The Hunt For Global Warming: Antarctica

My hunt for global warming in uninhabited areas of the Southern Hemisphere continues with Antarctica. Given the proclamations of the climate alarm community and global media I was expecting to find a continent in melt down. Nothing could be further from the truth. 14 stations distributed around the edge and in the centre of the continent show a warming trend of +0.35˚C since 1954. If the regression is started in 1969, the trend is completely flat. There is scant evidence of warming on the main Antarctic continent for 42 years.

This observation does not include 3 stations from the Antarctic Peninsula that clearly belong to a separate climatic regime and are therefore treated separately. These three stations show warming of +3˚C since 1944. Given that the continent to the South and Patagonia to the North show barely any signs of warming at all, the dramatic rise in temperature on the Antarctic Peninsula can hardly be attributed to CO2 forcing of temperature change or to ozone depletion. Rather, there appears to have been a change in climatic regime that is shared with the South Orkney Islands (Base Orcadas) and South Georgia (Grytviken). Warmer temperatures may be attributed to greater marine and less continental influence in the atmospheric circulation pattern.

In this post I use the GHCN V2, slightly adjusted records.  I calculate T anomalies two separate ways 1) relative to the station mean and 2) relative to a 1963 to 1992 fixed base period for each station. There is no material difference between the two approaches.

Average temperature anomalies for 14 stations from the main Antarctic continent. There is clear sign of gradual warming confirmed by regression and rising tops and bottoms.

Geography and Temperatures

Stations were selected by clicking around on the NASA GISS V2 map, looking for stations with long and continuous records. I ended up with 14 stations from the main continent, 3 stations on the Antarctic Peninsula that reaches up towards South America and 2 stations  from Islands to the NW of the Peninsula (Figure 1, 2).

Figure 1 Antarctic stations arranged in order of latitude with the exception of Rothera Point that is plotted out of order. Most records begin 1956/58. On the peninsula they begin 1944/46 and on the islands we have two long records that begin in 1903/05.

Figure 2 Map of Antarctica from this source. Most of the stations can be found on the map. Following the Antarctic Circle that passes through the northern tip of the peninsula it can bee seen that the coastline for much of the continent to the E lies on the Antarctic Circle. Halley, Scott and McMurdo lie further south than the other coastal stations and are at a similar latitude to Vostok.

Figure 3 Owing to the research station basis for Antarctic bases, this is one of the most continuous set of temperature records on the planet. The only limitation is that it begins in earnest in 1956 and there is only 55 years of data (better on the peninsula and islands). My main charts begin in 1954 when continuos records began.

Figure 4 Some well ordered temperature spaghetti for continental Antarctica. There are a large number of key observations to be made. There are three groups of data. One centred on -10˚C, one on -17˚C (McMurdo, Scott and Halley) and one very cold group comprising Amundsen-Scott and Vostok. Vostok lies further N than the S pole but is colder than Amundsen-Scott in part because of its higher altitude: 3488m, compared with the S Pole at 2835m. McMurdo, Scott and Halley lie at similar latitude to Vostok but are at sea level. The vast difference in temperature cannot be attributed to altitude alone. Assuming a lapse rate of 1.9˚C / 1000ft we would expect Vostok to be 22˚C colder than these coastal stations owing to its greater height. Clearly the coastal setting is warmer and the coastal stations climate is influenced by the ocean.  All the trends appear orderly and flat because of the immense Y-axis scale on this chart which raises an interesting question. Should temperature trends, for example +0.35˚C warming be referenced against diurnal and geographic dT in a region, >>45˚C in this case. One final observation. There is a small positive bump in the temperature record in 1980 seen in Vostok and the majority of other stations.

Figure 5 Converting the temperatures in Figure 4 to anomalies creates this picture of dT  spaghetti. In this chart the station mean is used to calculate the anomaly. In other words, dT for a station = annual mean temperature minus mean temperature for the station over the time series for that station. In this chart I can see a high degree of congruity between stations, in other words they are all going up and down together, with some exceptions. And there is no clear trend. No trend of rising tops and bottoms, it looks flat.

Figure 6 Averaging the dT stack shown in Figure 5 we get this picture. Here I have added normalisation to a fixed period of 1963 to 1992 where the station anomaly is referenced to the mean temperature for that station in that fixed time period. It can be seen quite clearly for this group of stations that the dT gradient is identical for both normalisation procedures.

