Does Cooling In Antarctica Contradict Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory?

Question

Or does it support it? Many skeptics point to the cooling in Antarctica as proof that an enhanced greenhouse effect isn't causing the planet to warm. But according to this article from the folks at RealClimate, climate models have predicted the cooling in Antarctica for a long time.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/02/antarctica-is-cold/

Answer 1

Real climate always has some very good feedback on theories. But the one hotspot predicted by climate modelers refuses to show itself, the midtroposphere in the tropics should warm 1.6 time faster than the surface. The data indicates the tropical mid troposphere has been cooling for 5 years, and some would argue for over a decade. One needs no other proof to invalidate the AGW theory.

http://www.ssmi.com/rss_research/climate...

And also on the subject of Antarctica, humans have been adding CO2 to the atmosphere on a large scale for almost 70 years. The first 50 PPM of CO2 added to the atmosphere should have almost double the effect of the next 50 PPM. The climate modelers may have predicted that the Southern Hemisphere may be slower to react, but should the Antarctic set records for maximum sea ice extent after 100 years of Anthropogenic modification to the atmosphere?

.

.

Answer 2

Global warming is a phenomena that increases the average temperature in the Earth's atmosphere.  That does not mean certain areas will not have different effects.  The fact is that increase in temperature in a certain area may cause a decrease in temperature in others.  This is due to the complex systems of the earth including jet streams in the stratosphere and currents in the oceans.  For instance, the cause of the last ice age, according to some scientists, is due to the failure of whatever that current that runs through the atlantic.  Warm water that was brought up from the Gulf of Mexico and mid-atlantic was suddenly halted as a result of a warming period, which in turn cause the glaciers to expand. This has a dominoe effect; as more ocean is frozen over, less heat energy is reserved in the oceans, and the climate reaches drastic low temperatures.  In geologic time, it is not uncommon to see a global warming period followed by an ice age.  Those currents and jet streams are the driving forces that allow such a diversity of life to exist.

Answer 3

"Bottom line: A cold Antarctica and Southern Ocean do not contradict our models of global warming. For a long time the models have predicted just that."

The article claims that it has something to do with ocean mixing.  I'm not following that logic.  I guess it's trying to say that increased mixing brings colder water up from deep, colder depths, cooling the area.

I had read that the increased discharge from Antarctic glaciers would cool waters near the coast and cause a lot more floating sea ice, influencing temps over land as well.  The article doesn't seem to go into that sort of detail.

As an article (not a paper) the information is second hand at best and it is difficult to determine which parts are science and which are editorial comments that could include conjecture or extrapolation.  Better to go to the original paper.  I wouldn't make any call based on that particular RealClimate article alone, although I generally consider the site to be pretty credible.

Answer 4

No.

Twenty years ago,the topic of human caused global warming was laughed at by the mainstream press,and the general public. The 'deniers' and skeptics called for years of research before going off halfcocked on it. Now look where we are! Have you noticed that EVERY weather front to come through N.America this winter,has had very severe weather with it?  We had a F-2 tornado in Vancouver WA in January!  The 'deniers',all sound like such desperate people. They can't understand AGW,but are so quick to jump on any crack-pipe theory to try to somehow 'discredit' the scientific evidence of AGW.

Answer 5

No, it is not called Antartica warming/cooling. It is global warming. The planet as a whole is warming up.

Answer 6

As it stands now.... there are absolutely NO weather/climate phenomena..... I repeat....NO weather/climate phenomena.....that cannot be explained by Global Warming!!!

If it's too hot........GW

If it's too cold......GW

If's it's too stormy.....GW

If it's too calm......GW

If it's too sunny.....GW

If it's too cloudy.....GW

If it's too rainy......GW

If it's too dry......GW

If it's too nice outside......GW

................ad nauseum....

The Global Warming (AGW) cult members all carry a trump-card containing the above.....allowing them to win an argument even when they cannot fabricate/twist any more "science"!!

Answer 7

I give credence to this scientific studies.  However, global warming would mean bigger rainfall, higher humidity and precipitation which is actually good for vegetation.  There are also some finding that says Greenland will become green as what its name signify.  But the effect of this to human habitation as we know it is still up for debate.  But one thing is certain, there will be an abundance of Plants and trees.

Alvin

Answer 8

I see lots of these ???? and most of the time I just skip them but Crabbys answer is just to much for me to let go.

The idea that the GW question is settled is wrong. AGW is a theory not a fact. Science does not deal in facts, Math does. Anyone telling you GW is a settled issue has no idea what science is.

Science is "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena"

The word "theoretical" in the definition says it all

There are many scientists out there that disagree about GW and it's causes. Here is a great list of GW researchers with different opinions on the causes. with links to their work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_...

Oh Yea all you AGW believers .....Have a nice day:)

Answer 9

Dang alarmists blame everything on global warming!

Sorry, I was channeling my inner denier there for a second.  It's quite interesting that delayed warming in Antarctica was accurately predicted by models 20-30 years ago.

"The pioneer climate modelers Kirk Bryan and Syukuro Manabe took up the question with a more detailed model that revealed an additional effect. In the Southern Ocean around Antarctica the mixing of water went deeper than in Northern waters, so more volumes of water were brought into play earlier. In their model, around Antarctica “there is no warming at the sea surface, and even a slight cooling over the 50-year duration of the experiment.” (4) In the twenty years since, computer models have improved by orders of magnitude, but they continue to show that Antarctica cannot be expected to warm up very significantly until long after the rest of the world’s climate is radically changed."

Bottom line: A cold Antarctica and Southern Ocean do not contradict our models of global warming. For a long time the models have predicted just that."

The deniers can't claim that climate scientists are simply blaming everything on global warming, because these predictions were made decades ago.  This also undermines the argument that climate models are just worthless guesses.

Answer 10

Yes--in fact, all the evidence supports global warming.  It is a proven fact--there is no "debate" and has not been for years. The "skeptics" only show their own ignorance. First, global warming refers to OVERALL averages, not to local variations.  Second, the area in Antartica that is somewhat cooler is a fairly small region at the pole. The continent overall is warming, not cooling. All the coastal regions are warming faster than the global avrage.

And, yes, the climate models of global warming do predict the central region cooling.  Those models--of various kinds--all predict uneven effects. Which anyone with any common sense would expect, given that we are talking about a system as huge and complex as the entire planet.