Are we entering a Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) event?
Deciphering the Discrepancies in Observed Arctic and Antarctic Warming Rates vs Those Predicted by Polar Amplification.
The more I write about D-O events the more the data appears to align with that, as opposed to AGW.
What is Polar Amplification…
Polar amplification is a key concept in climate science that describes how the polar regions of Earth are expected to warm at a faster rate than the global average in response to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. This concept emerged particularly as climate models became more sophisticated and could more accurately simulate polar processes.
While the basic understanding that polar regions might respond differently to climate change has been around since the early studies of the greenhouse effect, the detailed concept of polar amplification took shape in the latter part of the 20th century.
The core prediction of polar amplification is that the Arctic and Antarctic regions will experience a higher rate of temperature increase compared to the global average. This is largely due to feedback mechanisms unique to these regions. As ice and snow cover diminish, they reveal darker land or ocean surfaces. These darker surfaces have a lower albedo, meaning they absorb more solar energy instead of reflecting it, leading to further warming and more ice melt.
Changes in atmospheric circulation can result in more heat being transported to the polar regions. In the polar regions, warming can lead to changes in ocean circulation patterns, which in turn can affect global climate patterns.
Observed Warming in the Arctic vs the Antarctic…
The concept of polar amplification, a cornerstone of climate change theory, posits that the polar regions of the Earth are expected to warm at a faster rate than the global average. However, current observations present a nuanced picture, especially regarding the asymmetry between the Arctic and Antarctic warming rates. The Arctic has experienced rapid warming…
…significantly more than the Antarctic, which shows little warming in over seven decades.
This deviation from the initially hypothesized symmetrical polar warming, confirmed by NASA, poses critical questions about our understanding of climate dynamics and the role of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in modern warming.
Early climate models, based on the greenhouse effect, suggested a relatively uniform response to increased GHG concentrations across both poles. These models primarily focused on the direct thermal effects of GHGs and the consequent ice-albedo feedback. However, as observational data accumulated, it became apparent that the Antarctic was not warming as rapidly as the Arctic. This disparity has been attributed to several factors, including the distinct geographical configurations of the Arctic and Antarctic, the differences in oceanic and atmospheric circulation patterns, and the unique climatic conditions of each region. For instance, the Antarctic is a continent surrounded by ocean, which modulates the warming through various oceanic processes, whereas the Arctic, an ocean surrounded by land, is more directly exposed to atmospheric changes and feedback mechanisms.
It raises questions as to why factors such as the distribution of landmasses, which have remained constant since the initial proposal of the polar amplification hypothesis, were overlooked in the original theory, and it makes one curious about the number of other oversights that might have occurred.
Are we at the beginning of a Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) event?
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Irrational Fear to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.