10 of 10 Antarctic Coastal stations show no warming

10 Of 10 Coastal Antarctic Stations Show Zero Warming Over Past Decades. Failed Scientists Need To Resign

By P Gosselin on 31. May 2019

Share this…

By Kirye
and Pierre Gosselin

Update: Another coastal station has been added: Novolazarevsk, so it’s 11 stations.

Over the past few years, climate alarmists have increasingly been resorting to weather-ambulance chasing, which has necessitated the trotting of the globe in the search of weather anomalies to behold as proof of man-made climate change.

But one place they have been avoiding like the plague is Antarctica as a number of studies have been showing the opposite of what what predicted earlier has been happening down at the South Pole, except for volcanic activity beneath parts of the Antarctic ice shelf.

Analysis of Antarctic stations show cooling

Today we look at 10 Antarctic station under operation in Antarctica, scattered along the Antarctic coastline and operated by various countries. These are not impacted by volcanic activity:With the 2018 data in, now is a good time to look at the long-term temperature trends of these stations. We do know that Antarctic sea ice extent has seen an impressive upward trend over the past 40 years, and so tells us cooling may be at play:

Antarctic sea ice has gained steadily over the past 40 years. Chart: Comiso et al, 2017

What follows are annual mean temperature charts of each of the 10 Antarctic stations unimpacted by volcanic activity.

Butler Island and Neumayer

Both show a clear downward trend:


Halley as well shows a downward station since 1956:

Syowa and Casey

Data from the Japan operated Syowa station and the Australia Casey stations both show no trend since 1961. Here we see no signs of any warming:

So far not a single station remote of volcanic activity has shown any warming.


The Davis station data go back 35 years and show a flat trend (very slight cooling in fact). No warming has been detected there since the great global warming scare began in the 1980s. So far 6 of the 6 stations plotted show no warming over the last several decades.


This Antarctic station shows a definite cooling trend over the past 30 years:


The Mirnyl station has been recording temperature data since 1967, i.e. more than half a century. It too is statistically flat, even showing a very slight cooling trend:

Dumont D’Urvi and Mawson

Both D’Urvi and Mawson Antarctic stations have recorded data going back to the 1950s. As the following chart tells us, there’s been no warming at these two long term stations as well.


This station has not seen any warming in 40 years. Instead the trend has been cooling.

None show warming

In summary, not single Antarctic coastal station shows warming, with most showing cooling. Now you know why the climate change ambulance chasers have been silent about this remote, vastly undisturbed continent.

South Shetland Islands

Next we look at the annual temperatures of the 5 stations of the South Shetland Islands (located in the Antarctic Ocean).

They too show no warming since 1993. Centro http://Met.An , Marsh has had no warming trend since 1977. Where’s the warming? There certainly isn’t any at the South Pole.

Antarctic seas cooling, new study shows

Finally a fresh comprehensive study by Zhous et al also tells us that summertime sea surface temperatures (SSTs) all around Antarctic coast have been COOLING.

This is really inconvenient news for the global warming alarmists. Just when they predicted the South Pole would warm and start a dramatic melting, the opposite has in fact happened.

Grand failure as grounds for dismissal

It’s time to dismiss these alarmists as complete failures. They should be fired permanently, and never be allowed to practice science again. Their failed predictions have led the global community on a wild policy goose chase that has cost hundreds of billions of dollars and set back progress in the developing countries by many years.

The 97% consensus hoax

By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM

You might recall MIT’s Jonathan Gruber saying “the stupidity of the American voter” made possible to hide Obamacare’s true costs… which they did with the help from the media echo chamber.

The same has been true about the greatest lies ever told – about man’s supposed role in catastrophic climate change, and zero attention to investigating and reporting on how the published plans for decarbonization would quite literally devastate the economy.

My colleagues and I have given many lectures about the myths, misconceptions and outright lies in the global warming arena the last few decades. After an hour of graphs, charts and pictures detailing how a tiny trace gas, carbon dioxide, has no relationship to whatever warming and cooling or weather extremes has occurred we get the inevitable statement from someone in the audience.

“How can you deny that man made global warming and its effects are real when 97 percent of climate scientists agree that it is true?”

At that point we have to explain that the 97 percent figure is not what it appears to be. It is a convenient fiction to imply a consensus.

It is now the rule in the schools. Our students are not being taught the scientific method. In the classroom they are taught what to think and not how to think.


