From the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology: Climate changes faster in the Arctic than anywhere else on Earth, a phenomenon that is often explained by retreating snow and ice leading to more solar surface warming (positive ice-albedo-effect).
In a new study in Nature Geoscience the scientists Felix Pithan and Dr. Thorsten Mauritsen from the department “The Atmosphere in the Earth System” at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology show that this effect is only secondary. Instead, the main cause of the high Arctic climate sensitivity is a weaker temperature feedback, due to 1) the low temperatures that prevail and 2) the increasing temperatures with height trapping warming to remain near the surface. For these reasons, the Arctic warms more in a global warming due to a forcing from e.g. CO2 than other regions.
Some commentary sheds further light on this.
NoTricksZone points out that the German Newspaper, Spiegel, writes:
To balance out the radiation budget at an ambient temperature of 30°C, an increase of 0.16° is enough. However at minus 30°C, an increase of 0.31 °C would be needed, i.e. almost double, which gives Pithan und Mauritsen cause for thought. According to their calculations the lower start temperature in the Arctic is an important reason for the more rapid temperature increase in the Arctic compared to the tropics.”
They found that the surface albedo feedback is only the second main contributor to Arctic amplification, and that other contributions are substantially smaller or even oppose Arctic amplification.
This casts many of the assumptions made in earlier climate models deep into doubt. It’s back to the drawing board (again) for the modelers.
– See more at: http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.K8HUQkuu.dpuf
The paper:
Arctic amplification dominated by temperature feedbacks in contemporary climate models
Felix Pithan & Thorsten Mauritsen
Nature Geoscience (2014) doi:10.1038/ngeo2071 Received 25 November 2013 Accepted19 December 2013Published online 02 February 2014
Abstract:
Climate change is amplified in the Arctic region. Arctic amplification has been found in past warm1 and glacial2 periods, as well as in historical observations3, 4 and climate model experiments5, 6. Feedback effects associated with temperature, water vapour and clouds have been suggested to contribute to amplified warming in the Arctic, but the surface albedo feedback—the increase in surface absorption of solar radiation when snow and ice retreat—is often cited as the main contributor7, 8, 9, 10. However, Arctic amplification is also found in models without changes in snow and ice cover11, 12. Here we analyse climate model simulations from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 archive to quantify the contributions of the various feedbacks. We find that in the simulations, the largest contribution to Arctic amplification comes from a temperature feedbacks: as the surface warms, more energy is radiated back to space in low latitudes, compared with the Arctic. This effect can be attributed to both the different vertical structure of the warming in high and low latitudes, and a smaller increase in emitted blackbody radiation per unit warming at colder temperatures. We find that the surface albedo feedback is the second main contributor to Arctic amplification and that other contributions are substantially smaller or even oppose Arctic amplification.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2071.html
lsvalgaard says:
“Empirical evidence without [at least some] theoretical understanding is not science”
Oh I got the theory understood, global circulation models give increasingly lower Arctic pressure with increasing warming. That’s rational, but it directly contradicts Arctic amplification, as the Arctic warms most when the Arctic pressure is higher during negative AO/NAO episodes, and for very good reason as that’s when there is more poleward transport of warm sea water, and there is more atmospheric mixing when the vortex weakens.
Windchasers:
Thankyou for your reply on behalf of William C0nn0lley at February 3, 2014 at 1:49 pm.
I will assume you can read his mind and will address your point as though he had stated his meaning himself. You say
Yes, nobody disputes that, but you also say
Again, I agree. However, it is simply true that there is no polar amplification in reality. In other words, Mechanism X exists in the model but NOT in reality.
Therefore, the fact that the model does emulate Mechanism X (however it does it) is clear evidence that the model is wrong. And that clear and undeniable evidence for the model being wrong was the subject of my question to William C0nn0lley.
Richard
Windchasers:
As an addendum for clarity I point out that there may be some polar amplification but – if it exists – it is too small for it to be discernible.
I provide this clarification to avoid being side-tracked about whether polar amplification does or does not exist at indiscernible magnitude. If it exists then it is too trivial for it to be considered worthy of modelling because the model would not show it if it were correctly modeled.
