Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
A favorite exam question in my first-year climate class was, “Why is the North Pole warmer than the South Pole? I changed it each year, to confuse students who looked at last year’s exam; “Why is the South Pole colder than the North Pole?” Most people have no idea about the geography of the Poles and assume they are climatically the same. They are literally polar opposites and that is important in understanding the significance for global climate.
The major driving force for atmospheric circulation is the temperature difference between the Poles and the Equator – the gradient. Theoretically, maximum heating at the Equator and minimum at the Poles creates a single cell circulation system (Figure 1).
Figure 1
Rotation is the major perturbation to this theoretical base, followed by surface differences, particularly land/water ratios.
Earth’s elliptical orbit round the Sun is a small factor in determining the temperature difference. Two important points are perihelion, when the earth is closest, and aphelion when it is furthest away. (Figure 2)
Figure 2
The current situation is as follows.
The Earth is closest to the Sun or at its Perihelion two weeks after the December solstice and farthest from the Sun or Aphelion, two weeks after the June Solstice. In 2015, the Earth will reach its Aphelion at 19:41 (7:41 pm) UTC on July 6, 2015.
All this changes as part of the larger Milankovitch Effect, but it means that at present the Earth is closer during the Northern Hemisphere winter and further away during the Southern Hemisphere Winter.
At the risk of stirring up solar specialists, here is one estimate of the insolation difference.
Aphelion Insolation = [(149,597,870.7 km) / (152,098,232 km)] = 0.9674
Perihelion Insolation = [(149,597,870.7 km) / (147,098,290 km)] = 1.0343
It’s approximately a 6.5 percent variance, which is a minor difference but one amplified by other factors.
North Pole
Figure 3 shows that the North Pole is near the middle of the Arctic Ocean (approx. 16 million km2) almost totally surrounded by land that all lies within the Arctic Circle. It is essentially a flat plain at sea level.
Figure 3
The Arctic Ocean sits in an almost enclosed basin with only one deep channel in and out called the East Greenland Rift (Figure 4). (Soviet submarines used the channel during the Cold War). This means most water moving in or out of the Arctic Ocean is in the upper few hundred meters of the ocean. The Continental Shelf is vast and drops off to the deep ocean at 200 fathoms, instead of 100 fathoms like most others. The result is very large areas of relatively shallow water, visible as the light blue area in Figure 3 and the turquoise in Figure 4.
The essentially enclosed condition was a major part of the Ewing and Donn 1956 theory of the causes of Ice Ages. It led to alarmist headlines similar to those we see today, except it was The Coming Ice Age. (Is the author Betty Friedan of feminist fame?).
How a rising of the ocean waters may flood most of our port cities within the foreseeable future — and why it will be followed by the growth of a vast glacier which may eventually cover much of Europe and North America.
Albedo is high all year round because of the low angle of incidence. Reflected sunlight makes snow blindness a danger among people of the Arctic. They fashion snow goggles to combat the problem.
Note the very narrow slit.
Albedo changes significantly in the summer when some 10 million km2 of sea ice melts exposing low albedo, dark green, polar water.
Figure 4
This means that the influence of massive quantities of warm water on ice conditions are much more important. The other factor is the impact of the Polar Easterlies driving the sea ice in a constant rotation round the Pole. On Arctic survival with the Canadian Air Force, I learned that the winds were so consistent that the Inuit used the direction of snowdrifts for guides even under “white out” conditions.
Ice thickness was made an issue to add to the focus on sea ice melting. I wrote about the exploitation and misrepresentation of this in October 2012. Influx of warmer water is a major factor, as occurred in 1816. Another reason the North Pole is warmer than the South because of heat from this warm water moving through the ice to heat the atmosphere (Figure 5).
Figure 5.
Source: Climatology (Oliver and Hidore)
The biggest problem for climate research in the Arctic is the lack of data. Figure 6 shows that there is no data for most of the basin.
Figure 6
Source: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA).
Polynyas are large areas of open water and a unique feature in the Arctic Oceans that contribute heat directly to the Arctic atmosphere. Figure 7 shows Polynyas for the Canadian sector of the Ocean.
Figure 7
The net result is the North Pole is cold, but nowhere near as cold as the South Pole. That is all we can say precisely because actual conditions at the geographic North Pole are not measured. Wikipedia says,
Winter (January) temperatures at the North Pole can range from about −43 °C (−45 °F) to −26 °C (−15 °F), perhaps averaging around −34 °C (−29 °F). Summer temperatures (June, July, and August) average around the freezing point (0 °C (32 °F)). The highest temperature yet recorded is 5 °C (41 °F),
Temperature is important because it determines the density of the atmosphere and, therefore, the height of the Troposphere, which affects the circulation.
South Pole
Little was known about the Antarctic continent until approximately 100 years ago, which is not surprising since the first confirmed landing occurred in 1895. Despite this, scientific interest triggered organization of an International Polar Year (IPY) in 1882-1883. The major advance in knowledge was the International Geophysical Year (IGY) in 1957, while scientific efforts to assess Antarctic climate began as recently as the third IPY in 2007.
