antarctic may have much more ice than was previously thought [19]. There is a huge controversy about this subject and your non-arguments are ridiculous! --Jamilsoni (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Ozone

Ozone is one of the major greenhouse gases, responsible for ~5% of the greenhouse effect globally, and, of course, more in the Antarctic, where absolute levels of water vapor are very low. But don't take my word for it - the effect is discussed in several of the sources we have in the article, e.g. [20], [21] and [22]. Claiming this is OR has no basis. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I shall not revert the article anymore. It is useless. Your own sources indicate that these are hypothesis only. Perhaps good ones but even that is arguable. An excerpt from the NYT article is:

"That's where we speculate, Dr. Thompson said, and the emphasis is on the word 'may.' "

As I said, computer models must be adjusted manually and when it comes to Antartica's variables, we do not comprehend them very well and deduce too much. An excerpt from this article [23]:

The British Antarctic Survey admits the models currently being used to distinguish between natural and man-made climate variability, and to predict what will happen in the future, are crude.

You treat speculation as undeniable truth. That's expected, as you are not a scientist. What is not expected is your willingness not to leave this article the most unbiased as possible. --Jamilsoni (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Try again. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

As this article is about natural science I thought you would understand what I meant by scientist as generally accepted in this context. Perhaps I might need explain it to you. All you have got is opinion. Also, would you be so gentle as to give me reference to your ~5% figure of global greenhouse effect caused by ozone? Thanks. --Jamilsoni (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

See our article on greenhouse gas, which gives 3%-7% (depending on which overlaps you consider) and sources it to (Kiehl and Trenberth, 1997). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Mcintyre 2010?

I tried to locate the above source. Google Scholar does not find a 2010 publication by any Mcintyre that seems appropriate. I've removed it again. Before reinserting it, please specify the source clearly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Steig O'Donnell

A Steig O'Donnell paragraph is destined to be written. I am a little reluctant to write it because events are still unfolding.

O'Donnell seems to have shown that Steig's methods have the effect of moving temperature changes on the antarctic peninsula to the west antarctic.

Although there is obviously an argument going on it is not yet clear whether or not Steig disputes this result.

I suspect that month from now it will be a lot more clear precisely what is and is not disputed. (and whether the not scientific elements of that debate are worth recording).

The pre-Steig statement: "trends elsewhere on the continent show both warming and cooling but are smaller and dependent on season and the timespan over which the trend is computed" remains as true as ever.

Accordingly I am removing the references to Steig from the introduction.

I imagine that in the future there will be a new Steig-O'Donnell section to this article, and a single sentence in the introductory paragraph summarizing its contentsJsolinsky (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your removal of this content from the lead, and better wait how this story develops.--Mariordo (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Whilst you're re-jigging the section anyway, you might want to have a look at the Crichton part - I'm not sure if it's an 'oxbow lake' of a sentence left there after the context has gone, but the mention as it stands of Crichton's view doesn't seem in the least bit relevant. 94.170.107.247 (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Dave

Please check the article's history. The Crichton's view has been there from the beginning. Read the lead and the second section. This article is about the controversy in the media (not in the scientific community) that began due to Crichton's sci fi novel State of Fear and his interpretation of the results from research conducted by Doran et al., 2002. Recent scientific findings have been added as they are published.--Mariordo (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that makes some sense then. It needs to be highlighted and explained at the first mention, though, because it's not obvious. 94.170.107.247 (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Dave

• MSM mentions of Steig O'Donnell:

• On Edge-Pushing Statistics and Climate Basics by Andrew Revkin at NY Times, 2/10/11
• RealClimategate hits the final nail in the coffin of 'peer review' , James Delingpole at Telegraph February 8th, 2011

--Pete Tillman (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, as a self professed non-expert who doesn't read scientific papers, Delingpole's gossip blog is a very poor source.

A more reputable commment comes from The Houston Chronicle blog of John Nielsen-Gammon.[24] Looks like this could go on for a while, and in future O'D may have some problems getting published or finding reviewers for papers. More interestingly, the comparison of statistical methods can be hoped to bring improvements once questions are resolved. It will be interesting to see if O'D's extension of the Antarctic Peninsula half way across Marie Byrd Land becomes generally accepted,[25] if it is we'll have to revise the maps for our Antarctic Peninsula article. Future published papers will be of interest. . . dave souza, talk 23:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Whilst I'd agree that Delingpole isn't a perfect source for everything, as a summation of the facts of his subject-matter, his piece is fine. JN-G's comment is interesting, but of no strictly scientific relevance - there may be a case that O'Donnell shouldn't have released Steig's name, but then again the allegations he makes, if true, would go a long way to justifying the action. Delingpole's piece also isn't greatly relevant to the science - it's more about the scientific method in action, and isn't too relevant to this article, I think. As you say, might as well let it all play out a while longer so we get more authoritative, considered comment on it. 94.170.107.247 (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Dave