It’s not obvious from Figure 5, but there is in fact a small positive gradient running through this data of approximately +0.35˚C from 1954 to 2011. The gradient suggested by the regression is confirmed by tops and bottoms rising at similar gradient.

Figure 7 From the way I have over the years learned to view trends, I could see from Figure 6 that arbitrarily selecting a different start date would produce a different outcome. Doing so allows me to claim that there is no evidence of warming in the Antarctic continent since 1969, that is for the last 42 years.

Antarctic Peninsula

The Antarctic Peninsula projects northwards into the ocean and is almost surrounded by water. Its temperature records are distinctly different to the continent and are therefore treated separately. The Peninsula shows clear signs of recent warming. To the NW lies Base Orcadas on the S Orkney Islands. This provides an important record stretching back to 1903. And about 900 kms to the NW, lies S Georgia and the station at Grytviken. This is also a long record stretching back to 1905 and shows recent warming. The Falkland Islands’ records stop in 1988, and so we don’t if they belong to this group or not.

Figure 8 Temperature spaghetti for Rothera Point, Faraday and Base Esperanza (Figure 1). These three stations show a fairly high degree of congruity and the trend of rising tops and bottoms is quite clear. One striking feature is the sharp drop in temperatures in 1980, in marked contrast to the continent that showed warming at this time. The significance of this is discussed below.

Figure 9 Adding Base Orcadas and Grytviken we can see that Base Orcadas blends in with the peninsula records. Grytviken, 6.5˚ further North, is clearly a lot warmer and has much less year on year variance. The latter is likely caused by distance from the continent and temperature buffering effect of the surrounding ocean. But Grytviken also shows distinct warming from the 1950s to the present day, despite a long break in the record.

Figure 10 Looking at dT anomalies from the Peninsula we can see that the two normalisation methods give identical results. The data suggest warming of +3˚C since 1944 when records began. If CO2 forced warming or ozone depletion are the cause, then in the Antarctic peninsula it began in 1944 at a time when much of the northern hemisphere began to cool and at a time when the atmospheric CO2 was of the order 310 ppm, barely elevated from pre-industrial levels.

Figure 11 Adding the tw0 islands to the dT stack, two things happen. Since the pre-1944 records for the islands are flat, stretching the record back to 1903 has the effect of  substantially reducing the warming rate. And second, in the pre-1944 part of the record the two normalisation procedures diverge, but not materially so. Given the distribution of the small number of records (Figure 9) this is a real test. The fixed 1963 to 1992 base is being projected back up to 60 years. Using the full record as a base, all the data are used. Both methods are flawed and reality likely lies in between. And since the difference between the methods is not material, none of this really matters.

The station average base method suggests warming of +1.8˚C since 1903. The fixed 1963 to 1992 base suggests warming of 2˚C since 1903. But what does this mean, if anything?

Figure 12 Simply running linear regressions through data like this actually makes little sense. It is an unavoidable first approach but there is more to this data than simple linear trends. This is a theme I will return to repeatedly in future postings. 

This data shows three crucial things. 1) There is very high amplitude oscillation between short “warm” periods and short “cold” periods; 2) there is a marked trend of rising tops that is continuous since 1903; 3) the bottoms trend needs to be split into two parts, declining until 1959 and then rising thereafter. It is this latter feature that imparts the main structure to the gross data. Warming tops and cooling bottoms giving rise to a flat trend until about 1959,  and then rising tops and bottoms giving rise to a warming trend. Understanding the reasons for this pattern will unlock the understanding of the reasons for warming on the Antarctic Peninsula.


One feature of the Antarctic data that I believe is significant is the large amplitude oscillations in temperature that can take place from one year to the next. For example on the Peninsula plus islands dT in 1956 was +1.5˚C in 1959 -2.6˚C. A swing of 4.1˚C in average temperature in just 3 years. The Peninsula receives wind from two principle areas 1) off the continent which will always be very cold air (katabatic winds blow continually from the centre to the coast) and 2) off the ocean that will always be much warmer air. And so I think it is reasonable to presume that the warm years had on average a larger share of oceanic circulation and the colder years a larger share of continental circulation.

The 1980 temperature anomaly lends support to this idea. The cold temperatures on the peninsula that year linked to a greater amount of wind blowing from the South. To compensate for this, the continent will have had to “suck in” more air from the surrounding ocean giving rise to its positive temperature anomaly. This may happen via a large convection cell that sucks air up from the ocean and blows it down over the pole ( a strengthening of the polar cell).

Can a simple climatic circulation model such as this explain the substantial warming trend on The Peninsula? I believe it can. The argument would go that with the passage of decades The Peninsula has come under progressively greater influence of marine climate. While still oscillating between continental and marine influence from one year to the next. The area lies in the path of the circumpolar marine current and circumpolar atmospheric vortex. It is an incredibly hostile and unstable environment to be in. This theory is easy to check through comparison with wind direction and speed records that I’m sure will exist but I can’t find any. Corroboration must wait until another day.

Does the rise in temperature 0f 0.35˚C since 1954 and 0.00˚C since 1969 for the continent data set give rise for any concern? Of course it does not. If you look at the summer monthly averages (Dec and Jan) for the warm group of stations it can bee seen that some months do average just above zero meaning that day time temperatures will regularly be above zero for brief spells each summer. But I’m sure if you go a short way in land temperatures will never rise above zero and +0.35˚C will make absolutely no difference at all. To some extent it will depend where this tiny amount of warming lies in the seasonal data and we can check that by looking at seasonl trends (Figure 13).

Figure 13 dT for the 14 continental stations show a warming of about +0.15˚C for the summer quarter DJF. Note that the data begins in 1955 and not 1954 (no 1954 DJF data for Mawson).

It is only during the summer months of DJF that melting is possible and there has been effectively no warming in these months since 1955. Starting the regression in 1956 and the gradient disappears all together. Most of the +0.35˚C rise must reside in the autumn, winter and spring months when temperatures will rarely rise above 0˚C anywhere and will therefore have no impact on Arctic ice at all. Doing this exercise prompted me to look at seasonal temperature change on The Peninsula that will be the subject of a separate post.

With news packed with stories about melting Antarctic ice, global warming causing Antarctic Sea ice to expand and so on, readers have every right to be confused and disorientated by what the data actually shows. I am beginning to become increasingly alarmed and concerned by the conduct of the climate science and climate alarm community.


Temperature anomalies for 14  Antarctic stations, distributed around the coast and in the interior of the continent, excluding the peninsula, show a warming of +0.35˚C since 1954. If the regression is begun in 1969, the trend is totally flat. There has been virtually no warming in Antarctica for 57 years. The summer months (DJF) show virtually no warming. The activities of Man, CO2 increase and ozone depletion have had no significant impact on the temperature records of the Antarctic continent.

The Antarctic Peninsula, in contrast, shows distinct warming of +3˚C since 1944. The temperature records for the Peninsula are congruous with islands to the NW (New Orkney and South Georgia) and bear witness to a larger area of warming that is dominated by the marine environment. While the climate alarm community have sought to explain this warming by anthropogenic causes, in particular via ozone depletion, the simplest explanation is that natural climate variability has seen this area receive increasing amounts of ocean-atmosphere circulation with time.

This entry was posted in Climate change and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to The Hunt For Global Warming: Antarctica

  1. Euan,

    “While the climate alarm community…” you are allowed to use A word, but D word is forbidden.

    Fair enough.


  2. Syndroma says:

    Speaking of Antarctic, a nice timelapse video of a supply mission to Antarctic stations:

  3. Bernd Palmer says:

    Euan, thanks for this very enlightening post. After having been feed alarming figures on “global” climate phenomena, it’s good to look at some of the underlying details to try to corroborate or confirm.

  4. Joe Public says:

    Hi Euan

    You recognise the extent of Antarctica with your observation “This observation does not include 3 stations from the Antarctic Peninsula that clearly belong to a separate climatic regime and are therefore treated separately.”

    Sadly, Aunty gwent for the eye-catching, scaremongering headline:

    “‘Weedy thing’ thrives as Antarctic shores warm”

    The Beeb extrapolated its conclusion from observations at Ryder Bay a mere 20 – 23 miles or so of coastline, and McGrath’s article title implied it affected Antarctica’s 11,165 miles or so of coastline.

  5. glen Mc Millian says:

    I am one of the folks who believe the planet is indeed experiencing a warming trend as the result of human activities.

    Now this is a statistical argument in the last analysis. Nobody who is technically LITERATE will argue that the world may be hotter at some spots on average and cooler at others due to natural variations.

    The question is whether the ENTIRE planet is or is not warming up faster that can be accounted for by non human factors.

    It is very good – it is essential – that there be well trained skeptics keeping the record straight and the politicians honest and on their technical toes. Please keep up this good work.

    But I do have a sneaky underhanded warming partisan’s question.

    Who has records proving that there has been a cooling trend for a period extending back over any large area far fifty years or more ?

    Statistical analysis is above my pay grade given that I got only a sketchy introduction to the subject back in the dark ages and have forgotten most of even that little bit.

    But I did study probability theory in some depth. If there is a preponderance of places indicating a eve a slight warming trend then warming is proven if the sample is large enough and I believe the sample is more than ample. We have weather records now for just about the entire populated part of the planet , well distributed.

    Of course even if warming is proven this does not necessarily conclusively prove that it is the result of human activity. It is possible it could still be the result of natural variations.

    Now some proof of a cooling trend over a large area for say fifty years would be an impressive argument.

    Who has it?

    My personal opinion is that while warming is real and will eventually result in some severe disruption of the planetary ecology and the world economy the more immediate and pressing question is how we will get thru the next half century when we come belly to belly and nose to nose with fossil fuel depletion.

    We have to survive THAT confrontation before we have to get into the ring with the climate monster.

    So far as I can tell there is just about indisputable evidence that the waters of the world ocean are warming significantly – which tells us where the excess heat energy is currently being stored. If that heat energy winds up in really deep waters it will stay there for pretty long time given the fact that the deep waters don’t come back to the surface for centuries. The fossil fuel age for all intents and purposes will be over within ONE century.

    BUT if that heat is going mainly into the top few hundred feet of water – then it may wind up in the atmosphere over a relatively short period with some nasty consequences. Surface waters can turn over pretty quick.

    So -I am open to being enlightened. Who has evidence that some large part of the earth is actually cooling?

    • Javier says:

      Nobody has that evidence, because the Earth is warming and most differences between hemispheres or places are due to heat redistribution through ocean or atmosphere circulation.

      But that is not the point Glen. The point is how much of the warming is attributable to man and how much is natural, because IPCC AGW theory of 100% man made is based on assumptions that might not be true, and has problems to predict the evolution of the climate.

      Climate is always changing on a decadal, centennial and millennial scale and all during the Holocene there has been warming phases that come right after Bond events, and the last Bond event was the Little Ice Age (LIA) that ended about 250 years ago, so we should expect warming at this time.

      If a great part of the warming is natural, that means that we should not worry too much about triggering a warming Armageddon. And more CO2 and higher temperatures could continue to be positive, as they have been since 1750. Was that a good period for mankind? It was a warming CO2 increasing period. Much better than the LIA that caused terrible famines that for example killed 25% of Finland population in 1696, or caused “the ill years” in Scotland.

      Don’t you think that is worth exploring what is the cause of the warming, instead of trying to prove that is man made? IPCC was set to study only human basis of climate change. They are a political organization with an agenda and if they turn to be wrong on this issue they will not admit it, so in essence they can be an obstacle to finding the truth.

  6. Just to set the record straight:

    Global warming: it’s a point of no return in West Antarctica. What happens next?

    We announced that we had collected enough observations to conclude that the retreat of ice in the Amundsen sea sector of West Antarctica was unstoppable , with major consequences – it will mean that sea levels will rise one metre worldwide. What’s more, its disappearance will likely trigger the collapse of the rest of the West Antarctic ice sheet, which comes with a sea level rise of between three and five metres. Such an event will displace millions of people worldwide.

    And here is the (free) original study by Eric Rignot from NASA:

    Upstream of the 2011 grounding line positions, we find no major bed obstacle that would prevent the glaciers from further retreat and draw down the entire basin.

    Widespread, rapid grounding line retreat of Pine Island, Thwaites, Smith, and Kohler glaciers, West Antarctica, from 1992 to 2011


    • Euan Mearns says:

      Alex, thanks for the links. I’ve not read the paper in detail. But it strikes me they are describing the pattern of glacial retreat and I did not see that they attribute cause. I would simply say that we are in an inter-glacial and glaciers are supposed to melt and retreat.

      That Amundsen Sea coastline is far south, almost as far south as McMurdo and Scott where the temperatures are typically -20 and rarely get above zero. Where is the evidence that this has anything to do with man made climate change? Glacier dynamics is as much dependent upon snow fall and accumulation.

      I have now looked at Central Australia, Southern Africa, Patagonia, Antarctica and S Island New Zealand and see precious little evidence for warming of the land at high latitude across the S hemisphere since 1880. IMO this strongly suggests that the oceans cannot be warming either since if they were, they would be sending warmer air across the land masses for which there is no evidence.

    • roberto says:

      yeah!… sure!… it echoes the cry “the hymalayan glaciers are going to disappear by 2030″…. remember the bogus claim by the indian “scientist” friend of the now (in)famous ex chief of the IPCC, the expert in diesel locomotives Pachauri?

      Nice try!… 5 meters!… who says 6?… the gentlemen with the hockey stick!… gone!


  7. A C Osborn says:

    Euan, can I suggest that you consider 2 things, the first being UHI, this has already been noticed and mentioned for Polar Scientific Stations.
    The second being undersea Volcanoes in the area of the Peninsula.

    Another is to take a look at the NuSchool Earth centred on the Antarctic.,-89.37,329
    You can see from that how the wind blowing on and back off the Land and Sea Ice is cooling the Oceans and obviously slightly warming the land. You an also see how the Peninsula and the South American coast is affecting the wind flow around the Peninsula, which along with the sea is warmer than the rest of the Antarctic coast. Pay particular attention to the Bay north east of the Peninsula, it is 20 Degrees C colder than the sea opposite and adjacent to the peninsula.

    You can then switch it to Sea Currents and also see how the Peninsula and the South American coasts squeeze the currents passing from south to north and how close they are to the land compared to everywhere else aroung the coast.,-89.37,329

  8. It’s quiz time.

    GISS publishes temperature time series for different latitude bands. Here is its land-ocean series for 64-90S, essentially the Antarctic (data at

    Now here’s the question. There are no surface air or sea surface temperature records in the Antarctic before about 1945. So how does GISS manage to extend its Antarctic series back to 1880?

    • roberto says:

      proxies anyone?


    • JerryC says:

      Ooh, I know this one. They take the readings from other Southern Hemisphere stations that are thousands of miles away and use a model to infill the Antarctic temperature values.

    • Between 1903 and about 1945 the record is based almost entirely on one surface air temperature record – Base Orcadas in the South Orkneys, which at latitude 60.7S is outside GISS’s 64S-90S latitude zone and which as Euan noted in the post is not representative of Antarctic mainland temperatures anyway.

      I have no idea where the pre-1903 data came from. There are no usable SST data over the far Southern oceans over this period and the closest land station with data going back to 1880 is Dunedin in New Zealand.

      So I think we can take it that any resemblance between GISS’s series and actual temperatures in the 64-90S latitude zone before about 1957, when readings on the Antarctic mainland began, is purely coincidental.

  9. William says:

    No point in me putting any thought into a post as judging by the last two you’ll trash it. So just send some links on Antarctica:

  10. Javier says:

    Euan and Roger,

    Do you think that finding such a different temperature trend in the Northern hemisphere versus the Southern (and also Arctic vs, Antarctic) is surprising or to be expected?

    I’ve read that warming D-O events during Glacial periods are a NH feature that are transmitted to the SH trough a polar seesaw mechanism based on oceanic currents changes.

    If Bond events are the equivalent to the cold phase of D-O events during an Interglacial then it is possible that the warming phase should be more prominent in the NH before the heat is moved to the SH later on (perhaps centuries later).

    Global climate change has never been really global.

    • Javier: This might explain why temperatures have increased less in the SH than in the NH (black is land area, red is the surface air temperature change between between 1970 and 2000):

      • Euan Mearns says:

        The obvious bust in you chart is at 70 S. My favoured theory at present is that land use change – change to the IR radiative characteristics of the surface – are more significant than currently estimated in models.

  11. Phil Chapman says:

    Why are we still arguing about whether the warming in the late 20th Century was or was not anthropogenic, without even discussing the real possibility that Nature may have made the issue irrelevant?

