5 ms·

I guess the term “global warming” is inaccurate. More like, equatorial warming.

by xwdv 4y ago

ajross 4y ago
That's not what this paper proposes. And it's wrong anyway: antarctic ocean waters absolutely are warming (c.f. the collapse of the floating ice sheets). The observation here is that the continental interior isn't showing the same changes. And as I scan the abstract, the model seems to be just simple buffering: lots of sub-freezing deep ice can absorb lots of heat without appreciable changes in surface temperature.
- tony_cannistra 4y ago
  > the model seems to be just simple buffering: lots of sub-freezing deep ice can absorb lots of heat without appreciable changes in surface temperature. Sorry, but I don't think you've interpreted the study well. You're right about the lack of interior warming - that's the premise of the study. But the study attributes this to the orographic effect of the relatively high elevation of the Antarctic Ice Sheet (AIS) - not any effect of heat buffering in the ice. To determine this, they "flattened" (e.g. removed all influence of terrain from) the AIS, and ran global climate models over this modified terrain. They determined that the terrain _itself_, which is the progenitor of orographic effects in the atmosphere, was responsible for the lack of interior temperature rise. Orographic effects at synoptic/continental scales can have a substantial impact on latent heat transport – they showed that here. Perhaps thermal buffering has a place in the conversation too, but it's not mentioned in this paper.
tgv 4y ago
It's called (anthropogenic, i.e. man-made) climate change nowadays. Because pumping a lot of energy in the atmosphere and oceans can also cool down regions, or make the range between extremes wider, or cause more torments and downfall.
- lowken 4y ago
  It’s called climate change because it’s a marketing term and not a scientific one.
  - EdwardDiego 4y ago
    You don't think that more energy being retained in our atmosphere will cause changes in climate?
- BlueTemplar 4y ago
  CO2-sinners, repent !
- zackees 4y ago
  [dead]
- upsidesinclude 4y ago
  Torments to some indeed
tomrod 4y ago
I know folks don't like to talk about increases in variance, but why not increase in mean and more variance?
- bannedbybros 4y ago
  [dead]
jfengel 4y ago
The poles are more sensitive, and you can see that at the north pole, where it is warming much faster than the equator. The south pole doesn't exhibit that increase, which requires explanation. The obvious answer would be the land mass covered in ice serving as a heat sink, but the paper suggests that it's more about elevation.
- someweirdperson 4y ago
  The poles are less sensitive, and you can see that at the south pole, where it is warming much slower than the equator. The noth pole doesn't exhibit that stability, which requires explanation. Trying to explain that something is the normal behavior, and that something else is the exception requires more than a sample size of two. To prove that the increase of poles is the norm you'll need to describe the behavor of a few more poles. Maybe west and east pole?
EdwardDiego 4y ago
Well, the atmosphere is retaining more energy, but you've perfectly encapsulated why the terminology moved to climate change.

I guess the term “global warming” is inaccurate. More like, equatorial warming.

by xwdv 4y ago

I guess the term “global warming” is inaccurate. More like, equatorial warming.

That's not what this paper proposes. And it's wrong anyway: antarctic ocean waters absolutely are warming (c.f. the collapse of the floating ice sheets). The observation here is that the continental interior isn't showing the same changes. And as I scan the abstract, the model seems to be just simple buffering: lots of sub-freezing deep ice can absorb lots of heat without appreciable changes in surface temperature.

tony_cannistra 4y ago
> the model seems to be just simple buffering: lots of sub-freezing deep ice can absorb lots of heat without appreciable changes in surface temperature. Sorry, but I don't think you've interpreted the study well. You're right about the lack of interior warming - that's the premise of the study. But the study attributes this to the orographic effect of the relatively high elevation of the Antarctic Ice Sheet (AIS) - not any effect of heat buffering in the ice. To determine this, they "flattened" (e.g. removed all influence of terrain from) the AIS, and ran global climate models over this modified terrain. They determined that the terrain _itself_, which is the progenitor of orographic effects in the atmosphere, was responsible for the lack of interior temperature rise. Orographic effects at synoptic/continental scales can have a substantial impact on latent heat transport – they showed that here. Perhaps thermal buffering has a place in the conversation too, but it's not mentioned in this paper.

tgv 4y ago

It's called (anthropogenic, i.e. man-made) climate change nowadays. Because pumping a lot of energy in the atmosphere and oceans can also cool down regions, or make the range between extremes wider, or cause more torments and downfall.

lowken 4y ago
It’s called climate change because it’s a marketing term and not a scientific one.
- EdwardDiego 4y ago
  You don't think that more energy being retained in our atmosphere will cause changes in climate?
BlueTemplar 4y ago
CO2-sinners, repent !
zackees 4y ago
[dead]
upsidesinclude 4y ago
Torments to some indeed

tomrod 4y ago

I know folks don't like to talk about increases in variance, but why not increase in mean and more variance?

bannedbybros 4y ago
[dead]

jfengel 4y ago

The poles are more sensitive, and you can see that at the north pole, where it is warming much faster than the equator. The south pole doesn't exhibit that increase, which requires explanation. The obvious answer would be the land mass covered in ice serving as a heat sink, but the paper suggests that it's more about elevation.

someweirdperson 4y ago
The poles are less sensitive, and you can see that at the south pole, where it is warming much slower than the equator. The noth pole doesn't exhibit that stability, which requires explanation. Trying to explain that something is the normal behavior, and that something else is the exception requires more than a sample size of two. To prove that the increase of poles is the norm you'll need to describe the behavor of a few more poles. Maybe west and east pole?

EdwardDiego 4y ago

Well, the atmosphere is retaining more energy, but you've perfectly encapsulated why the terminology moved to climate change.