Richard
That’s definitely not right. We are observing polar amplification: about 3x the average so far.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_amplification
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GISS_temperature_2000-09_lrg.png
John West says:
February 3, 2014 at 10:53 am
“To balance out the radiation budget at an ambient temperature of 30°C, an increase of 0.16° is enough. However at minus 30°C, an increase of 0.31 °C”
Climate “science” finally notices Stefan-Boltzmann Law!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yeah, that was my reaction too. On the other hand, they managed to slide in that explanation without telling the whole story. Upward LW at +30 is 478 w/m2 while upward LW at -30 is 198 w/m2. So, any increase in CO2 has a lot more upward LW to work with at +30 than at -30, hence the change in forcing is not uniform in the first place. Then add to that water vapour being a much larger chunk of the ghe as a whole at warm temps (higher humidity) than at cold temps, and that changes the balance of the forcing as well. Then add to THAT the fact that the tropics are net absorbers of energy and the poles net radiators of energy, with the difference being made up by energy xfer from tropics to poles via wind and water currents….now figure out, keeping all those things in mind, how much extra energy gets radiated from the poles that was the result of extra forcing from CO2 in the tropics….
The problem is many times more complex than the article suggests, but at least we’re starting to see discussion that includes SB Law at all. It is at least a first step toward a realistic discussion.
Okay, so far so good … now explain the ANTARCTIC DE-amplification of temperature…
JM 12-14pm.
Not so bud – just replace the Argon in the double glazing with Co2 and watch the room temperature rocket even after you`ve replaced the heater with a Pandora`s box full of ???
Independent of anything else, I applaud William Connolly for making comments. Communication is far better than none.
.
That being said, I agree that 1) the models really do need substantial improvements, since they do not match reality very well in several important respects, including the range of natural variability over a different time scales, and 2) Anthony appears to miss the point of the article. (Perhaps he can clarify.)
.
Civil participation should always be welcomed.
Well Part of the Arctic problem is Kevin Trenberth’s Earth energy budget. His model has 342 W/m^2 of solar radiation falling continuously at all points on earth 24-7.
As a result, the Temperature is the same everywhere (288 K) and each point on the earth surface emits 390 W/m^2, corresponding to a 288 K black body radiator.
It’s beautiful; with no Temperature gradients, no “heat” energy flows anywhere else to cool this and warm that.
Well the problem is, that planet Earth does not work that way.
We get more like 1362 (6) W/m^2 at TOA, measured on a surface normal to the sun-earth vector.
In the tropics, near the equator, this high irradiance, gets reduced to something like 1,000 W/m^2 at the surface, due to atmospheric scattering (blue) and absorption by atmospheric gases, including GHGs. This is for a CAVU sky; no clouds.
Well needless to say, at 1,000 W/m^2, the surface Temperature soars way above 288 K, often reaching +60 deg. C or more on the surface.
Away from the tropics, towards the poles, the solar beam is attenuated more, by a longer air mass, AM due to the sun’s zenith angle. And that lesser irradiance strikes the ground at an inclined angle, spreading the beam out over a larger surface area, which therefore cannot reach as high a Temperature as the equatorial regions.
So there has to be a surface Temperature gradient, from the equator, towards the poles.
At the equinoxes, both poles should receive about the same solar irradiance, with the sun near the horizon and a large air mass absorption path, coupled with a very large surface tilt relative to the sun-earth vector. So the poles receive less irradiance, and reach a much ;lower Temperature than the equator.
As a result of this Temperature gradient, large amounts of “heat” energy must flow towards the poles from the equator, driven by the Temperature gradient.
This happens whether the poles are in daylight or not.
The amount of “heat” flow should depend linearly on the Temperature gradient, as regards conduction, but probably more complex for convection, because of the vertical component of air flow.
But radiative cooling of the surface goes as T^4 for total emittance, and as T^5 for spectral peak emittance (per micron of wavelength), so the radiative cooling rate at the poles, is radically reduced, compared to that at the equator.
Now the polar Temperatures; particularly the South pole, are cold enough to move the surface thermal radiation into the CO2 absorption band, making CO2 potentially more efficient at the poles in absorbing LWIR radiant energy. Well there is a competing mechanism too. As a result of the lower Temperatures (air), the width of the CO2 band is narrowed because of reduced Doppler broadening of the spectral absorption lines.
I don’t have the data or the means, nor the inclination to calculate these effects; that’s what Terrafloppy computers are for, and I don’t have one.
But why on earth should it surprise anyone that the poles warm faster than the equator; if and when “Global warming” occurs. The earth’s polar regions really suck, when it comes to radiating LWIR EM radiant energy from the surface; specially with a spectral Temperature fitting the CO2 band better.
Therein lies another gotcha, relating to so-called “downwelling” or “back” LWIR emission from either the atmosphere or clouds.