Re-Dave Souza's comment: unless something substantive happens, I'd cast my preliminary vote for not including the non-scientific element of Steig-O'Donnell. Otherwise we are liable to get a lot of back and forth arguments that obscure the questions of science in the process. Alternatively, we could banish the non scientific elements to a new Steig O'Donnell controversy article. (Just a thought. Its obviously still too early. But generally the trend seems to be towards deleting these types of details that mostly only matter to the participants in the controversies. I think that is a good thing.)Jsolinsky (talk) 01:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree that the mentions are too minor at present to feature here, and do not see any notability justifying an article on this particular argument. Another Revkin blog post gives a well informed comment on peer review, still nothing substantive. . . dave souza, talk 17:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

BTW, is it still Wikipedia policy that second hand articles like delingpole's are better references that the O'Donnell blog posts that inspired it? (Direct citations would seem preferable to me)Jsolinsky (talk) 01:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if the problem here is that the article is a bit dodgy. It's about a minor controversy--an almost invisible one, in fact--in the media over matters for which there is no corresponding scientific controversy. As such it's becoming a bit of a shelving unit for minor wittering in the media by people who don't know what they're talking about, and about which nobody really cares except the (presumably deliberately) uninformed participants. --TS

Nature put this on the cover just two years ago, at which time numerous mainstream scientists made media statements addressing this supposedly non-existent controversy. Its hard to then turn around and declare that no controversy exists.Jsolinsky (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with TS - I was thinking much like Jsolinsky until I realised that this article is called 'Antarctic cooling'. I'm not sure if that was part of the article being Connolley'd. There is certainly some controversy over the nature and degree of warming in the Antarctic, but as far as I'm aware, this article is about a storm in a teacup revolving around a Michael Crichton novel. Perhaps deletion would be best? Then an appropriate article to cover the science could be created. 94.170.107.247 (talk) 11:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC) Dave

Crichton

I removed the highly specific Crichton reference from the lede because a single statement by a novelist no matter how eminent as a writer isn't really lede material. The reference remains in place in the body. --TS 09:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I reverted wholesale to the version before JS and the anon damaged it. That reverted your Crichton change, but only incidentally. I don't much care if its in or out. On the "in" side, it is a useful indication of where the controversy comes from, which we do need to cover William M. Connolley (talk) 10:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I reread the earlier discussion and I'm still wondering why this article exists. It's beginning to look to me as if the whole thing is built around that fictional work of Crichton. Perhaps it could be merged with an article (if it exists) about themes in Crichton's fiction. --TS 17:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Tony, as the article explains this is no scientific controversy but one that took place in the popular media, and it began with Chrichton's book, followed by public presentation he made and even participated in a Congressional hearing. As you can see from the references provided (20 to 27), this issue was covered by National Geographic, The New York Times, CNN, The Daily Telegraph, etc. The notability of the article was discussed right after it was created (the AfD discussion link is above if you wish to see it).--Mariordo (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Bromwich

Should probably add Bromwich et al.; see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/12/the-heat-is-on-in-west-antarctica/ William M. Connolley (talk) 23:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment 7 links to NYT coverage, it's also been reported by the beeb. . . dave souza, talk 23:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Ejsteig has helpfully added a para, so I've provided references to the paper itself and Eric Steig's commentary, and have asked Ejsteig to review these citations. . dave souza, talk 15:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. I wonder who Ejsteig can possibly be ;-? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I took at a look at the changes you made and it looks fine. Citation is correct. You could replace the reference to my blog piece with an actual published commentary (Steig and Orsi, in press, Nature Geosci) when it is published in February. (Ejsteig (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC))

see ice extent evolution

The trend is more ice as can be clearly seen in the graph: Cryosphere Today – Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois , and I wonder why the article starts with the 'warmer'... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.138.162 (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

This article is biased

The satellite temperature measurements, which are the most accurate measurements, show cooling. This is what all the published data shows. When you divide the more accurate satellite measurements, by the less accurate ground measurements at 12 stations, you get a warming trend.

This article completely ignores the fact, that the cooling controversy is over the fact that measurements showed Antarctica has experienced a cooling trend. This article is disappearing charts, disappearing data, rewriting history retroactively. The original article had a map published by NASA showing the cooling trend over the continent, the new map shows warming.

