Yes but not for any of the reasons above. Any global warming regardless of cause would result in higher temps at higher latitudes because melting ice lowers the albedo.
"One of the earliest and consistent predictions of global warming theory is that the polar regions would increase in temperature to a far greater degree than the equatorial regions. This prediction is plausible for several reasons. First of all, the polar regions are subject to the ice-albedo feedback; i.e., as sea ice and snow fields melt the ground and open water absorb more of the Sun's radiation. Second, the air of the polar regions is dry, so dry that they are deserts as much as the Sahara is. Being dry the polar air has very little of the overwhelmingly most important greenhouse gas, water vapor. In moister regions carbon dioxide is a relatively small proportion of the greenhouse gases, but in the dry regions it is relatively more important. Thus if the concentration of carbon dioxide doubles there is relatively smaller effect in moister regions than in the dryer regions so the temperature effect of the increased carbon dioxide is greater in the dryer regions. But, if the atmosphere in the polar regions warms there will be more evaporation and thus a postive feedback from greenhouse effect of increased water vapor."
"One of the earliest and consistent predictions of global warming theory is that the polar regions would increase in temperature to a far greater degree than the equatorial regions. This prediction is plausible for several reasons.
1) albedo
First of all, the polar regions are subject to the ice-albedo feedback; i.e., as sea ice and snow fields melt the ground and open water absorb more of the Sun's radiation.
2) co effect stronger in dry air
Second, the air of the polar regions is dry, so dry that they are deserts as much as the Sahara is. Being dry the polar air has very little of the overwhelmingly most important greenhouse gas, water vapor. In moister regions carbon dioxide is a relatively small proportion of the greenhouse gases, but in the dry regions it is relatively more important. Thus if the concentration of carbon dioxide doubles there is relatively smaller effect in moister regions than in the dryer regions so the temperature effect of the increased carbon dioxide is greater in the dryer regions. But, if the atmosphere in the polar regions warms there will be more evaporation and thus a postive feedback from greenhouse effect of increased water vapor."
Charles: Why must the warming come CO2? If something else provided the same radiative forcing, say, the sun, why wouldn't the same warming process take place?
"Charles: Why must the warming come CO2? If something else provided the same radiative forcing, say, the sun, why wouldn't the same warming process take place?"
We are talking about the "consensus" AGW theory. Co2 is the dominate climate driver.
Of course the sun warms the planet. But the "consensus" AGW theory says co2 dominates the recent warming... and will continue to do so in the future. If true, the theory predicts more warming in the higher latitudes.
11 comments:
So it appears that us folks (aka U.S. folks) are going to be hit harder and sooner than the folks in Europe and Canada.
@chris
Actually, AGW theory predicts greater warming at the higher latitudes. CO2 has more effect on cold dry air. Co2 and water vapor overlap.
Charles: The absorption spectra of CO2 and water vapor don't completely overlap.
Also, there is little water vapor in the upper atmosphere, where radiation from CO2 escapes to space.
So agw theory doesn't predict more warming in higher latitudes?
Yes but not for any of the reasons above. Any global warming regardless of cause would result in higher temps at higher latitudes because melting ice lowers the albedo.
"One of the earliest and consistent predictions of global warming theory is that the polar regions would increase in temperature to a far greater degree than the equatorial regions. This prediction is plausible for several reasons. First of all, the polar regions are subject to the ice-albedo feedback; i.e., as sea ice and snow fields melt the ground and open water absorb more of the Sun's radiation. Second, the air of the polar regions is dry, so dry that they are deserts as much as the Sahara is. Being dry the polar air has very little of the overwhelmingly most important greenhouse gas, water vapor. In moister regions carbon dioxide is a relatively small proportion of the greenhouse gases, but in the dry regions it is relatively more important. Thus if the concentration of carbon dioxide doubles there is relatively smaller effect in moister regions than in the dryer regions so the temperature effect of the increased carbon dioxide is greater in the dryer regions. But, if the atmosphere in the polar regions warms there will be more evaporation and thus a postive feedback from greenhouse effect of increased water vapor."
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/polarwarming.htm
Any warming would create both these effects.
(1) ice-albedo effect
(2) warming => more evaporation => positive feedback from greenhouse effect of increased water vapor.
"One of the earliest and consistent predictions of global warming theory is that the polar regions would increase in temperature to a far greater degree than the equatorial regions. This prediction is plausible for several reasons.
1) albedo
First of all, the polar regions are subject to the ice-albedo feedback; i.e., as sea ice and snow fields melt the ground and open water absorb more of the Sun's radiation.
2) co effect stronger in dry air
Second, the air of the polar regions is dry, so dry that they are deserts as much as the Sahara is. Being dry the polar air has very little of the overwhelmingly most important greenhouse gas, water vapor. In moister regions carbon dioxide is a relatively small proportion of the greenhouse gases, but in the dry regions it is relatively more important. Thus if the concentration of carbon dioxide doubles there is relatively smaller effect in moister regions than in the dryer regions so the temperature effect of the increased carbon dioxide is greater in the dryer regions. But, if the atmosphere in the polar regions warms there will be more evaporation and thus a postive feedback from greenhouse effect of increased water vapor."
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/polarwarming.htm
Charles: Why must the warming come CO2? If something else provided the same radiative forcing, say, the sun, why wouldn't the same warming process take place?
"Charles: Why must the warming come CO2? If something else provided the same radiative forcing, say, the sun, why wouldn't the same warming process take place?"
We are talking about the "consensus" AGW theory. Co2 is the dominate climate driver.
Of course the sun warms the planet. But the "consensus" AGW theory says co2 dominates the recent warming... and will continue to do so in the future. If true, the theory predicts more warming in the higher latitudes.
No, we're talking about Arctic amplification.
If true, the theory predicts more warming in the higher latitudes.
The point is, it's not a unique prediction. Arctic amplification happens with any kind of warming.
Post a Comment