On several occasions, Richard S Courtney has noted here that essentially 100% of the surface emitted LWIR radiant energy, that is IN the CO2 absorption band (13-17 micron) is absorbed by the first 100 meters of atmosphere. Well others have said similar things. I have no easy way (or inclination) to check that, and no real reason, to doubt what Richard says with that regard.
So what happens with the rest of the atmosphere; totally starved of 15 micron band radiant energy to feast on.
Well of course, that energy captured by CO2 (or other GHGs) doesn’t stay dead. It is re-radiated, likely in a different spectrum, considering the continuing collisions with other molecules, resulting in thermalization of the emission spectrum. Moreover, it Is emitted isotropically, where as the surface emittance is more Lambertian. So half of the atmospheric re-radiation is directed upwards, and half downwards.
The downward radiation encounters denser and warmer air than the upward radiation, so as the altitude increases, both the Doppler (Temperature) broadening, and the density (collision) broadening of the CO2 lines are reduced, compared to the conditions seen by the down welling radiation. This would seem to favor re-absorption for down radiation as compared to the upward radiation, which runs an ever narrowing gauntlet.
Now a funny thing occurred to me the other day; well directly triggered, by the most recent time RSC had mentioned the “saturation” of the CO2 band in 100 meters of (lower) atmosphere.
This phenomenon of course happens both ways, so down welling LWIR radiant energy from the high Cirrus clouds, that are supposed to keep us toasty; that too must be totally absorbed by the bottom 100 meters of atmosphere (in the appropriate bands), or actually by some deeper, but less dense and colder layer of atmosphere adjacent to the cloud. That layer too, re-radiates isotropically, so half goes up, and half goes down, to be captured and split again, by the next layer of totally band absorbing air.
Well it simply doesn’t look too promising to me, for that cloud re-radiated LWIR radiant energy, to ever make it down to the earth surface, given all the GHG laden air it has to navigate through.
Now I’m sure that some math whizz, with a very large taxpayer grant, must have put all this coming and going, and isotropic splitting into his Terraflop, so (s)he can tell us exactly how much of the LWIR energy radiated from any atmospheric altitude, makes it back to the surface, and how much of it escapes to space. Well at least for some simplified static atmosphere.
Yes I know, that “heat” transport by other processes. to the nether reaches of the atmosphere, have their effects, but for just the Radiant transport, just how effective are GHGs like H2O, CO2, and O3 in keeping LWIR from clouds, and the upper atmosphere (not to mention the sun), from reaching the surface of the earth.
The second assumption about Arctic Amplification, and easily the second most important assumption in the entire CAGW religion, is how the CAGW dogma assumes the albedo change as the polar icecap reduces will affect future climate. Sea Ice vs Open Ocean albedo does matter, and, in truth, really deserves a long conversation in its own entire thread, but let’s look at few important things.
One. Continuously increasing positive Antarctic Sea Ice anomalies between 70 south latitudes and 59 south latitudes every day of the year for the past 15 years DO affect the world’s heat balance, but Arctic sea ice declines since 1979 – which occur between 78 north and 85 north in September each year do NOT affect the earth;’s heat balance.
Two. Arctic sea ice albedo DOES change routinely over the year, and is lowest during the yearly June-July-August melt season. Actual Arctic sea ice is NOT the pristine Wikipedia-approved laboratory values you so often see quotes: 0.95, 0.90, 0.86, etc) Actual measured Arctic sea ice (Curry, JGR 2001, Applications of SHEBA/FIRE Data to Evaluation of Snow/Ice Albedo Parametrization) is available for 13 years now, but seldom accurately called out. Figure 1 of Curry’s measurements shows the following:
From DOY = 1 (1 January) to 133 (May 14), albedo is basically that of new snow over old ice. 0.8228
From DOY = 134 to 278, albedo decreases from 0.82 down to at minimum curve fit at 0.460 on Day 206 (July 26), then increasing back to Day 278 (Oct 6).
From DOY 279 – 365 (6 Oct – 31 Dec), measured Arctic sea ice albedo returns to that same snow-covered ice value of 0.82
Numerically, this is a flat line = 0.8228 until DOY 133, a sinusoid dropping to a low point = 0.460 at DOY 206, and a second flat line after DOY 279 until 365: The sea ice albedo best-fit curve is
sea_ice_albedo = 0.06803 + 0.02015 *cos(0.03561 * DOY – 4.1809)
Actual data points scatter somewhat of course, but the measured lowest arctic albedo was 0.386 on DOY 223. Next lowest measured albedo was 0.41 on DOY = 208.