This article pretends the raw data does not show a cooling trend. It pretends all the data shows a warming trend. It pretends the data showing a cooling trend never existed and that only the adjusted data exists. If this were true, then there is no controversy (which is not the case).

In twenty years, this article will look at silly as Global Cooling does to us now. The article does not mention any of the data showing a cooling trend and pretends like it does not exist. The data and controversy was retroactively disappeared from history.

Wikipedia is not a place for airing religious beliefs and is not a place for climate zealots to engage in historical revisionism. Orwell is rolling in his grave at this attempt at historical revisionism and synthesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.75.236 (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

This talk page is for specific proposals for improvements to the article: for anything to appear in Wikipedia, we need verification from reliable published sources: please remember, Wikipedia's not a soapbox. . . . dave souza, talk 18:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

You're a bit confused, I think. The "skeptic" meme that "satellite temperature measurements, which are the most accurate measurements" applies to the MSU mid-tropospheric stuff, not this surface stuff. Sfc temps from satellites is comparatively unexplored. But what you're also missing is that the image on the page *is* from satellites. Your objection appears to be that once upon a time NASA published an erroneous image showing cooling, that you like because it showed cooling, and why don't we use the erroneous image to show what you'd like to see?

There's a whole pile of discussion about the pic in the section above ("Satellite pic"). Read it and weep at people's stupidity. Or just go to http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=3188 and read "Please note, these are preliminary findings and there are errors associated with these trends. Scientists are currently working on ways of minimizing these errors to more precisely determine these trends" William M. Connolley (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The depletion of stratospheric ozone also has had a cooling effect, since ozone acts as a greenhouse gas.

I took this out. Its "wrong". Not in itself - ozone is indeed a GHG. But GHG forcing is essentially global; so this is of no relevance to a local question.

I think this is perhaps a garbled reference to the cooling-by-wind-change thing, which has been tied to stratospheric influences via ozone. But that needs to be described quite differently William M. Connolley (talk) 07:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know exactly, maybe this is indeed the wrong place, but the Antarctic environment in itself is quiet different to the global perspective, thus local effects could affect globally. prokaryotes (talk) 08:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

William, I'm not quite sure about that. Long-lived GHGs in general are well-mixed, and result in a global forcing. But ozone is short-lived, and not well-mixed - hence we have the ozone hole. Thus, a loss of ozone will result in more radiative cooling in the Antarctic (and we know temperatures are not equalised over the planet, because, well, seasons and diurnal cycle, and stuff ;-). And the effect is more significant because the Antarctic atmosphere is so dry, and thus ozone is relatively more important. The whole story is a bit more complex (isn't it always?), but see e.g. [26]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that ref is saying what I'm saying. While most of the Earth warmed rapidly during recent decades, surface temperatures decreased significantly over most of Antarctica. This cooling is consistent with circulation changes associated with a shift in the Southern Annular Mode (SAM). It has been suggested that both Antarctic ozone depletion and increasing greenhouses gases have contributed to these trends. Which I parse as:

This cooling is consistent with circulation changes associated with a shift in the Southern Annular Mode (SAM). - the direct cause is probably winds (not radiative)

It has been suggested that both Antarctic ozone depletion and increasing greenhouses gases have contributed to these trends. the trends in the *winds* come from...

William M. Connolley (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. You are much more of an expert than I am, but I understand the radiative effect of ozone depletion as one of the drivers for this shift in the SAM. Maybe I misunderstand this? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I was once :-). But yes you're correct: the influence goes via the SAM. However, I don't think anyone reading the original text would have realised that; it was too far away to be helpful (notice we're having to guess what the text meant) William M. Connolley (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Major Article Bias and False Information

I concur with the previous reviewer that there is a major bias to this article. Observations DO NOT show Antarctica to be "unambiguously warming". The most recent NASA data shows both more ice forming and the temperature of the Antarctic cooling over the years. This "article" literally reads as a political piece. It is poorly written, argumentative, non-factual, and extremely skewed. Furthermore, a quick check leads one to discover that this page is supported by the "Climate Change Task Force" on Wikipedia. Thus, there is a clear bias, as one can easily deduce from reading the "article". Wikipedia harms its reputation by keeping this trash up. It should be removed immediately! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.65.251.130 (talk • contribs)

recent NASA data shows both more ice forming: I guess you mean https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses; or the study itself, http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/pre-prints/content-ings_jog_15j071. Firstly, that research is new, and controversial, and unlikely to be right. Secondly, even if it was right about the ice increasing, that wouldn't imply it was getting warmer. Indeed, the increasing ppn the study needs pretty well implies warming. Thirdly, the abstract doesn't even mention temperature, so i don't know where you get and the temperature of the Antarctic cooling from William M. Connolley (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely I take your word on it being unlikely right. Science is seldom right before it is settled, and this science is not. --84.250.122.35 (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