    The first bombshell is that the sun has gone quiet. It is very likely that the next grand solar minimum (now called the Eddy Minimum, after astronomer John Eddy) has begun. There have been 5 such minima in the last thousand years (the Oort, Wolf, Spörer, Maunder and Dalton Minima), and each one led to serious cooling from the prevailing climate. The IPCC and others of their ilk have claimed that the inexorable AGW will soon overwhelm any cooling due to the Eddy Minimum, but every one of those arguments that I have seen is based on the delusion (or pretence) that the tiny fluctuations in the TSI (i.e., the brightness of the Sun) are the only solar phenomena that could possibly affect the terrestrial climate. The strong probability must be carefully ignored that the cooling is due to the effect on clouds of the unquestionable variation in the flux of galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) with the solar magnetic field, and hence with sunspot activity. If Svensmark et al are right, we may see the Thames freezing in winter, and people walking from Manhattan to Staten Island over the sea-ice, as happened in the 17th Century – and the cold may last for most of this century. At the very least, we should be thinking about the consequences for agriculture, energy use, etc., and making contingency plans in case the new Little Ice Age is upon us.

    The second and potentially much larger bombshell is that ESA’s Swarm magnetometer satellites have confirmed that the geomagnetic field is becoming disorganized and is rapidly losing its strength (5% per decade!). The last times this happened were the Mono Lake and Laschamp geomagnetic excursions, 33 and 40 thousand years ago. In those events, the field broke up and fell to <10% of its previous value and swapped the N&S magnetic poles before returning to normal a few centuries later. Without the protection of the geomagnetic field, the GCR flux more than doubled.

    The magnetic poles are now drifting, and the field is weakening, just as fast as in the Laschamp Event.

    Losing the geomagnetic field will have major consequences, increasing radiation exposure at high altitude (e.g., in airline travel and in orbit), disrupting sensitive electronics and long power lines, and exposing us to whatever the Sun chooses to hurl at us. The climate consequences may be much worse.

    The increase in GCRs that may have caused the Maunder and other Minima was only about 20%. Doubling the flux could cause a geomagnetic winter, much colder than at any time since the Holocene began. It could begin well before 2100, and it could last for centuries.

    Even this is not the worst of it. Many paleoclimatologists have noted that geomagnetic excursions are usually followed by stadials (i.e., long cold periods) and that they mostly occur near the transitions from interglacial to glacial stages of the current Quaternary Ice Age (see, for example, ). Because these people are fixated on Milankovitch forcing – i.e., the idea that interglacial/glacial transitions occur when changes in the Earth’s orbit lead to weak mid-summer insolation in the sub-Arctic – all of these papers that I have seen try to explain how the cooling of northern summers could possibly trigger geomagnetic excursions. The obvious answer, carefully ignored, is that glacial transitions are related to these excursions, not the other way around. In other words, the excursion, with its enormous increase in GCRs and thus major cooling, is part of the process that initiates glaciation. If this is true, the Swarm Event could mean the end of the Holocene and the start of the next glacial stage. Within a century or two, the ice sheets could be kilometers thick over most of Europe and much of North America – and these conditions would last a thousand centuries, as they did during the last glaciation.

    I don’t mean to be Chicken Little. My current opinion is that the odds are better than 50:50 that the Eddy Minimum will cause serious cooling during the next few decades, but we do not know enough about the geodynamo (the chaotic electromagnetohydrodynamic outer core of the Earth that creates the geomagnetic field) to make any reliable predictions about the Swarm Event. I am certainly not forecasting either a geomagnetic winter or the next glaciation – but how do we exclude the possibilities? I would be delighted to hear some cogent reasons why these catastrophes will not happen — but, absent such assurances, we need to start thinking about the unthinkable.

    • A C Osborn says:

      I don’t think there can be any “cogent reasons why these catastrophes will not happen”, the only question is the timing of those events.
      The longer they take to occur together to bring about a full glaciation the longer humans have to prepare and even possibly invent technologies to slow it down or prevent it.
      Being side tracked by so called AGW is putting off those efforts. I am not sure when the world will wake up to “cooling”, let’s just hope it the cooling is not too fast when it begins in earnest.

  12. Pingback: The Hunt for Global Warming: Moscow and Urban Heating | Energy Matters

  13. Pingback: The Hunt For Global Warming: Southern Hemisphere Summary | Energy Matters

Comments are closed.