Figure 8
The geography is directly opposite to the North with a continent surrounded by ocean (Figure 8). The entire area is above sea level with the South Pole at 2830 m (9,285 feet). The Tropopause is less than 8 km above Antarctica, so there is very limited atmosphere above the South Pole. The intensely cold air that drains down off the continent enhances the general circulation pattern of the Polar Easterlies. Known as a Katabatic flow, it generates remarkable winds. British Antarctic Survey reports
Port Martin (67°S 141°E) is an especially windy site with an annual mean wind speed of 17 ms-1 (33 kt — nearly gale force). The station has recorded a monthly mean wind speed of 28 ms-1 (54 kt — storm force 10) and a daily mean of 46 ms-1 (89 kt).
The Southern Ocean surrounds the continent and creates a dramatic contrast with the cold polar air. All these conditions combine to create a very powerful Circumpolar Vortex. Failure to understand or include these conditions was part of the misunderstanding and incorrect claim that CFCs were creating and enlarging the area of ozone thinning over Antarctica.
Figure 9 shows Polynyas (dark green) for the Antarctic for a specific day. They are defined as areas of thin ice or open water. Like the Arctic they are quite extensive. WUWT illustrated how Antarctic polynyas are primarily a result of katabatic winds. This was in response to a claim that they were going to disappear.
Figure 9
Sun angles are the same as in the Arctic, but the albedo is much higher because of the permanent snow and ice surfaces.
Net result of these differences means the North Pole is much warmer than the South. It is probably more accurate to say it is less cold. We only have an approximate difference because there are no instrumental readings for the North Pole. There are so few measures that application of the claim that a station represents everything in a 1200 km radius do not apply. Wikipedia says winter temperatures (January) range from -43°C to -26°C. South Pole records show winter temperature (July) range is from a mean daily minimum of -62.8°C to a mean daily high of -55.9°C. Regardless of specific accuracy, the difference is approximately 20°C difference, which is very significant in the fundamental driving force of atmospheric circulation.
Historically, this difference was amplified because a higher global mean temperature, such as during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), had greater impact at the North Pole than the South. A 2°C change would have limited impact at the South Pole. It would have much greater impact at the North Pole altering conditions of the Arctic Basin including the sea ice, the snow line, the tree line, the albedo, and ocean circulation, among other conditions.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Nit picking a bit:
At the risk of stirring up solar specialists, here is one estimate of the insolation difference.
You forgot the square the numbers, but the results on the right-hand side are correct anyway.
((h+epsilon)/h)²= (1+epsilon/h)² = 1+2epsilon/h+epsilon² ≈ (h+2epsilon)/h
So here multiplying by two and squaring both work for the purpose.
Add two somewhere…
Who spots my typo 🙂
[Ask not for whom the typo’s, for it may typo for you. .mod]
[In that equation? I ain’t changing nuttin’ till you says so. .mod]
Conclusion, since the solar radiation is a sphere which loses power on the order of the square of the distance. The distance difference may be only 6.5% more but the solar energy difference is up to 11.83% less energy (or the south pole gets 13.5% more) when basically comparing the southern parihelion to the northern apihelion.
(epsilon/h)^2
[Thank you. .mod]
Gots to have (h+2epsilon)/h^2
So please do fix mod.
Pretty nice bunch of info there Dr. Ball.
And that’s [wrong] too.
Try (h^2 + 2epsilon) / h^2
Much better good. Sorry mods. and Bart.
[No problem. We write the rongs that make the hole world wring. .mod]
OK. Now we are back to rev 6 on the original equation. Somebody gonna write her properly in one line?
But remember! This blog ain’t peer-reviewed! Nah. Not all peer-reviewed and checked. /sarchasm
And I would enjoy seeing some actual numbers instead of “much higher” or lower albedo.
Water albedo starts to increase rapidly beyond the Brewster angle which is 53 degrees off the zenith, so it isn’t necessarily so that open water albedos are very low.
BUT at large sun angles (from zenith) also imply larger that 1.0 air mass, so higher atmospheric absorption and Raleigh scattering of short wavelength solar energy (the higher photon energies.)
And snow albedos aren’t that high either specially in daylight where snow surface melting and refreezing can occur. That opens up the ice to transmission followed by TIR trapping inside the ice.
Fresh snow a few days old (72 hours) may not have any higher albedo than green grass.
george e. smith (speaking to lsvalgaard)
Following is from a different thread, but it is valid for open ocean albedo at low solar elevation angles.
1. Do not, under any circumstances, use the Fresnel equations. Nor their approximations using in-series or crossed light waves. There is better, real-world data available using real-world things like waves, the sun, and open ocean water.
2. For diffuse radiation, the albedo is the “standard” “everybody knows it” value of 0.066 for all solar elevation angles. If the solar radiation is diffused through clouds, use this albedo. ONLY.
But first, reduce the remaining solar radiation as for direct radiation on a clear day because the atmosphere still attenuates the energy received at top-of-atmosphere.
Then, reduce the amount of radiation by 70% because the clouds reflect sunlight off of the top of the clouds back into space.
Then, if storms (high winds for example) reduce the radiation by the energy lost in the clouds themselves. Usually, the final radiation is 10% of the top-of-atmosphere values or less.
