Talk:Climate of Antarctica/Archive 1

Date and verification
William M. Connolley 12:58, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)) A date and verification for the 14.6 at hope bay (== esperanza) would be good.

Getting text to wrap
I have tried wrapping the text round the figure in the 'Ice Shelves' section (by putting '|right' after the pixels command (as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Picture_tutorial), but this doesn't work.... How does one get the text to wrap?Duncan.france 09:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Precipitation
Surprisingly for this topic, there is no mention of amount of precipitation, other than the climate 'is dry'....

Can someone add in the details of annual snowfalls? Duncan.france 09:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * There is information under "Precipitation", although it is in the form of mm of water. For comparison, there is less than 8 inches (20 cm) of snowfall at the South Pole each year. (SEWilco 17:08, 23 May 2005 (UTC))
 * Dry for many parts of Antartica is surely the wrong word, Precipitation is low but so is evaporation. Dejvid 15:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

In the introduction it says Antarctica averages 166mm of precipitation per year, about 6.5 inches. In the same paragraph, it says Antarctica averages less than 2 inches of rain. Should it perhaps be 16.6mm, or is a desert defined by the level of unfrozen precipitation? Orthografer (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Good catch. 166 mm is correct but this is the total averaged over all of Antarctica. I don't know where the "2 inches of rain" came from but it looks like somebody added it based on memory or something they heard. Two inches (of snow) is pretty much what the deep interior receives per year. I have moved it from the lead to the Precipitation section and did a light copyedit. Secret Squïrrel , approx 08:00, 17 Fabruary 2009 (Earth Standard Time)

Do not user User: in text
Direct User: ref removed in text:



You get to be in Wikipedians_with_articles and your own page, but do not put your User: link there either. The User: stuff does not go along when the content is exported.

Fplay 00:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

lowest temp -89.4 or -89.6?

Minimum temperature
I changed the minimum temperature at Vostok to -89.2°C. The original version of this page had it as -89.4°C, and it was changed to -89.6, with no explanation given, here: history. The original entry of -89.4°C comes from US government sources that have converted the official record from -89.2°C to -128.6°F, rounded to -129°F, then converted from the rounded value back to -89.4°C (this is given in the Army Corps of Engineers' book, Weather and climate extremes, 1997). I did not find what seemed to be a reliable source online, but this value is given at this site, and Extremes on Earth; it is also the value given in the Antarctica article on other language wikipedias. On an original research note, I have also seen a photo of the logbook entry from Vostok showing the recorded value as -89.2°C. StephenHudson 22:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sea ice increase
Sea Ice Increase? I heard (CNN) that sea ice surrounding Antarctica set a new record for extent this Fall (2007, heard Oct 20). Some articles I found on web seem to confirm this growth, but none seemed definitive. Can anyone comment in the article? The key point is of course that since we argue that Arctic sea ice shrinkage is important, mustn't growth in the Antarctic also be an indicator of something? Cherrywood 20:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ is good. Yes you're right, there is a new max. Is it an indicator of something? Good question... William M. Connolley 21:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Climate Change - NASA Image
Original image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Antarctic_temps.AVH1982-2004.jpg After considerable dicussion here and here  consensus was reached that this NASA image, while a beautiful piece of art, has some kind of accuracy problem. It may mislabeled, or perhaps has a misplaced decimal point; we were unable to determine the nature of the problem. We agreed not to use at Antarctica cooling controversy it because it was misleading. I have replaced it here with a new image (cropped version) from NASA's website. I have requested comments from Dr. William M. Connolley, as he is an | expert in Antarctic Climate. "Specifically, Dr. C, I felt that the circle represent the Scott-Amundsen Station was too large, and gave the data from that station too much weight. However, I didn't feel that I could change that without the possibility of compromising the scientific accuracy of the image.  Please let me know your opinion." An alternative image appears here, but the previous discussion leads me to believe that the 250 km smoothing is preferred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagredo (talk • contribs) 04:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree there is something wrong with the NASA image. My guess would be it is °C/decade.  I've also never liked the projection, but that's another issue.  Given the lack of ground-based observations, and the short period of record from satellites, I prefer the format of the new image—trends from station data, shown locally.  The circle from the Pole data is too large (there is no way data from there are representative of the southern part of the Ross Ice Shelf).  I don't think cutting the Pole circle to half of its current radius would affect the image's integrity, especially if the image page notes what was done.  Another option would be a new figure (which would also allow it to focus on only the Antarctic region).  William M. Connolley do you have an image like Fig 1a in your Turner et al. (2006) Science paper that shows surface, rather than 500-mb, trends?  Or, if anyone can direct me to a data repository with surface air temperature data from most Antarctic stations, I could create a new image; I have access only to data from South Pole and Vostok. StephenHudson 17:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Welcome Stephen, it's great to have another expert on antarctic climate. Dr. C provided this link http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/gjma/ to the BAS's data, although I'm not sure it is specific data for which you are looking.  Not sure it's complete, either; I didn't see McMurdo.    Sagredo Discussione? 19:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It occurs to me that the data might not actually be needed. If a new map is made with a dot for each station, and those dots were colored using photoshop (or similar software) to move the color from the current image, and the scale is moved from the current image, it still should be accurate.  The biggest problem is likely to be identifying which station is which on the current image.  All we really need is a nice outline map showing the location of the stations.  Sagredo Discussione? 22:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The final modification (smaller circle for the South Pole) I will make to the image. It's still far from perfect, and if SH obtains the data and makes another, I'm sure I'll see it is an improvement.  WMC would likely know of the existence of a suitable data repository; you might leave a note on his talk page.   Sagredo Discussione? 01:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This shows you most of the stations. Or a table . McMurdo is probably missing because it isn't very good; Scott base is just nearby and is run by real Met people. The current map looks OK to me though its the wrong way round :-) William M. Connolley 09:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed some massive changes that seemed rather POV'ish....
I reverted this. Most of it seems like original research, since it doesn't reference a synthesis or assessment for its rather broad statements. While the text may be true, it seems to me to be merely a collection of papers, collected for their content rather than as a comprehensive overview. Thoughts? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I edited section on Climate Change. It is strange from you to object that my edit was "only" collection of papers. Existing text bases its very broad assessments and conclusions on only one paper (First portion of the text is actually citation from that paper Steig, 2009. That is highly biased and misleading). I cited or paraphrased in short and than referenced all four papers (including Steig's, with its different conclusions). Why papers I cited were not referenced or even cited in your existing version? Why data on sea ice and icee sheets growing on Antarctica are not allowed in existing version? Because they are "inconvenient" or appear at odds with only paper allowed? By censoring inclusion of papers published in leading scientific journals only because they have conclusions you don't like, you actually engage in disinformation of the public, and practicing extreme POV. I didn't remove Steig paper from my edit (only added additional ones), but you removed all other papers, because they were not in accordance with your point of view. That's the problem.


