North and South Poles: Important Climate Differences

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).

clip_image002

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)

clip_image004

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.

clip_image006

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.

clip_image008

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.

clip_image010

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).

clip_image012

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.

clip_image014

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.

clip_image016

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.

clip_image018

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.

clip_image020

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.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 1 vote
Article Rating
168 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Barry
February 14, 2015 1:48 pm

I prefer the abbreviated version of this post:
“The Arctic is warmer than the Antarctic because it is an ocean.”
http://climatekids.nasa.gov/polar-temperatures/

February 14, 2015 2:40 pm

Thanks, Dr. Ball.
Your explanation is very clear.

February 14, 2015 2:51 pm

There is substantial evidence that CFCs enlarged the Antarctic ozone hole, although I agree that it has existed during pre-industrial times. The extent of this phenomenon is well known since sometime in the late 1970s, and it has definitely grown until a few years after the Montreal Protocol. And there was “gun smoke” found – chlorine monoxide. This is formed from chlorine from organic compounds – not from chloride ions that are present in sea salt or hydrochloric acid.
Modern shrinkage of the antarctic ozone hole is being slowed by emissions of halogenated carbon compounds, above what should now be occurring. For example, carbon tetrachloride is showing signs of what I could refer to as “underground” evaporation.

David Ball
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
February 14, 2015 8:43 pm

links?

jmorpuss
February 14, 2015 5:27 pm

I don’t believe the Earth wobbles, rather it stays on it’s access and the angle of inclination changes the temperature at the poles as we spiral from 4 to 10 o’clock or 8 to 2 or any other opposing combinations . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jHsq36_NTU You may have to use your minds eye to see this process .

Arno Arrak
February 14, 2015 5:40 pm

RACookPE1978 February 13, 2015 at 10:57 pm sats:
“… 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?”
You have a mighty peculiar idea of what world temperature was doing between 1992 and 2015. It isn’t even the fake warming that GISS, NCDC and HadCRUT have foisted upon us which I thought you would use.. What really happened was that there was no warming at all in the eighties and nineties until the step warming of 1999 raised global temperature by a third of a degree Celsius in only three years. It stopped in 2002 and the hiatus followed. That is the only warming we have had since the start of the satellite era. I am leaving out of course the the five El Nino peaks of the eighties and nineties as non-warming (see figure 15 in “What Warming?”). I am also leaving out the La Nina of 2008 and the El Nino of 2010 as they mutually cancel out. That step warming amounts to approximately one half of the past century’s warming. Since the El Nino peaks of the eighties and nineties were non-warming we have here another 18 year stretch of hiatus on our hands, hidden by the fake warming of those three temperature kings. If you add this period to the the current hiatus period you will end up with 80 percent of the time since the IPCCs founding being entirely a non-warming period. According to Anthony Watts there are currently over 50 articles either in press or already published, all trying to prove the non-existence of the present hiatus. My. my, fifty explanations, non of them any good. Some of them are even looking for the lost heat in the ocean bottom. And not one of the authors even knows that there is still another hiatus for them to explain. Do you think they should withdraw their current papers as incomplete? Or, better yet, should they apologize for misleading the public?.

February 14, 2015 7:08 pm

Enjoyed the post. A nice reminder about the differences between our Earthly poles. From what I recall, at times in the Earth’s history, neither pole had any land as far as we can tell. It was only around 25 to 40 million years ago that Antarctica slowly descended to the south pole and froze over with ice by around 15 million years ago. By 50 million years, Antarctica may be moving away from the south pole as suggested by this graphic.
http://www.scotese.com/images/18F050v4.jpg
The Earth will be a much different place by then and probably warmer as the sun slowly increases its temperature and heat output.

jmorpuss
Reply to  oz4caster
February 15, 2015 3:41 am

And did you know that the north pole (looking at a bar magnet ) is really the south pole. In a bar magnet , magnetism flows in the south (negative) and out the north (positive). But in a battery energy flows from positive to negative . A high pressure system ( positive charge ) works in the down direction and is responsible for good weather and a low pressure system (negative charge )works in the up direction and responsible for foul weather. Look at it this way , water in a river flows downhill quite freely , unless it hit a boulder and has to alter it’s course. Water is like energy , it will take the path of least resistance and resistance creates work and as we all know the harder we work the hotter we get .

William Astley
February 14, 2015 8:19 pm

During Dansgaard-Oeschger or Heinrich cooling events, the jet stream speed increases which increases the amount of dust that is deposited on the Greenland ice sheet (the dust is from China). During a Heinrich event there is a hundred fold increase in dust deposited on the Greenland ice sheet.
The recent observed changes: 1) Highest sea ice in recorded history in the Antarctic, recovery of sea ice in the Arctic, and increased jet stream speed supports the assertion that what was inhibiting the solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary cloud cover is now starting to abate.
Based on current solar magnetic cycle activity there will be global cooling of roughly 0.6C. What I am unsure is timing of the cooling.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-13/surging-jet-stream-winds-hinder-u-s-bound-flights-from-europe