(ec) To be particular, one recent study shows some increase in ice in some parts of Antarctica. In this one NASA study (press release), the authors best estimate is that overall the ice cap has been increasing (their data ends in 2008) and may grow for a few more decades. This study uses radar to measure changes in surface altitude, and it conflicts with e.g. the gravimetric studies done by the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment. So far, the conflict is unresolved, so I'd take that study with a large grain of salt. I have not found any suggestion that Antarctica is cooling in the paper (full paper here), but my time is limited, so I only skimmed it. The authors do suggest that warming lead to more snowfall and hence an increase in ice accumulation in the press release, but they assume the process has been going for a few millennia. If you have different "most recent NASA data", please provide a source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Antarctica cooling controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080905022035/http://www.uic.edu/classes/geol/eaes102/Doran.pdf to http://www.uic.edu/classes/geol/eaes102/Doran.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071024111110/http://www.globalwarming.org:80/node/160 to http://www.globalwarming.org/node/160

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Chrichton Reference

This statement "Novelist Michael Crichton asserted that the Antarctic data contradict global warming" has a reference (currently reference 12, Michael Crichton (2005-01-25). "The Case for Skepticism in Global Warming" (PDF). Michael Crichton The official site. Retrieved 2013-04-13. Speech at the National Press Club, Washington, D.C. (restored from archived copy)) that does not mention the word "Antarctica" anywhere; nor does the next Crichton reference. I am deleting this reference-- the correct reference seems to be the novel State of Fear. If there is a different Crichton reference, other than the novel, please cite that instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NumberC35 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Original research

This entire article seems to be original research. Does the purported "Antarctica cooling controversy" exist? Can you cite a reference stating that this controversy exists? Could somebody cite a reference that actually uses the phrase "Antarctica cooling controversy" ? NumberC35 (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, its a real thing; see e.g. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=18 William M. Connolley (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Meh. That's a thirteen-year old blog post. Ten thousand people have written a hundred thousand things about global climate change, is this particular "controversy" notable enough to be notable? A lot of the citations that footnoting the existence of a "debate between advocacy groups of both sides in the public arena" don't actually mention any debate, they are just talking about the temperature of Antarctica.

I don't know that Wikipedia needs a separate article labeling every single point anybody ever brought up on the subject of climate change a "controversy." It's not really a "controversy", it's a point somebody brought up once years ago; it got answered years ago; it's over. NumberC35 (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Moved material around

I moved sections around to try to make the flow of the article clearer, and to try to eliminate the repetition. The "Summary" section is now "Background," and I put the paragraph of it that was mostly summary into the lede, which is a more logical place. (Hopefully) I didn't change anything, just moved it into a better order. NumberC35 (talk) 23:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Antarctica cooling controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080708144305/http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/Antarctic.paper.chapwalsh.2005.pdf to http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/Antarctic.paper.chapwalsh.2005.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811141844/http://ao.atmos.colostate.edu/other_papers/ThompsonSolomon_Science2002.pdf to http://ao.atmos.colostate.edu/other_papers/ThompsonSolomon_Science2002.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2004/2004_Shindell_Schmidt.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Antarctica cooling controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080924163242/http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17257 to http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17257
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060207221259/http://www.antarctica.ac.uk:80/Key_Topics/Climate_Change/Climate_Change_Position.html to http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/Key_Topics/Climate_Change/Climate_Change_Position.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Antarctica cooling controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130305155142/http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264027 to http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264027
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071016210801/http://grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/ to http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Grammar Inquiry

Just as a question, as the reading of this sentence irritates me a little bit. Is this grammatically correct?

"In his novel State of Fear, Michael Crichton asserted that the Antarctic data contradict global warming" (emphasis added)

I only ask as the sentence seems to suggest a past tense referral, but a present-tense version of "contradict". I am not an english teacher or professor by any means, so if it is correct, feel free to say so and then ignore me. Othrwise I would suggest changing it to "contradict(ed)" to continue the past-tense that Crichton "asserted" this. King keudo (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I have returned after a few months of making actual edits to pages, and gone ahead and boldly made this change. Feel free to revert me if necessary! King keudo (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)