 * I can re-edit the section and exclude all potential original or POV assertions, but I am not sure you will be satisfied even than. Do you want at every cost to ban including three papers from leading journals and posting the official data on sea ice and mainstream assessments of ice sheet growing? --Ivanelo (talk) 01:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This can be resolved in the very simple and NPOV way. As a general framework, we can say something like "until the appearance of Steig at al, all assessments of Antarctica temperature trends showed warming in the first 10 years of the record, and than slight cooling. Steig et al asserts that trend is significant and positive etc. With all references from my text on all 4 papers, and with ice sea and ice sheets data, both from interior and Peninsula.--Ivanelo (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I too am unhappy at the changes. For example, These results are very similar to the findings reported in paper published in Science by Curt Davis et al (2005), who also used satellite altimetry measurements of Antarctica to calculate mass changes, and estimated that over a similar period Antarctic ice sheets have grown 45 billion of metric tones per year at the pace that cause annual decline in sea level rise of 0.12 mm per year.  is a misrepresentation. Stuffed where it is, this appears to be related to the cooling stuff. In fact it probably indicates warming. Without context it is misleading William M. Connolley (talk) 07:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

William, expression "similar results" was used to compare two satellite altimetry studies of ice sheets growth, not studies of temperature with those of ice sheets, as you suggest. Paragraphs on temperatures and on those on ice are clearly separated in my text. I thought it was obvious that context was to offer reliable data that showed that Antarctica overall ice mass is growing, contrary to popular misconceptions often repeated by media that "Antarctica is melting". Concerns for melting of Antarctic ice sheets feature prominently in many scientific model projections of future climate change, nothing to say about popular presentations often merged with unjustified alarmism. I hope it is not the rule here that only models can be cited, and not the real world data. Btw you as an "editor in chief" didn't objected to using real world data about melting ice and rising temperatures on Arctic. And writer of article found important to note specific number for sea ice shrinkage since satellite record began. What is the basis for excluding the very same type of precise numbers for Antarctica?--Ivanelo (talk) 12:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

As nobody answered my questions why the data and studies I referenced were POVish, I re-edited the section on climate change according to my previous edit. --Ivanelo (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Missed your revert. I've removed it again, because even now it is still bad William M. Connolley (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Near the coast, December does not look cold.
lolwut there's snow and penguins and shit, sure looks cold to me.

Antarctic Annual MSLP
I have had a good look around the web for a map of Antarctic with Annual MSLP contours plotted but I can not find one. Does anyone have access to one?

--Benjaminevans82 (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Part of the reason it is hard to find is probably that SLP is not a very useful quantity in most of Antarctica since the elevation most places is over 2000 m, and the accuracy of the reduction of surface pressure to SLP is not very good for high elevation sites. Also, there is a lack of data to use for making contours in the interior.  But, I did find maps showing seasonal SLP contours on page 90 of King and Turner (1997, Antarctic Meteorology and Climatology, Cambridge University Press).  I'll temporarily put a scan of the page at www.stephenhudson.net/AntSLP.pdf. StephenHudson (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Dry ice
If it gets below the sublimation point of dry ice, does if fail out of the air like snow? Zginder 2009-12-05T06:52Z (UTC) 06:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it does not get cold enough in Antarctica to get dry ice snow. The reason is the same as why it can be below freezing, with water vapor in the air (as there always is), but without snow. For more detail see Talk:Antarctica/Archive_2. StephenHudson (talk) 11:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Steig et al reference
In light of the current scientific controversy - leaving aside the related but irrelevant controversy over peer-review and allegations of bad-faith behaviour as far as possible - the Steig reference should be removed or annotated. It does look like the recent JoC rebuttal has shown the claims in Steig's paper to be unjustified statistically, regardless of the unsavoury to-and-fro that has accompanied it. Thoughts and suggestions? 94.170.107.247 (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC) Dave

Add paleoclimate info?
108.73.113.185 (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Warm Snap Turned Antarctica Green Around the Edges; Thawed-out continent was lined with trees 15 million years ago, study says. June 20, 2012 National Geographic

Can somebody archive this old talk?
I would do it but I would screw it up somehow Fxmastermind (talk) 14:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)