Three. Of the 19.5 million square kilometers of Antarctic Sea Ice, all but a little bit 3.0 Mkm^2 immediately around the continent melts every Nov-Dec-January (Antarctic summer, Arctic winter). Thus, Antarctic sea ice is always “first-year” ‘ice, and ice thinner and cleaner (with greater quantities of fresh snow from the near-continuous storms around Cape Horn) than the multi-year (darker) Arctic sea ice. Until more measurements are published, that 0.82 albedo is valid all year.
Four. Sea ice DOES reflect slightly more energy into space all year than does open ocean water, but the actual open ocean albedo is NOT the very dark, pessimistic foreboding but Wikipedia-approved 0.061. Now, understand that the “standard” 0.061 water albedo IS correct, but ONLY for very diffuse light under completely clouded skies.
So, if the skies are cloudy the open ocean albedo is low, BUT the top of the clouds DO reflect some 30% of the potential solar energy present, the clouds absorb some 30% of the potential solar energy present, and so only 30% of the potential solar energy can be absorbed by the open ocean.
Five. Do not ever let anybody conn you into using the “pure physics” laboratory-theoretical pristine-perfectly-calm conditions for a perfect-reflecting pure-water surface Fresnel equations either! THOSE values are NOT correct in the real world at any time.
Rather, actual open-ocean direct-sunlight clear-sky measured-albedos – YES, WITH REAL OCEAN WAVES ! – have been available for many years, but these are seldom used: Most importantly, they CANNOT be used in “average” monthly “average albedo” tables or annual albedo summaries. See, solar absorption into the ocean (or ice) and solar energy reflection from the ocean (or ice) is a constant, minute-by-minute surface interaction very dependent on the latitude, amount of clouds and percent of clear sky, atmospheric air mass (how much light is absorbed merely passing through the even a “perfect atmosphere” to get down to the ocean’s surface), atmospheric clarity, and the day-of-year, solar declination angle, hour-of-day. The latter three combine to define the ever-changing solar elevation angle SEA each minute of each hour of each day.
(SEA is also written as solar zenith angle SZA in many papers = which is the angle DOWN from the vertical to the sun’s position. SEA is the angle of the sun UP from the horizon to the sun. I will use only SEA to keep one consistent term in use. Many building and solar panel calc’s require plotting azimuth angles for each minute, but – since we are only talking flat surfaces of ice and water at the earth’s sea level, we will ignore the solar azimuth angle and altitude albedo corrections.)
So, what is this “measured open-waters, clear-sky, direct-sunlight, wind-corrected” ocean albedo? Jin (GRL 2004) Figures 1-5 plot it rising from 0.035 at SEA = 71.8 to a 0.25 maximum (and a 0.21 average) at SEA = 9 degrees), but they only used the values as albedo vs SEA as look-up tables. Payne, (JAS, 1972) Figure 4 also plots it (rising from 0.040 at SEA = 74 to 0.44 at SEA = 8 degrees) but he does not offer a numeric solution.
Rutledge and Schuster (P5.17, Multi-Year Observations of Ocean Albedo from a Rigid Marine Platform) plot both clear-sky direct radiation and cloudy sky (diffuse radiation) albedos in their Figure 4: If any can post that image, nothing will more strongly emphasize the difference between direct and diffuse radiation behavior reflecting from the real-world open ocean!
Briegleb (1986) does give a equation, but it does not correct for wind conditions:
albedo_direct_sun_clear skies = 0.026/(mu^1.7 +0.065) + 1.5*(mu-0.1)*(mu-0.5)*(mu-1.0)
where mu = sine of that hour’s SEA. (Curry has quoted this equation in her papers.)
Pegau and Paulson (International Glaciological Society, 2001, The Albedo of Arctic Leads in Summer) worked under the SHEBA ice platform with Curry’s team, and corrected Breigleb for wind speed:
albedo_direct_sun_clear skies (SEA, wind) = 0.026/[(mu^1.7 + (-0.0002w^2 + 0.0076w+0.0266)] + 1.5*(mu-0.1)*(mu-0.5)*(mu-1.0)
where mu (again) = sin(SEA) (or cos SZA) and w is in meters/sec.
So, in September in the high Arctic when the solar elevation angle SEA is NEVER more than 8-10 degrees above the horizon at ANY time of the day when the sun is even visible, what is the measured clear sky open ocean albedo? Between 0.22 and 0.35.
