The air inside this vortex, which is created by a combination of cold
temperatures over the pole and the rotation of the Earth, is much colder than the air outside.
Not exact matches
Modeling Pluto's
temperatures showed that when averaged
over Pluto's 248 - year orbit, the latitudes near 30 degrees north and south emerged as the coldest places, far colder than either
pole.
Only
over the past 34 million years have CO2 concentrations been low,
temperatures relatively cool, and the
poles glaciated.
re Gavin @ 223 I know what the mean global
temperature is (actually, I don't, see below) but the question was why is this a meaningful metric for looking at changes
over time, when you could get the same global mean from very different distributions of
temperature (eg increase the
poles, decrease the tropics) which would have very different interpretations of energy balance (at least if I am right that humidity matters)?
Is not all
over lapping absorption molecules the same, and therefore would it not take an exponentially larger increase in CO-2 to increase
temperature in the tropics as opposed to the
poles?
The
temperature at the
poles of Venus (
over 720K) can not be explained by any «runaway greenhouse effect» because there is less than 1W / m ^ 2 from the Sun that gets through the Venus atmosphere to the surface at the
poles.
Temperatures on the Tibetan Plateau — sometimes called Earth's «third
pole» — have warmed by 0.3 °C (0.5 °F) per decade
over the past 30 years, about twice the rate of observed global
temperature increases.
By contrast, air
temperatures over the Antarctic region for the same period were above average in some areas, such as the Antarctic Peninsula and near the
pole, but below average in others.
If one compares
temperature in the stratosphere at 10hPa at the
poles and
over the equator the thing that sticks out is the dramatic increase in
temperature at 10hPa
over Antarctica around 1978.
However, the strong fall in
temperature throughout the stratosphere
over the Equator that accompanies these winter events
over the
poles points to a solar influence.
Over millennia, marine life have endured and responded to CO2 levels well beyond anything projected, and
temperature changes that put coral reefs and tropical plants closer to the
poles or had much of our land covered by ice more than a mile thick.
The strongest evidence in support of climate change is the melting of the polar ice caps, Langcake acknowledges, noting the
temperature in Antarctica rose by 2.5 degrees centigrade between 1945 and 1995 and a Norwegian study supporting the idea of a rapidly accelerating melt at both
poles, but claims this theory may not be borne out
over a longer period.
Those numbers are meaningless as the average
temperature of the surface of the Moon is between 80 °C on the lit face and -200 °C on the dark face and averaged
over a lunar day it's 98 K at the
poles and 206 K at the equator.
Even if the
temperature e.g. at the
poles, the sink places, dropped 1 °C more than average, that doesn't make much difference: the current CO2 level at about 400 ppmv gives about the same partial pressure of 400 microatm everywhere
over the oceans (minus a few % due to water vapour).
A small
temperature increase at the
poles leads to still greater warming
over time, making the
poles the most sensitive regions to climate change on Earth.
I think a direct comparison
over the area that is common to all these analyses will help resolve some confusions because it removes one of the big uncertainties in observed estimates of global
temperature and that is what is happening
over the
poles.
The CO2 wavelengths always look like the tropopause
temperatures no matter if they are measured
over the desert or the
poles, which tells us we are seeing emissions from high in the atmosphere, not re-emitted near the surface.
For instance,
over a period of time, if I observe, perhaps, that
temperatures are falling, ice cover is increasing
over the
poles and / or that sea levels either remain static or drop.