The scientific method does not involve a poll or vote by scientists (that is in the realm of politics where you vote on a law or candidate), but validation of a theory with facts.

The famous Cornell Nobel prize winning Physicist Richard Feynman explained the scientific method. “If data disagrees with a theory, it’s wrong. “In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”

Michael Crichton, PhD, MD, famous author, producer, screenwriter and lecturer often talked about claims of a consensus.

“Historically the claim of consensus is the first refuge of scoundrel; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming the matter is already settled”. “Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.

In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”


There have been many polls and declarations that demonstrate a large percentage of real scientists believe in climate change but that natural factors are the primary driver.

Climatology wasn’t a recognized specialty or profession even at colleges when I first taught weather and climate in the 1970s into the early 1980s. It was mostly a small part of introductory classes on weather or in geography or geology courses.  When climate change became part of an anti fossil fuel agenda and big money suddenly appeared, teachers never trained in climate suddenly became ‘climate scientists’. Environmental sciences emerged as a career path. 

The UN, politicians, industry and the mainstream and on-line media would want you to believe that all scientists have now seen the light, that there is a consensus.

That is not the case. Most honest scientist know so. Many are forced into silence or if they vocalize their dissent, find their careers endangered or even destroyed. Still many when past the stage of their career where they can speak the truth, do.

The Global Warming Petition Project was signed by 31,487 scientists including 9,029 with PHDs in their fields. The petition states that: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that the human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth”.

1100 Climate Realists signed ‘The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change’ from 40 countries demanding an end to climate hysteria. 1000+ International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims  to the U.S. Senate, 300+ Eminent Scientists Reject U.N. Climate Change Treaty (Paris Accord).

Thousands of papers listed supporting global warming is no surprise given the $165B given to universities and researchers (Universities, NOAA, NASA, national labs) to produce papers focusing on what would happen IF the climate models were right. Even with that, there were 1350 peer review papers questioning global warming and 1000 papers believing cooling has begun. See my team’s effort to fact-check popular alarmist claims here. We have many other peer review papers disprove the theory.

Scientists are aware of the failures too and now have proposed 54 excuses as to why their models have failed.


There are many well-educated people who do not agree with the survey and its 97% figure. In a 2011 Scientific American opinion poll on the state of climate science provided  the eye-opening results cast by their “scientifically literate” readership. With a total of 5190 respondents, a consensus of 81.3% think the IPCC is “a corrupt organization, prone to group-think, with a political agenda” and 75% think climate change is caused by solar variation or natural processes vs. 21% who think it is due to greenhouse gases from human activity. 65% think we should do nothing about climate change since “we are powerless to stop it,” and the same percentage think science should stay out of politics. When asked, “How much would you be willing to pay to forestall the risk of catastrophic climate change?,” 76.7% said “nothing.”  Scientific American removed the poll when pressured by environmental groups.

In a 2013 Forbes article, it was reported only 36 percent of earth scientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem. The survey results show earth scientists and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists.

Even a global UN survey of the public, received 9.7 million votes and found in prioritizing what should be focused on, action on climate change finished last.


The first quoted source was an online survey that was published in 2009 by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman from the University of Illinois. The survey was sent to 10,257 scientists to, which 3,146 scientists responded to.

There were two primary questions in the survey. The first “When compared to pre-1800 levels, do you think mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

History has recorded a prolonged global cold era know as “The Little Ice Age” that lasted from about 1400 to 1850 AD. Since that time the global average temperature has risen. I know of no meteorologist, climatologist or anyone involved in the study of the earth’s temperature, who would argue this point.

Question number two asked  “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

 What constitutes “human activity”? The burning of fossil fuels to make energy is one. The changing of land surfaces to make cities, farmland and deforestation is “human activity” that can change temperature as well. Changing mean temperature can be accomplished by changing the environment around a climate recording station. This is also “human activity”. As rural climate recording stations are gradually surrounded by urban sprawl and eventually larger buildings and infrastructure, the temperature of the site will warm due to the “Urban Heat Island (UHI)” effect.

This has nothing to due with fossil fuel use increasing the efficiency of the green house effect but is a significant “human activity” that can change the temperature of a recording station over time. The results from the survey do not address the variety of just what constitutes “human activity”. A “yes” response to question two implies the responder is referring to fossil fuels but that is not necessarily the case. It is however, what the survey likely wanted to convey.

Question number two also does not address what the word “significant” means to each individual respondent. What constitutes “significant” can be very different from person to person.

