East Ongul Island In Antarctica Has Had A Cooling Trend For September Since 1960

Today, I made the chart below using the data from the Japan Meteorological Agency(JMA).

Data Source

As you can see, Syowa Station, which is a Japanese research station, East Ongul Island in Antarctica, has shown a cooling trend for September since 1960.

The mean monthly temperature for last month was -18.2℃. The mildest September was 1996 with -11.8℃.

The September data since 1960 at that location clearly show the exact opposite of alarmist expectations.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to East Ongul Island In Antarctica Has Had A Cooling Trend For September Since 1960

  1. Eric Hatfield says:

    Doing a temperature trend for one site doesn’t really prove anything about what the overall climate is doing. You can be accused of ‘cherry picking’ very easily.

    Take all the sites that have a solid record for say 100 years or so and combine them and see what happens. That won’t be evenly distributed around the world, but it will give a far better indication of what the climate is doing than showing one site.

    Another thing that would be very interesting is take sites with a good long term history that haven’t urbanized and compare to trends of sites that have urbanized during the same period. With that you can define what the urban heat island effect actually is as a function of metropolitan population. Once defined the urban heat island effect can be subtracted out of the data. Then you can get a truer idea of what the climate has been actually doing over the last several decades.

    • Learned Hat says:

      Have you looked at the videos – they have covered most areas of the world with decent temperature records. Covered most years to over 130 years ago and most months and days within those years for places that have unaltered source data.

    • Charles Higley says:

      If you have been following Mr. Heller’s posting over the years, you would clearly see that he does this kind of treatment to many individual sites to show that the raw data does not show what the adjusted-massaged data is designed to show. This is NOT cherry-picking, it is an example of what raw data looks like.

      You are clearly suffering from out of context cherry-picking.

      “Once defined the urban heat island effect can be subtracted out of the data.”
      This is exactly why Mr. Heller does these site analyses, mostly on sites that have not suffered UHI effect. The temperature data managers did a token small UHI adjustment decades ago and have failed to realize that this effect grows with time and should be done every year with growing adjustments. However, it serves their needs to have UHI effects increase and be unaccounted for. This is negligence.

    • Lester Heddle says:

      Tony, I really wish you would do as Eric suggests. Or if you have, re-publish it. At least comment re why it might not be able to be done, or not valid, if done.

    • Craig Lowen says:

      Actually, Eric, cherry picking can be fun.

      Dr. John Robson over at climatediscussionnexus.com has done it for about 20 locations in Canada, wherein he plots daily average temperatures from 1919 in one colour, then using a different colour on the same graph he plots daily average temperatures for 2019 and invites you to guess which is which.

      You might want to try his little ‘contest’. Just go to the site and search on ‘1919 or 2019’ to bring them all up.

      Have fun :-)

  2. Michael Spencer says:

    And only today, yet another story in one of our local newspapers (Surprise! Surprise! The Left-leaning one!) that Antarctic is suffering ‘unprecedented warming’ – or words to that effect!

    But we can’t let nasty facts get in the way of a good story, now can we …..

  3. Edward Drasby says:

    Do you know why Tony Heller has not posted a Video or Tweet in the last 5 days?

  4. Kevin Petersen says:

    @Hatfield you just made Heller’s point. Cherry picking data and timelines can give you the results you want to report, and thats not science. One is supposed to start with a hypothesis, establish methodology for the test including sample sizes and baselines, then collect data and determine whether the hypothesis is accepted or rejected. Climate science starts with a conclusion and then either seeks or manipulates data to support the conclusion. I object to the media use of the word unprecedented. Every time they say it a simple Google search will show the event was not unprecedented and has usually occurred within the past 100 years. It really is junk science supported by a corrupt media.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *