http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
Real Climate claims Antarctic temperature rise due to CO2
2 January 2006
Guest commentary by Cecilia Bitz, University of Washington
“Polar amplification” usually refers to greater climate change near the pole compared to the rest of the hemisphere or globe in response to a change in global climate forcing, such as the concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) or solar output (see e.g. Moritz et al 2002). Polar amplification is thought to result primarily from positive feedbacks from the retreat of ice and snow. There are a host of other lesser reasons that are associated with the atmospheric temperature profile at the poles, temperature dependence of global feedbacks, moisture transport, etc. Observations and models indicate that the equilibrium temperature change poleward of 70N or 70S can be a factor of two or more greater than the global average.
Observations and models indicate that the equilibrium temperature change poleward of 70N or 70S can be a factor of two or more greater than the global average.
I therefore declare that the globe hasn’t warmed since 1979 since, inversely, 1/2 x 0 = 0.
Since it will require a 30 (C) degree warming to melt the ice cap, it doesn’t appear than anyone should be losing any sleep over it.
hi, Steven.
off topic, but you might want to check this story out:
http://news.yahoo.com/ideology-trumped-science-texas-agency-two-lawmakers-021857546.html
Ira, go here first… http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/161.php
Note where it states, “FOLLOWING PSMSL DOCUMENTATION ADDED 14-JUL-94 : For a discussion of submergence near to Galveston, Freeport and
Sabine Pass, see Emery and Aubrey (Sea Levels, Land Levels and
Tide Gauges), 1991, Springer-Verlag, page 39.”
Then go here….. http://www.waterstones.com/waterstonesweb/products/k-o-+emery/david+g-+aubrey/sea+levels2c+land+levels+and+tide+gauges/5073719/
Note where it states, “Aubrey and Emery suggest, however, that tidal gauges should not be used unquestioningly as a benchmark for measuring eustatic sea-level changes. Tectonism, subsidence, ocean current variability, and human activity can, and do, affect the accuracy of these records.”
Sigh, this means the Galveston area tidal gauges shouldn’t be used in determination of sea level. There’s too many other things happening. That’s why that piece of fluff got erased from the report.
Ira:
The ideology trumping science was on the part of the Climate Change promoters and those claiming sea level changes reflect some relationship to weather patterns. The only real long term evidence is that Texas has experienced normal weather patterns since they started recording the variations and those some what match the geological records from the region!
Short version: Texas experiences variable weather just like everyone else!
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png
Unlike the last few years where the spik on gain to maximum has offset the Arctic loss nothing has happened this year, hence the huge global low extent for this time.
Will be interesting to watch what happens next year for the max
Andy
Re the top graph:
It plots temperature anomalies.
Is there an underlying trend in the actual temperatures?
We could have a rising or falling trend which the anomaly plot would not capture.
Off topic, but given the recent comments on ice drift flushing multi year ice out the Fram Strait, is there really much evidence for polar ice air temperature induced melting vs warm current impacts and wind generated drift loss?
If it is not seen in the anomaly charts it would not exist in the actual temperature charts.
There is a minor problem because the actual temperature records for the region represent less than 1% of the area and every thing else is extrapolated from those.
Currents, either warm or cold, along with wind patterns are the determining factors in ice conditions in the polar regions! Air temperature plays a minor role in ice conditions. Air temperature directly over the ice does not warm much above freezing.
“It plots temperature anomalies.
Is there an underlying trend in the actual temperatures?”
Definition of ANOMALY
1: the angular distance of a planet from its perihelion as seen from the sun
2: deviation from the common rule : irregularity
This should clear things up.
C’mon Man! We all know heats rises and North is up!
What no polar amplification?
Sorry to be obtuse but if the temperature has a trend of say down 1 degree/decade,
there could be rising anomalies of say up to 2 degrees by the end of the 40 year period covered and yet the temperature would still be down. So just anomaly is not enough unless the presumption is that the baseline is flat. Is there any trend in the baseline?
The baseline doesn’t change during the period surveyed. If the baseline does change, then you’re not graphing an anomaly.
Interesting that they indicate that polar amplification is due to feedbacks, ignoring the most obvious reason that the poles are more sensitive–the greenhouse effect is more severe at lower temperatures. This is due to two reasons, both related to water vapor. First, the reduced amount of water vapor in the air means the CHANGE in total IR absorbance of outgoing radiance is more dramatic than at lower latitudes. Second, the lower amount of water vapor in the air reduces the heat capacity of said air.
The first reason is extremely important and by itself is enough to explain the trends. No positive feedbacks necessary to explain said trend and thus no reason to expect we’re all going to die from it anytime soon.
-Scott