The 97% figure from the survey comes from a whittling down of the accepted number of responses from 3,146 to 79. The 79 scientists are those that said they have recently published 50% of their papers in the area of climate change. Of these, 76 of 79 answered “risen” to questions one (96.2%). How this number is not 100% was a surprise. As to question two, 75 of 77 answered “yes” (97.4%).

An attempt at a more rigorous approach to confirm the 97% number followed and failed.

Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts [brief summaries] of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW. They found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW, while only 64 papers (0.5% of the total) explicitly endorsed humans are the primary (50%+) as the cause. This was 97% of those who explicitly identified a cause. A later analysis by Legates et al. (2013) found there to be only 41 papers (0.3%) that supported this definition.

Cook et al. (2013) was published in the journal Environmental Research Letters (ERL) which conveniently has multiple outspoken alarmist scientists on its editorial board (e.g. Peter Gleick and Stefan Rahmstorf) where the paper likely received substandard “pal-review” instead of the more rigorous peer-review. The paper has since been refuted five times in the scholarly literature by Legates et al. (2013), Tol (2014a), Tol (2014b), Dean (2015) and Tol (2016).

All the other “97% consensus” studies: e.g. Doran & Zimmerman (2009), Anderegg et al. (2010) and Oreskes (2004) have been refuted by peer-review.


Alarmists have the advantage of  a huge ‘social support’ group of grant toting modelers and researchers, agenda driven or ratings driven journalists, environmentalists and corporations that have realized green is their favorite color and see this as a way to keep green paper flowing into their coffers and pockets, farmers who are benefiting from the misplaced focus on alternative fuel from crops which has sent the cost for their crops to record levels, traders and major market firms licking their chops at the prospects of big time money from alternative energy companies that have realized this is the vector to bigger profits and the politicians and political activists who see it as a way to accomplish ulterior goals about changing society and increasing their powerbase.

In part 2, I will talk about how the universities, professional societies and even congress has taken serious and alarming steps to eliminate (punish) doubters and mold public opinion. They attack any of their own who speak out.  That includes formerly outspoken environmentalists like Dr. Patrick Moore, co founder of Greenpeace and Michael Shellenberger whose apology for the false scare was published by Forbes but then forced to be removed. They even have threatened to use RICO against any doubters that remained.  See why attention to this is important for our future here.

Claims about the warmest ever month or year is unsupported by data and a politically driven fiction

By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM

Virtually every month and year we see stories in the once reliable media and from formerly unbiased data centers that proclaim the warmest such period in the entire record back to 1895 or earlier.

In the ADDENDUM to the Research Report entitled: On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data & The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding, Abridged Research Report, Dr. James P. Wallace III, Dr. (Honorary) Joseph S. D’Aleo, Dr. Craig D. Idso, June 2017 (here) provided ample evidence that the Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data was invalidated for use in climate modelling and for any other climate change policy analysis purpose.

The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting warming.

That is made even more true given that 71% of the earth’s surface is ocean and the only ocean data prior to the satellite era began in the 1970s was limited to ship routes mainly near land in the northern hemisphere.

“According to overseers of the long-term instrumental temperature data, the Southern Hemisphere record is “mostly made up”. This is due to an extremely limited number of available measurements both historically and even presently from Antarctica to the equatorial regions. 

In 1981, NASA’s James Hansen et al reported that “Problems in obtaining a global temperature history are due to the uneven station distribution (40), with the Southern Hemisphere and ocean areas poorly represented,” – – – – (Science, 28 August 1981, Volume 213, Number 4511(link))

In 1978, the New York Times reported there was too little temperature data from the Southern Hemisphere to draw any reliable conclusions. The report, prepared by German, Japanese and American specialists, appeared in the Dec. 15 issue of Nature, the British journal and stated that “Data from the Southern Hemisphere, particularly south of latitude 30 south, are so meager that reliable conclusions are not possible,” the report says.

“Ships travel on well-established routes so that vast areas of ocean, are simply not traversed by ships at all, and even those that do, may not return weather data on route.

This finding was amplified by Dr. Mototaka Nakamura in a book on “the sorry state of climate science” titled Confessions of a climate scientist: the global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis.

He wrote: “The supposed measuring of global average temperatures from 1890 has been based on thermometer readouts barely covering 5 per cent of the globe until the satellite era began 40-50 years ago. We do not know how global climate has changed in the past century, all we know is some limited regional climate changes, such as in Europe, North America and parts of Asia.”  