3. For direct radiation, clear skies.
Calculate the earth’s declination angle, the day angle mu_day, and the hour angle to get the solar elevation angle.
Calculate the air mass for that solar elevation angle, and assign (or select) an appropriate atmospheric clarity value.
You might be given a solar elevation angle directly. Regardless, you will have a solar elevation angle.
(If you have a solar zenith angle, SZA = 90-SEA )
Define mu = sin (SEA) = cos (SZA)
Define w = wind speed (meters/sec)
Albedo = [ 0.026/ (mu^1.7 + (-0.0002*w^2 + 0.0076*w + 0.0266) ]+ [ 0.15 *( mu – 0.1) * (mu – 0.5) * (mu – 1) ]
Thus, you get the following table.
Note that over 30 degrees SEA (60 degrees SZA) you end up back at Wikipedia’s default 0.066 “standard” albedo.
This is why the default Wikipedia albedo is “adequate” for equatorial latitudes going as far as 45 – 50 degrees, and for midday albedo at certain times of the year in the Arctic summer.
More on sea ice albedo, snow-on-top-of-sea-ice albedo, summer sea ice albedo’s, and the differences between Arctic and Antarctic sea ice albedo’s in a bit.
Wow, that’s Cool..
A 2°C change would have limited impact at the South Pole. It would have much greater impact at the North Pole altering conditions of the Arctic Basin including the sea ice, the snow line, the tree line, the albedo, and ocean circulation, among other conditions.
Then what is causing the rapid growth of Antarctic ice?
The growth in Antarctic sea ice may in part be attributable to a strengthening and poleward shift in the southern hemisphere westerly winds, which themselves are linked to ozone declines in the stratosphere, in addition to a response linked to CO2. There is a useful summary of the present state of knowledge on the topic at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/12/
sorry: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/12/clarity-on-antarctic-sea-ice/
Bevan, fancy quoting realclimate. Those who post on that blog have no qualifications, experience or understanding of thermodynamics, heat&mass transfer or fluid dynamics which are engineering subjects. Think, how can they explain something when they do not understand the fundamentals?
Good post Dr Tim Ball.
Or maybe there has been a significant cooling of the Southern ocean. I’m a bit suspicious of the “global warming explains everything” theorists – especially considering recent measurements indicate the Antarctic sea ice is a lot thicker than expected, which pours cold water on the idea that it is a thin accumulation driven by wind interacting with glacial melt.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/24/surprise-robot-sub-finds-much-thicker-than-expected-antarctic-sea-ice/
Yes, I have heard that excuse many times.
Yes, I agree the pundits say it, but they have NEVER provided any evidence of the change!
Thus, they “claim” higher winds are blowing off of the continental ice cap due to a “warmer global temperature”, but there is no data showing any wind changes. The winds have ALWAYS blown down off of the icecap in three general areas, and today – they still blow down off of the icecap in those same three areas. What is the difference since 1992 when the Antarctic sea ice began its 23 yer long steady increase?
The Antarctic air temperature is steadily going down. Not down fast, but it IS going down. Why is this measured decrease in air temperature not slowing the winds, if indeed the warmer air between the south pole and the equator is supposedly causing the winds to increase? The winds circle the continent the same way they have since the clipper ships and Magellan tried to force his way through past the peninsula. the dominant winds above the sea ice round the continent are the same as they have been in years past. Three discharge points, the rest not blowing AWAY from the land but parallel to it. Just like they always have done.
Further challenging this “argument”: The Antarctic sea ice increase is major, and very large. 30% above average at minimum extents (when the sea ice is close to the coasts) and the same anomaly (or higher) when the sea ice edge is 1000 kilometers from the coast at maximum. The winds are not responsible for the increase. Math shows that. The geometry of the increase in sea ice is continent-surrounding: if winds were responsible, there would be regions where the sea ice is blown out, and regions were the effect were less. That doesn’t happen. A uniform steady season-by-season increase in sea ice regardless of distance from the coast or air temperature by season cannot be explained by “continental winds” increasing.
Worse, the actual “global warming” is 1/2 of one degree since 1950. Show me the math. What change in wind speed is calculated for a actual global average temperature change between 1992 and 2015 of less than 1/10 of one degree?
If the effect were due to land ice melting, you need to show me the pre-increase (before 1992) salinity levels, the post-1992 salinity levels – since sea ice has been steadily increasing the whole time – and then show me exactly where the fresh water is coming from. there is not enough land ice melting to dilute 14.0 million sq kilometers of sea ice to a depth of 50 meters to change the freezing point of seawater enough to freeze 2,06 million square kilometers of “excess” sea ice 800 kilometers from the land. Is 70 gigaton of land ice melting significant? Show me that a 1/1000 change in salinity is possible.
Oh wait. That “melting” happened when the land temperature was averaging -30 degrees. I think you have to explain the melting in the first place. Then calculate the salinity change.
@RACook
“The McGill researchers, working with colleagues from the University of Pennsylvania, analyzed tens of thousands of measurements made by ships and robotic floats in the ocean around Antarctica over a 60-year period. Their study, published in Nature Climate Change, shows that the ocean’s surface has been steadily getting less salty since the 1950s.”
http://ecowatch.com/2014/03/03/climate-change-effects-ocean-salinity-traps-heat/
“Oh wait. That “melting” happened when the land temperature was averaging -30 degrees. I think you have to explain the melting in the first place. Then calculate the salinity change.”
