If you’ve not read Where’s Waldo: Antarctica #1, please do so first.
Waldo in Antarctica #1 compares measured rural station temperatures in Antarctica in the 1930s and recently. It is of course empty because there were no such measurements in the 1930s. So when Hansen says that temperatures in the U.S. don’t “matter” because it’s only 2% of the earth’s surface (6% of the land surface actually), it’s a bit deceptive for analysis of relative levels in the 1930s because, as we are finding out, there are no relevant measurements from the 1930s for much of Hansen’s denominator.
Two stations started in the Antarctic Peninsula in the 1940s and there were 12 more by the late 1950s, 6 of which were south of 70S and 6 of which were north of 70S. I show averages for the three groups separately below.
First here is a plot for the six “very high latitude” stations since the 1950s. Obviously they don’t cover the 1930s, but I am unable to discern the Waldo trend here at very high latitudes.
Second here is a plot for the six non-Peninsula stations north of 70 S. Again I am unable to find the Waldo trend here.
Third here is a plot for the two Antarctic Peninsula stations, which while, they don’t show the 1930s, do show a definite temperature increase over their history. There is a long record at Puntas Arenas in southern Chile which doesn’t have a Waldo-trend though, so whatever trend is taking place in the Antarctic Peninsula doesn’t appear to extend to southern South America. For reference, the Antarctic Peninsula (about the latitude of Norway) is where the Larsen ice shelves have broken off.
Any day now, I anticipate that Michael Mann and his school will show (using Mannian RegEM or some other “new” method not used off the Island and buried within 10,000 pages of covariance calculations) that there is a teleconnection between these Antarctic Peninsula stations and bristlecone pines, thereby proving that 1998 was the warmest year in the Holocene to 23 significant decimal places.
As I’ve discussed elsewhere (and readers have observed), IPCC AR4 has some glossy figures showing the wonders of GCMs for 6 continents, which sounds impressive until you wonder – well, wait a minute, isn’t Antarctica a continent too? And, given the theory of “polar amplification”, it should really be the first place that one looks for confirmation that the GCMs are doing a good job. Unfortunately IPCC AR4 didn’t include Antarctica in their graphics. I’m sure that it was only because they only had 2000 or so pages available to them and there wasn’t enough space for this information.