For the entire record the best data quality was limited to some land areas in North America, Europe and Australia. The vast southern oceans were mainly data void.

See how few land stations were used in the data bases in the early decades of the data window.

The National Academy of Science recognized this in their first attempt at determining a trend in temperature, which they limited to the Northern Hemisphere land areas.

Even as the stations increased in number and coverage, their reliability became a challenge, with many large continents having the percentage of missing months in the station data. That required the data centers to guess the missing data to get a monthly and then annual average.

This required guesswork allows those whose job is to validate their models the opportunity to make adjustments in ways to confirm their biases. See the initial data regions in September 2018 that were filled in by algorithms. It includes in a large data void region a record warmth assessment (Heller).

In our assessments, we found that each update cooled past years more and more which serves to make over time the trends more consistent with their model scenarios.

Here is the NASA GISS adaption of the NOAA GHCN data. Each update cools the past to make the trend upward more significant.

Note how even in areas with better data, station is adjusted (corrupted) by the analysts to turn a cooling trend into the desired warming. We picked just three of many examples – one in Australia, the second in Iceland and the plot for the state of Maine . 

For Australia, many examples have been uncovered including Darwin and here Amberley. Blue was the original data plot, red is the one after adjustment in Australia.

The NASA GISS plots for the Iceland raw and the adjusted data shows a cycle replaced by a linear warming ramp.

Maine’s trend was accessed in 2011 and again after 2013. The first showed no statistically significant trend from 1895 (-0.01F/decade) with the warmest year 1913. The second had a trend of +0.23F/decade with 1913 adjusted down almost 5F.



The UN uses Hadley CRU data, the earliest and thought to be the most reliable and best constructed global data set. It too shows an adjustment down of the past temperatures in later constructions.

Climategate emails exposed the true state of the data bases used to drive global policy decisions. Their own developers and their chief scientist were exposed and forced to acknowledge the data flaws.

 Ian ‘Harry’ Harris, the lead CRU climate data programmer and analyst in the ‘Climategate’ emails admitted to “[The] hopeless state of their (CRU) data base. No uniform data integrity, it’s just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they’re found… There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations…and duplicates… Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight. This whole project is SUCH A MESS. No wonder I needed therapy!!”  http://www.di2.nu/foia/HARRY_READ_ME-0.html

The CRU scientist at the center of the Climategate scandal at East Anglia University, Phil Jones after he thought the jig was up, made a candid admission on BBC that his surface temperature data are in such disarray they probably cannot be verified or replicated, that there has been no statistically significant global warming for the last 15 years and it has cooled 0.12C/decade trend from 2002-2009.  Jones specifically disavowed the “science-is-settled” slogan.

Attempting to compile a `global mean temperature’ from such fragmentary, disorganized, error-ridden, evere-changing and geographically unbalanced data is more guesswork than science.


Confounding the warmist claims, the satellites not under climate center control and increasingly some of the data center data provided contradictory results for almost two decades.

Nature and IPCC Lead Author Kevin Trenberth acknowledged the ‘pause’ and cyclic influences of natural factors like El Nino, ocean cycles on global climate.

The American Meteorological Society Annual Meeting in 2015 had 3 panels to attempt to explain away ‘the pause’.

Also the ARGO buoy (nearly 4000 globally) data that provided coverage of ocean temperature and heat content largely missing for the previous century agreed with the lack of warming. 


In 2015 pressure from the politicians funding the sciences told the scientists to fix the inconvenient facts.

John Bates, data quality officer with NOAA detailed how Tom Karl in a paper in Science in June 2015, just a few months before world leaders were to meet in Paris to agree on a costly Paris Climate Accord, removed the inconvenient pause by altering ocean temperatures

“They had good data from buoys…and “corrected” it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did — so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.”  Remember with the oceans covering  71% of the globe, even small adjustments could have a major impact.

Bates here noted “the evidence kept mounting that Tom Karl constantly had his ‘thumb on the scale’—in the documentation, scientific choices, and release of datasets—in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”


Though not ever mentioned, the Climate Reference Network of 114 high quality, well sited stations in the U.S. established in 2005 showed no warming in the period of record.


Even the most extreme interpretations in the models based on flawed data and failed theory are in the category of noise relative to the normal daily, seasonal and year-to year variance. Daytime highs in mid latitudes are on average 30F higher in the afternoon than early morning. The warmest month often average 50F higher than the coldest month. The highest ever is in every state over 100F higher than the lowest ever (as high as 187F in Montana).