By sublimation. Also, I understand the decreasing Antarctic glaciers is mostly by calving to Amundsen sea. None of this proves it is man-made.
“Is 70 gigaton of land ice melting significant? Show me that a 1/1000 change in salinity is possible.”
70 gigatons of melt water spread over 14 million sq. km. is only 5 mm per year. I think precipitation would have greater impact on salinity. Annual precipitation in coastal areas of Antarctica is 500 to 1,000 mm.
I hear warm air is causing melting and sea ice to grow. What warm air?
@Dale Rainwater. Strangelove,
I’m confused. According to actual physical water/ice conversion measurements, it takes ~362 gigatons (approx. 95 cubic miles) of melt water to raise the global oceans 1 mm.
http://sealevel.info/conversion_factors.html (There are other conversion pages that create the same result.)
How did you get 5 mm?
5 mm is not sea level rise. It’s the amount of fresh water that mixes with seawater. Imagine 1 meter depth of seawater mixed with 5 mm of fresh water. Over longer period, it will mix at greater depth and larger area.
Release more energy in one hemisphere over time, and it creates change. What we do not know, is how that works.
There is a camera at the “north pole” – why can’t there be a thermometer???
If we put a thermometer up there, we’d have to adjust the readings to account for global warming.
There are cameras/thermometers planted up there every spring, but they dont stay at the Pole, they drift away and sink into the Fram Strait in a year or less. The same applies to manned stations, like e. g. Papanin’s in 1937-38. There has never been an extended temperature series from the North Pole, and quite possibly never will be.
Could tether one to the Russian flag pole
I suspect there are some people who think they should put a weather station at Santa’s workshop…
The north pole is covered in moving ice, the camera might of started out over the pole but if it ever returns it is just a coincidence.
In addition to the idea of tethering thermometers (if possible) how about Argo style floating units with thermometers and positioning data sending information to a land based station periodically? These floating units can be release periodically to replenish those washed out. Just asking.
Couldn’t it be located at Santa’s workshop?
It would get squished by the changing sea ice, the ridges and melt ponds, and the open water that sunk it one day, then – whoops! – it blew shut last night – then – whoops! a 30 m/sec wind just blew newly-frozen ice all over it!
There is no camera at the North Pole, at least not for very long. Ice circulation would move any camera placed at the North Pole hundreds of miles from it’s starting point (which I believe is NOT at the North Pole) during the course of a year.
Why not have the camera on a mobile that uses GPS to keep wandering itself to stay at the north pole ??
just asking.
g
george e. smith
Last few north pole camera’s have been nose-bumped by a polar bear, fell over, fell in a melt pond, and “turned off” for unknown reasons.
Seems like it would be easier to drive a robot lander with 6 wheels on Mars than up near the north pole. (No bears on Mars.)
Dr. Tim Ball,
Thank you for this very good summary of the basic polar differences.
Mac
Why do people keep saying this?
That difference is 90 watts/m2. That is hardly trivial.
DennisWingo
But it is worse than you think! The annual maximum of solar radiation occurs January 5 at 1410 watts/m^2. That is slightly before the yearly minimum for Antarctic sea ice (late February) so there is still a significant amount of southern sea ice present, and, ALL of that sea ice is at lower latitudes (much closer to the equator) than the northern sea ice – which is still dark all day long up north at 75, 76, 77, and 78 north latitude. So, when the solar radiation is at its maximum, the receding Arctic sea ice is “invisible” (below the horizon) but the ever-expanding Antarctic sea ice is fully exposed all 24 hours of the day and night.
Worse, the Antarctic sea ice is at lower latitudes, the result means more sunshine for longer periods of time at higher solar elevation angles; which means much less atmospheric attenuation each hour the sun does shine! Higher solar elevation angles unto seawater mean sea water albedo reduces, so the effect of an increase in Antarctic sea ice means much more energy is reflected immediately back into space from the increased area.
Further, while the north sea ice is also exposed to solar radiation for 24 hours per day in May, June, and July – the MINIMUM solar radiation of 1315 watts/M2 is shining then! And, that period of May, June, and July is the period of lowest measured Arctic sea ice albedo.
And, the dreaded two degrees is what percent of the Kelvin scale?
True, but the reality is that it does not explain anything. The 100/400kyr eccentricity signals are completely absent until the mid Pleistocene transition where some sort of built up 100kyr resonance emerges from nowhere. The explanatory power of this resonance has been refuted by Richard Muller in one of his better works. There seems to be no 400kyr signal in the Pleistocene at all, and if memory serves this one is a bit more than 90 watts.
It is obvious that if you look far enough back all of these signals are absent. With the closure of the Panama strait a few million years ago, along with the continuing uplift of the Himalayas and Sierra Nevada/Sierra Madre in the Americas, global circulation patterns in both the oceans and the atmosphere have occurred.
This is why I was suggesting in another thread that we have to look with more granularity at altitude base insolation, which is 150-200 watts/m2 higher than at sea level. Take a look at our current circulation patterns this winter. If that circulation pattern persisted for a hundred or a thousand years non stop, you might start seeing the beginning of a new ice age.
People claim this or that is only trivial and then dismiss it, but the warmist’s position rests upon ‘missing’ trivial amounts of energy.
If one adds up all the trivial this and thats, they may well start to becomr significant.
Richard
Good point, The ERP (effective radiated power) for a TV station in America is 100,000 watts transmitted directly into the atmosphere. Here’s just a snippet of the power we pump into the atmosphere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_American_broadcast_station_classes . Once you see this I hope it gets the mind looking at other systems that use the atmosphere as part of their infrastructure, like the mobile phone network etc.
jmorpuss
Well, more accutaely, ALL ENERGY ever produced (except that within the satellites beyond earth orbit) results in heat: Transportation fuel = As wind motion, brake friction, air heated by the engine and radiator. Power plants? Cooling water (out of power plants), electricity (all eventually heat), electrical resistance losses, or stack losses directly of the hot exhaust gasses and their chemical enthalpy. Concrete? Shipping, HVAC, building trades and supplies? Paper, wood, trash dumps, people’s food? Garbage, sewage treatment …. All eventually heat i one way or another.
There is never any loss of chemical or nuclear power that does not eventually become heat.
“There is never any loss of chemical or nuclear power that does not eventually become heat.”
..
Except for the chemical or nuclear power that is used to energize high powered radio transmission. Some of the electromagnetic energy emanated from the broadcast antenna penetrates the ionosphere and radiates out into space.
PS also a lot of chemical and nuclear energy that is used for both incandescent and florescent lighting escapes into space, as visible photographs from the ISS show
http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/76000/76201/ISS029-E-012564_lrg.jpg
RACookPE1978 Nice distraction ,I’m talking about electromagnetic absorption by water .
“Microwaves and radio waves[edit]
See also: Radio window
Dielectric permittivity and dielectric loss of water between 0°C and 100°C, the arrows showing the effect of increasing temperature.[23]
The pure rotation spectrum of water vapor extends into the microwave region.
Liquid water has a broad absorption spectrum in the microwave region, which has been explained in terms of changes in the hydrogen bond network giving rise to a broad, featureless, microwave spectrum.[24] The absorption (equivalent to dielectric loss) is used in microwave ovens to heat food that contains water molecules. A frequency of 2.45 GHz, wavelength 122 mm, is commonly used.
Radiocommunication at GHz frequencies is very difficult in fresh waters and even more so in salt waters”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_absorption_by_water
@RACookPE
From reading the paper on Lamb over at Bishop Hill – I understand that there were concerns over a century ago about the release of energy to atmosphere by mankind and its potential to alter climate.
Your comments here about energy release made me wonder how much the heat energy release to atmosphere figures anywhere in climate scientists thinking ? It doesn’t seem to so far as the IPCC is concerned, nor within the NGO green activists
There was an article here a couple of years ago “Waste Heat – a bigger climate effect than once thought” ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/27/waste-heat-a-bigger-climate-effect-than-once-thought/ )
Wind and solar which are requiring massive increases to the electrical distribution grids bring a consequential heat-energy release due to resistance over much larger distances than traditional generation. That must result in a (very?) significant increase in heat-energy release to atmosphere and I wonder if anyone has calculated that ?
rv – or not – equally
A few points, a few disagreements about subtleties within those points.
We’ll address this in much greater detail in Sea Ice 101 – Reflections on Albedos. It will be a later article here.
But a few things are important. You approached the issue, but didn’t go into enough detail.
Antarctica is 14.0 Mkm^2 of land area, 97% covered by permanent land ice as its icecap. It is surrounded by 1.5 Mkm^2 of permanent shelf ice. (This 1.5 Mkm^2 is not included in the “sea ice” numbers issued daily by NSIDC and others, including Cryosphere at the Univ. of Illinois. ) Thus, the Antarctic sea ice area cycles between recent lows of 2.5 Mkm^2 up to an average maximum of 15.0 Mkm^2, but all recent years have been well above 16.0 Mkm^2 and routininely up past 16.5 to 17.0 Mkm^2 the past 2 years. The lows used to be 1.5 to 2.0 Mkm^2, and the highs only 15.0 Mkm^2.
So the recent Antarctic sea ice gains are very large, and cannot be explained by the usual excuses of “wind” and “land ice melt”. We’ll cover both of those separately.
Net? The Antarctic sea ice oscillates between 68 south latitude (at minimum) up to 59 south latitude (at maximum). This is simple math: 14.0 (land) + 1.5 (shelf ice) + 2.5 (minimum extents) = 18.0 Mkm^2 at minimum. A total at maximum of 14.0 Mkm^2 (land) + 1.5 Mkm^2 (shelf ice) + 17.0 Mkm^2 sea ice = almost 34 Mkm^2 of reflective surface around the south pole!
The north pole? Compare the Antarctic’s 18.0 Mkm^2 ice area (at minimum!) to the Arctic maximum sea ice area of only 14.0 Mkm^2. Further, the Antarctic at minimum is greater than the Arctic at maximum, but the arctic at minimum is only 3.0 Mkm^2 at its recent record low minimum in mid-September. At the same time, the Antarctic reaches its maximum.
So, at the 2012 record low point, all of the arctic sea ice would fit between the north pole and 80 north latitude. At noon in September, at its highest point, the sun is only 10 degrees above the horizon. THAT latitude difference means significantly different open water albedo at all hours of the day (when exposed), fewer hours of sunlight (when it is exposed in September minimum point and the March maximum point.)
Yes, the Arctic receives more solar energy May, June, and July than the Antarctic. But the other 9 months of theyear?
The Antarctic receives more solar energy, reflects more solar energy, and receives as much as 5 times more in September than the Arctic receives. In March, when the Arctic is at its maximum, and the Antarctic sea ice is recovering from its annual low point in late February? Both receive the same amount; the edges of both sea ice areas are about at the same latitude.
“Is the author Betty Friedan of feminist fame?”
===================
Yes!
Whoops! No go Dr. Ball. That’s what Travesty Trenberth tried in his 2010 paper.
Sure if it were not for the Earth’s rotational speed, there would be only two giant Hadley cells, 1 north, 1 south of the equator. The Earth’s rotational speed breaks circulation into three distinct rolling cells, the Hadley, Ferrel and Polar.
Here’s the unmissable clue that equator to pole temperature differential is not the “major” driving force of circulation in these three cells – the Ferrel cell rolls in reverse!
So what’s the primary driving force in these cells? Equator to pole won’t work, Ferrel runs in reverse and way, way too much ground friction. Further the idea that a colder surface can have a significant effect on the atmosphere above defies physics for an atmosphere in a gravity field. The simplest experiments show the surface is an order of magnitude better at heating the atmosphere than it is at cooling it –
http://i57.tinypic.com/24qsrrn.jpg
(that experiment is called “the AGW gravity Gremlin” because A- climastrologists forgot gravity when they claimed the ability of the surface to conductively heat or cool the atmosphere was equal, and B- because Dr. Robert Brown infamously accused me of invoking Maxwells Demon when I dare present empirical results).
Energy, like water likes to “flow downhill”. Which is shorter? Equator to pole or surface to space? Say hello to the established meteorology the warmulonians are desperate to erase from history, Radiative Subsidence –
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~dib2/climate/tropics.html
Imagine no radiative gases. No radiative subsidence and strong vertical tropospheric convective circulation would stall, then the atmosphere would overheat, with its bulk temperature driven by surface Tmax.
This is why climastrologists paramatise energy flow in the vertical in their GCMs. They invoke “immaculate convection”. Wouldn’t it be a shame if the public found out that tropospheric convective circulation would just speed up for increased radiative gas concentration, transporting even more energy away from the solar heated surface of our planet?
Are you saying that the Ferrel cell moves heat from the poles toward the equator?
I think ocean currents like the gulf stream put the atmospheric circulation to shame as a “heat” (noun) transporter (it’s called convection).
You only briefly touch on the altitude at the South Pole but do nothing to explain its significance. 2800m difference in altitude equals a massive difference in pressure and thus temperature at any any Latitude. I would argue that it is the MOST important factor in the Arctic being warmer than the Antarctic.
In fact 20C difference is pretty standard for that kind of difference in altitude from sea level to 2800m!
“Like”
I agree with this point. Wiki quotes a lapse rate of 6.4 C per kilometer as typical. If the South Pole’s lapse rate is typical then that figures out to around 18 C difference just because of altitude difference. I often wonder if in all the adjusting of temp data of meteorological stations whether altitude or pressure is taken into consideration.
Great importance to the difference of the magnetic field.
http://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/images/2014/06/june_2014_magnetic_field/14582208-1-eng-GB/June_2014_magnetic_field_node_full_image_2.jpg
For the second year in a row is the same pattern in the winter polar vortex. Circulation makes the winter is severe in America, and in Europe mild.
Joe Bastardi says he coined the polar vortex phrase. Watch his video from yesterday at weatherbell.com. Right side.
ren here’s another vortex https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jHsq36_NTU
The dark area shows the current center of the polar vortex.
http://oi60.tinypic.com/289a9fq.jpg
“This means most water moving in or out of the Arctic Ocean is in the upper few hundred meters of the ocean. The Continental Shelf is vast and drops off to the deep ocean at 200 fathoms, instead of 100 fathoms like most others. The result is very large areas of relatively shallow water, visible as the light blue area in Figure 3 and the turquoise in Figure 4.”,
Did I read that wrong ? On figure 3 (4?) the Arctic ocean shelf appears to be shallower than the rest of the Continental shelves and drops of slower, the fathoms # seem to be reversed in the paragraph.
Volume of ice in the Arctic is growing.
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1_CY.png
Current insolation at the silly critical 65N is the same as insolation in the coldest part of the last glacial cycle.
Elevation (ice sheet above sea level) and the fact that there is a continent rather than an ocean at the South pole explains why the ice sheet is 1000s of feet above sea level in the South pole and why the South pole is roughly 25C colder than the North pole.
Climate data for the American Amundsen-Scott station at the South Pole – Continental High Plateau
Data range from 1957 to 1988; Latitude: 90°S; Longitude: 0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year
Average daily temperature °C
– 28.2 – 40.9 – 54 – 57.3 – 57 – 58 – 59.7 – 60 – 59.4 – 51.1 – 38.3 – 27.5 – 49.4
Mean daily max °C
– 25.9 – 38.1 – 50.3 – 54.2 – 53.9 – 54.4 – 55.9 – 55.6 – 55.1 – 48.4 – 36.9 – 26.5 – 45.4
Mean daily min °C
– 29.4 – 42.7 – 57 – 61.2 – 61.7 – 61.2 – 62.8 – 62.5 – 62.4 – 53.8 – 40.4 – 29.3 – 49.3
http://cdn.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/cross_section_combined.ai_.jpg
South Pole temperature by month – (South pole has cooled slightly post 1988)
P.S. Sea ice in the Antarctic is at a record due to the unexplained cooling of the Southern sea.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
The concept of glacial melt water contributing to Antarctic sea ice is about as unscientific as you can get. The glacial melt water is fresh water land ice with a freezing point of 0°C. The sea ice, due to the salt content of sea water, freezes at -1.96°C. If glacial melt water were in sufficient quantity its effect would be to melt the sea ice, not cause it.
Second point is that once the sea surface has a skin of ice on it all further freezing occurs underneath the ice. the ice thickens quickly when the surface ice is clean as this aids radiation of heat from the sea water through the ice. Snow cover on sea ice reduces this radiation and slows ice thickening.
Therefore to get increased thickness and extent of Antarctic sea ice requires the ocean to be cooling, something that the Argo buoys raw data shows. But the climate cowboys refuse to recognise.
Dr James Renwick, a NZ climate “scientist” has just been given a huge grant to investigate why the Antarctic sea ice is increasing. He blames southerly winds before he even starts his research. I suspect however, that it will be a case of what explanation his computer models can come up with rather than an honest project of observing what actually happens.
Sea ice in the Antarctic is at a record due to the unexplained cooling of the Southern sea. Note the earth has cooled each and every time the solar magnetic cycle has slowed down. The solar magnetic cycle is slowing down and is now starting to show multiple anomalies.
For those who are interested in watching the onset of global cooling this is the graph to watch. The South sea is cooling due to the interruption to the solar magnetic cycle. Note the Northern solar polar large scale magnetic field is flat lining. It appears the solar magnetic field cycle 24/25 transition will be the weakest on ‘record’. The magnitude of the solar large scale magnetic field is predictor of the number of sunspots in the next cycle.
http://www.solen.info/solar/polarfields/polar.html
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2015/anomnight.2.12.2015.gif
Currently, solar activity strongly decreased.
http://www.n3kl.org/sun/noaa.html
Can you point me to papers and/or data that backs up the claim “Note the earth has cooled each and every time the solar magnetic cycle has slowed down.”?
I don’t have much detail on it, mainly just sound bites from people who hate the idea and I’m interested in how much merit the idea has overall based on the underlying theories.
As a jumping-off place, here is an article on a blog that discusses such papers:
http://simostronomy.blogspot.com/2013/01/sir-william-herschel-variable-stars.html
Dr Tim Ball is an excellent source of good sense in what he posts. I read and learn from most of his posts. My comment is a minor nitpick about this sentence in his current post:
“Polynyas are large areas of open water and a unique feature in the Arctic Oceans that contribute heat
directly to the Arctic atmosphere.”
Polynyas are a feature of the Antarctic Oceans as well as the Arctic Oceans [Wiki]. Thus they are not unique to the Arctic Oceans as stated. (I suspect this is a proof reading problem or some such.)
Jim Hutcho
It may jiust be an oversight. Tim Ball did mention Polynyas in the Antarctic.
On a related note, does anyone know if the following were Polynyas.
1960s Nimbus Satellite observations.
More details from the paper’s abstract
.
Good overview, Tim!
And then there is the additional feature, the Bipolar Seesaw:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_see-saw
Listen to a glaciolog explaining it in the last haft of this video:
Thank you Dr Tim Ball. I would love a pdf of all this info (if I only knew how).
Some layman rambling; I note peak Arctic ice is some 14,000 km^2. IF the Arctic ice was not there we would have sea water radiating at about -1C. Compare that to ice at -25C. That ice seems to be providing a thermal barrier, lot of energy would be lost otherwise. Then there is reduced albedo as the sun clears the horizon. My guess is Arctic ice disappearing is a vanishingly small possibility.
Use Chrome as your browser on thoe occasions you want to keep a copy of a good article. It can print a pdf of almost any webpage. Just change the “printer”.
Excellent article.
I would like to add following: There is a chain of active (atmospheric) volcanoes just outside Arctic circle (Iceland and Aleutian peninsula with Kamchatka further south) with relatively frequent eruptions. It can be postulated that the volcanic ash eventually deposited on the ice and snow of the Arctic may have an effect on albedo, rate of melting etc. In contrast the Antarctica has only one active atmospheric volcano (Mt Erebus) erupting relatively infrequently.
I am also of the view (regularly and possibly justifiably disputed) that intensity, medium term variability and the distribution of the Earth’s magnetic field in polar areas (Arctic-bifurcation, Antarctic- regular oval) has an important effect on formation and importantly stability of the polar vortex.