Not all that much different from the albedo of the “dirty sea ice” that is melting away. Yes, there is an increase in absorbed radiation in the Arctic above 78-82 latitude when sea ice is replaced by open ocean, BUT it is not very much difference in energy over the 12 hours of even potential sunlight!
And, although the sun’s rays do heat the open water slightly during those daylight hours, the open water about 78-82 north loses MORE HEAT to the sky over the entire period of the 24 hour day through increased long-wave radiation, increased evaporation, increased convection, and increased conduction than does sea ice!
Rather than an “arctic sea ice amplification” the numbers show that – during the late melting season under today’s conditions, every square meter of open ocean north of 76-82 north LOSES more heat on a daily basis than does sea-ice-covered arctic waters under the same air conditions!
The exact opposite, unfortunate, is also true down south:
Under today’s conditions at Antarctic sea ice extents between 60 south and 70 south latitudes, EVERY square kilometer of increased Antarctic sea ice at ANY time of year reflects more energy into space away from the planet, INCREASES total planet cooling!
Hmmmn. And just what data is that red “splot” smeared across the arctic ocean using? See, IF you use the SUMMER DMI actual measured composite data for the region where the sea ice ACTUALLY IS up at 80 north across all summer months (melt season when the sun is actually shining onto the Arctic sea ice!) since 1959, you get …. ZERO TREND. (Actually, the DMI daily tmperatures sinc e1959 at 8 north latitude are declining, and are declining even faster as we get more and more CO2 into the atmosphere sicne 1959, but you will ignore this in favor of NASA-GISS self-serving self-funding approximations of models.)
See, the yearly DMI data “average” temperature is increasing, but that increase ONLY happens when winter (non-sunshine) deviations are thrown in. Summer temperatures have a near-zero standard deviation, and are declining. What NASA-GISS does do is extrapolate very dark, low-albedo, newly-greened-over heavily-forested and tundra areas out to sea as much as 1200 km, over sea ice areas that are NOT measured.
“””””…..RACookPE1978 says:
February 3, 2014 at 1:34 pm
Arctic sea ice ……………………….
……………………………………………
The high Arctic average temperatures are very cold compared to the tropics and mid-temperate zones, therefore there is little water vapor present. But, CO2 is expected to be uniformly mixed worldwide, so ANY increase in CO2 levels worldwide will increase CO2 levels in the Arctic as well. But, since the water vapor is lower in those latitudes, the effect of CO2 will be increased as a proportion. …..”””””
Well CO2 isn’t even approximately uniformly mixed worldwide.
I refer you to the now disappeared NOAA/NASA three D graph showing the atmospheric CO2 variation from pole to pole.
At Mauna Loa, in Hawaii, the CO2 has an annual cyclic p-p variation of about 6 ppm, while at the north pole, and over most of the arctic, there is an 18-20 ppm p-p cyclic change each year; three times the variation at ML (izzat an anomaly ?) At the south pole, the result is even weirder, having only about a 1 ppm cyclic peak variation, and it really is a -1, because it is out of phase with the ML data.
That is not my idea of world wide uniform mixing. At ML and the north pole, the down portion of the CO2 cycle takes about 5 months, while the up portion takes about 7 months.
I can understand to some extent, why the southern hemisphere tends to be six months ahead of the northern hemisphere, since their land based plant growth cycles are reversed, but I don’t know how the ocean plankton cycle goes.
Also the south pole does not have the ice melt that the arctic ocean sees, so it would not be expected to have the same CO2 partitioning between liquid and solid phases, that is seen in the arctic. I believe the arctic atmospheric CO2 increase, coincides with the fall sea ice freeze, and CO2 is expelled from the solid into the liquid ocean, which then becomes saturated and outgasses CO2 to the atmosphere per Henry’s law.
Understand, and I agree with your point that CO2 is NOT uniformly mixed across all latitudes and across all longitudes. But, since uniform CO2 increases everywhere ARE a central Commandment of the CAGW religion, I figured I would need to make their assumption when I spoke about their additional assumptions about CO2 amplification in the Arctic and Antarctic.
Your corrections/amplifications are valid, and further destroy “arctic amplification” at both ends of the earth.
I am reminded of the IPCC SAR Arctic sea ice extent by Steven Goddard again. Check out the graph from 1974.
https://twitter.com/SteveSGoddard/status/430443593178697728/photo/1
Both Arctic and Antarctic issues with sea ice and ice bridges stem from the same phenomenon: Warm pools riding currents into these ice systems. These warm pools are birthed in the equatorial belt. So if we are to find the ultimate culprit, be it natural or anthropogenic, we must focus our attention and instruments between the 45th parallels, and possibly even in a narrower more equatorial band than than that. And that focus must be both in the oceans and in the air.