Surging Jet-Stream Winds Hinder U.S.-Bound Flights From Europe
Stronger westerly headwinds for U.S.-bound flights are stretching out travel times, forcing some planes to stop for refueling. Trips such as London to New York, a busy business route, are running almost eight hours — 45 minutes longer than voyages in September.
Two Philadelphia-bound American Airlines flights, one from Brussels and the other from Amsterdam, had to touch down on Jan. 11 to refuel in Bangor, Maine, said Scott Ramsay, the carrier’s managing director of its integrated operations center. The journey from Brussels took 9 hours and 16 minutes, about an hour more than three months earlier, according to industry data tracker FlightAware.
Higher Costs
Flights across the Atlantic to eastern U.S. cities in December 2013 averaged 19 minutes later than a year earlier, according to industry data tracker MasFlight.com. Travel times in December 2014 were similar to those in 2013, MasFlight’s data from more than 1,300 flights a year showed.
With the threat of increasingly strong headwinds every winter, airlines face higher costs on those westbound flights with the use of extra fuel and the crew’s time.
“When you were planning to fly non-stop, stopping for fuel costs money,” said George Hamlin, president of Hamlin Transportation Consulting, who has more than 40 years of experience in commercial aviation and aerospace.

Reply to  William Astley
February 15, 2015 12:02 am

My thought for the first downward step is 2017/18. That should also be when the ssn number will come close to the low of the minimum around 2021.

Phlogiston
February 14, 2015 8:55 pm

The insolation difference between perihelion (Jan) and aphelion (July) is huge, >10%. It is remarkable that there is no signal from this in the global troposphere or land temperature record. Very remarkable. This means there is very strong and active climate adaptation and negative feedback which swallows up changes in insolation.
This powerful adaptation of the climate eats up the 25% difference in insolation associated with the “dim sun” paradox of strengthening insolation over earth’s history. And, needless to say, it consigns to absolute irrelevance and trivial meaninglessness all blather about a few watts per square meter of CO2 “back radiation “.

David A
Reply to  Phlogiston
February 14, 2015 10:36 pm

Phil says, “The insolation difference between perihelion (Jan) and aphelion (July) is huge, >10%. It is remarkable that there is no signal from this in the global troposphere or land temperature record. ”
==================================
Ah but there is a signal, and it is dam persistent. The atmosphere cools despite the great increase in insolation.. Why? IMV, two reason are primary. The increased albedo of the land rich NH during its winter, and the much greater insolation below the ocean surface in the SH hemisphere. Thus both the albedo and the solar insulation penetrating below the ocean surface, cool the atmosphere. Does the earth (land, oceans, and atmosphere), gain or lose energy during this period of most intense insolation? I do not know, but I wish I did. Do the NIPCC climate models know?

Phlogiston
Reply to  David A
February 15, 2015 7:32 am

Thanks – an inverse signal, that’s even more puzzling. So insolation has multiple interactions and layers of complexity. This insight contrasts with the CAGW approach in which a calculated increase in “back radiation” from CO2 is regarded as “end of story “. It is clearly only the beginning.
One would have thought with the mountain of research on radiation budgets that the perihelion-aphelion difference in insolation would have been used to the max as a natural contrast reference – but maybe they just prefer computer models with more predictable domesticated outcomes.

David A
Reply to  David A
February 15, 2015 10:58 am

“One would have thought with the mountain of research on radiation budgets that the perihelion-aphelion difference in insolation would have been used to the max as a natural contrast reference –..”
==========================================
Exactly! I have tried to get others to focus on this. SW radiation entering the oceans has a very long residence time, from days to centuries. Thus todays ocean penetrating SW radiation is added to daily for a very long time. So a seasonal increase of 90 watts per sq. meter, is, IMV what recharges the oceans. I would like to know how much WV changes during the SH summer, and if that then decreases the surface insolation. With all the millions and billions spent on climate change, one would hope such basic research would already be done.

phlogiston
Reply to  David A
February 15, 2015 3:28 pm

Just a speculation, but could the perihelion-aphelion periodic change in SW insolation of the tropical ocean be for instance contribute to the annual forcing and phase-locking of ENSO?

ren
February 15, 2015 1:58 am

The Antarctic summer is -51F and the Greenland winter is headed down to -60F.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/02/15/polar-meltdown-update-4/

February 15, 2015 8:21 am

Here’s an analysis of the warming event in the Arctic area: http://www.arctic-warming.com/?page_id=46. What do you think about that?

Janice the Elder
February 15, 2015 4:50 pm

Just to be silly . . . As Treebeard said, “I always like going south; somehow, it feels like going downhill”. Since North is up, and South is down, North will always be warmer, because warmth rises.

boulder
February 15, 2015 5:08 pm

We have a rover on mars. How difficult would it be to design a rover to stay at the north pole, or go wherever we need to take measurements.

Janice the Elder
Reply to  boulder
February 16, 2015 5:10 pm

We can get away with putting Pu-238 heat sources in a rover on Mars. I don’t think that is as simple to justify for an earth-bound rover. And nothing else will provide a constant reliable energy source for years at a time. Yes, we can design a rover. We just can’t power it.