100 %.
“In contrast the Antarctica has only one active atmospheric volcano (Mt Erebus) erupting relatively infrequently”
Not correct. There are several active volcanoes off the Antarctic Peninsula, e. g. Deception Island in the South Orkneys (last eruption in 1970) and almost all of the South Sandwich Islands. The Balleny Islands off Victoria land in East Antarctica erupted in the 19th Century.
One or two eruptions 30-40 years ago in the Antarctic’s area, were and are of no consequence for accessing current global warming factors of the Antarctica.
In contrast the Arctic’s surrounding regions have regular eruptions, sometime several volcanoes are erupting within a year, some going for weeks even months; the effect on the Arctic temperatures is likely to be measurable.
Surely you are not equating effects of two?
Further, there was a recent article suggesting that undersea volcanos beneath Antarctica may explain, in part, the melting of the West Antarctic ice shelf; ie., natural and not due to global warming.
Role of undersea volcanic eruptions in both Arctic and Antarctic is mostly underestimated. It appears that currently the Arctic is in a relatively ‘calm’ phase, while there is some evidence that the ‘crescendo’ of eruptions may have been reached towards the end of the ice ages, and so creating conditions for rapid rise of the interglacials.
http://images.intellicast.com/App_Images/Article/194_1.jpg
It is my view that onset of rise in the Milancovic cycles initiates powerful bursts of the Arctic’s submarine eruptions.
Vukcevic,
According to these articles:
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=81bb2fd3-63f1-476f-b0be-f48c0dc90304
And: http://iceagenow.info/2015/02/arctic-seafloor-afire-lava-spewing-volcanoes/
This is new for me and very stunning.
If the arctic seabed’s magmatic activity is so intense, one may wonder how much heat is released in the sea water and if this could help in a good part of the recent arctic ice sheet melting which was so eagerly attributed to the AGW by the IPCC.
Anyways the IPCC certainly didn’t heed of the magmatic heating in their computer’s programs.
This may be compared to the quick melting of some antarctic glaciers which was later proven to be caused by a subglaciar volcanic activity.
Jack if Earth didn’t have relief valves to release some of the pressure this at some stage would happen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGWmONHipVo
And when it comes to global warming at least half the heat comes from here. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2011/jul/19/radioactive-decay-accounts-for-half-of-earths-heat
Jack & jmor, thanks for the links.
Currently Euro-Asian and American plates are separating at rate of about 2 cm/ annum. Geological records (recently become available) show that the rate is not uniform. During last million or so years there were short burst of spreading, most likely triggered by Milankovic cycles, but only under certain easily understood conditions, resulting in a chain of simultaneous submarine magma eruptions. I think that ice ages, both glaciation and deglaciation spread out from the Arctic Ocean outwards.
vukcevic And thank you for the recognition
Here’s something I see about the pacific rim of fire . If you shoot a ball bearing with a slingshot at a window , do you see that it is a small hole from your side but on the other side the hole is bigger and the size difference depends on the thickness of the glass (miss spent youth ) so I see the pacific rim as a major impact zone . and maybe the impact that brought water and life as we know it to mother Earth ???????
What would happen if a ice giant hit Venus.??? And if you hit a iron bar hard enough you can create a magnetic field, Its my belief that this process happened to Earth and aloud Earth to hold onto a atmosphere on the night side, To create a electric field just introduce a magnetic field is how it goes isn’t it??
Yet another fine post by Dr. Ball. Thanks Tim!
The main takeaway that I get from this post is that there are large differences between the two poles and we have almost no data about those two areas even in the 21st century. Now since they told me that “global warming” was to raise the temperatures at the poles first — how can we talk about global warming with no data?
If the poles are as large a heat sink as we think they are, why are we worried about warming?
Great Post, thank you!
I thought you might be interested (though you might not) to know my guess as to why the layman erroneously thinks that the Poles are equally cold, or in some ways that the North Pole is perceived to be colder. Most of what most people have read on the Poles over the last hundred years is from Expedition Reports. Because it’s quite hard to walk on water, North Pole Expeditions historically occured in Spring (April to May/June), and nowadays, given less ice, in late Winter/early Spring (late February/early March to Mid/late April). Because humans aren’t stupid (even those of us stupid enough to go on Polar Expeditions!) South Pole Expeditions also occur at the warmest feasible time of the year, but because it’s on land, and you don’t tend to fall through land and get wet (ok, you do fall through the crevasses sometimes…), that means they’re in December/January, ie Southern Summer. So all that we’ve heard for a century until perhaps the last decade was influenced by the timing of Expeditions. And I can tell you that walking on the Arctic Ocean in early March at -50 in near darkness with sometimes humid air from open leads feels a lot colder than walking on the Antarctic at -25 in dry 24h sunlight…..
‘A favorite exam question in my first-year climate class was, “Why is the North Pole warmer than the South Pole? I changed it each year, to confuse students who looked at last year’s exam; “Why is the South Pole colder than the North Pole?”’
And it is really depressing to think that this cunning ploy probably worked.
“….South Pole. The intensely cold air that drains down off the continent enhances the general circulation pattern of the Polar Easterlies.”
I guess this should be Westerlies concerning the South Pole?