Clearly these changes at both poles are specific and confined to certain areas. And it just so happens these areas are right in the way of permanent large oceanic currents. So we must suspect whatever rides these currents to these locations and work backwards to their origin. To think that well-mixed CO2 can cause such odd targeted changes in sea ice and ice shelves is to give anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 sentient malevolent intent.
Pamela Gray says:
February 3, 2014 at 4:08 pm “…permanent large oceanic currents…” Permanent for now, or us short-lived beings. Not permanent in any way geologically. Someday Antarctica will probably be a tropical paradise of islands and minor continents, and all those currents will behave in some other way.
JimF, yes. You correctly assume I was talking about relatively short time scale permanence.
lsvalgaard says:
February 3, 2014 at 1:36 pm “…Empirical evidence without [at least some] theoretical understanding is not science…” (sic) That is sort of the “chicken and the egg” proposition. For much of the past “theory” said “The Gods did it”, but empirical evidence finally overcame those ideas and led to understanding. Empirical evidence without thought is not science, nor is theory without testing (like our current “climate modeling” fetish).
Gkell1 says: February 3, 2014 at 10:51 am
You really need to polish up your social and communication skills sunshine. Such anger and contempt for others that you perceive to not meet your intellectual standards. I’ll make a blind assumption that you are positioned somewhere along the Autism Spectrum – and no harm in that. I think if it wasn’t for the “Mentat” superpowers of autism/aspergers, then maybe science and learning would not have progressed as it has. Pure speculation of course.
So, enough of your drive by shootings please. Since you have a proposition, an hypothesis, then it is time for you to write it up as a paper and submit it to a journal (physics or astronomical?) or even a blog such as this. Then be prepared to have it torn apart looking for errors. If it holds up then good for you and the world. If you haven’t the courage to do it, well then you will be seen as no more than a troll. Do you want that?
george e. smith says
No, it doesn’t. It’s not a model; it’s mainly directly and indirectly measured fluxes REPORTED AS averages over the Earth’s surface.
Since your whole premise is wrong, unfortunately the rest of your post is of little relevance.
richardscourtney says:
Maybe you can’t discern it, but as Windchasers has shown, actual scientists can easily do so.
Isn’t this just another discussion about unicorns like CO2 and climate models ?
According to Hansen, black carbon on Arctic ice has a effective forcing of 1.0 * 3 = 3 W/m2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_carbon
Add 2 W/m2 from black carbon in the atmosphere (IPCC 1.0 W/m2 global, but almost entirely in the northern hemisphere), and the forcing adds up to 5.0 W/m2, making CO2 (1.8 W/m2) rather an insignificant man made side show.
Of course, all of this still should be dwarfed by AMO.
george e. smith, CO2 latitudinal variation is actually well studied and there is lots of data (and graphs) at such places as CDIAC. The larger annual variation in the Northern Hemisphere is due to the increased amount of plant growth in the spring summer. The low variation is the Southern Hemisphere is, well, it is pretty much all ocean. Go look at the results in the various stations in the Scripps Network.
What is more, you can relate the CO2 annual variation to changes in O2. (see Keeling/Ralph.
“Marc77 says:
February 3, 2014 at 1:23 pm
It is true that the temperature of equilibrium of a colder body increases more rapidly with a relative increase in forcing. But the warming is not faster, you still need as much energy to increase the temperature.”
I have an isolated cabin at 1100 meters and in the winter it can be as cold as minus 20 deg C inside when we arrive. Heating is with wood and I have noticed that the warming of the cabin happens in about 5 deg C intervals. In other words the living room where the fireplace is stops warming every 5 deg C and then has to warm the rest of the cabin air and inside surface first before it can warm the living room further. (Cabin temperature gradient).
And I guess the same apply to cooling of the cabin after we leave.
So the reason it’s so bloody cold in winter at 60 deg North is that it’s because it’s even colder further north. And the reason 60 deg North is warmer than further North is because it’s warmer further South. the atmosphere is interconnected from equator to the polar regions. And over distance X there can not be a larger temperature difference than Y?
What I really have a problem grasping is that Earth’s global temperature for a very very long time up to 30 million years ago was stable at 23-24 deg C. And what was different was that there was less temperature difference over distance than there is today?
More ocean area and less land area?