Why don't we see the atmosphere warm at the South Pole in response to increased CO2 concentration?

A potential hypothesis is that CO2 warming requires a water vapor feedback which is not present in region of Antarctica.

Although, I had thought that water vapor levels were low in Antarctica specifically because of the lack of warming. One might think that the above hypothesis would lead the runaway warming in other regions.

An alternative hypothesis might be that solar insolation and ocean currents have larger effect on climate than CO2 (or water vapor). That might account for differences between the two poles.

(kudos for the gcnp58 hashtag)

The question isn't why hasn't the atmosphere warmed appreciably, but where all the excess heat trapped in the atmosphere has gone. The sun isn't any 'hotter', there's been no massive volcanic explosions and the only variable is the accumulation of over 200 years of CO2 generated by the burning of fossil fuels and the 'greenhouse effect generated by that burning. So...where's the heat?

Heat energy goes from warm to cold. What's cold in this case? Ice and seawater. The oceans are warming and the ice is melting...ALL the data shows that to be true. The South Pole is on a different time scale than the northern hemisphere because the conditions, extent of the oceans, ocean currents and land masses are different, but that doesn't alter anything and so the difference between the hemispheres can't be used to deny the overall facts.....more CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are rapidly accumulating and these gases trap the sun's heat energy. That's the science, the physics and the data. it's as simple and as complex as that.

What makes you think CO2 doesn't work at the south pole? Have you looked at all the other possible forcings, found them to not be able to hide the warming due to CO2, and then come to the conclusion that the south pole CO2 is not causing any warming or as much as modern physics says it will?

I think, perhaps, rainfall has not increased in the Antarctic is because it is a dessert. I would be interested in seeing the spatial distribution of increasing and decreasing precipitation over the region. It would be interesting to see if precipitation is increasing along the outer edges and decreasing in the middle of the continent. And as I've stated, the atmosphere is warming in large areas and is cooling in large areas. the amount of each is most likely attributable to regional characteristics (eg. southern wind speeds, warming and cooling ocean currents, and so on.) More than likely changes in such things as water vapour, due to other forcings, are heightening the effects of those other forcings, as they do on a global scale as well. But to think that, perhaps, the effects of CO2 is not as much as others say it will be without looking into other possible mitigating effects first isn't going about it the right way.

If we look at water vapour on a global scale we see that it is largely affected by ENSO conditions

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-8...

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/

Of course water vapour concentration over Antarctica is most likely controlled by other oscillatory cycles.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=...

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20090121/

Though these two point to the study by Steig et al it does states the limitations ground based stations in the Antarctic region have. Especially considering their sparseness and the regional temperature fluctuations. This page, though not peer reviewed, states pretty much what I stated above regarding seasonal and oscillatory variations.

http://www.unis.no/35_staff/staff_webpages/geology...

"The observed spatial pattern of temperature variations may, however, indicate that the consecutive warming and cooling throughout the decades was part of a large-scale circulation pattern that exhibits long-term persistence. Mean winter surface temperature trends in Antarctica have previously been linked to slow (multi-year) variations in atmospheric long waves (van Loon and Williams 1977), suggesting that mid-latitude large-scale circulation plays a significant role in the spatial variability of temperature over the continent. There is some observational evidence suggesting that under present conditions cooler conditions on the Antarctic Plateau are associated with stronger zonal westerlies around the Antarctic continent, causing warmer conditions in the Peninsula regions penetrating north into the zone of enhanced westerlies. "

a miles better question for you is that in case you place the oceans in touch with a hotter surroundings, why could you no longer assume them to warmth up? Granted the longwave radiation would not penetrate a techniques into the sea, yet while the exterior is warmed a thermal wave will propagate downward by utilising the thermal diffusion equation, that's what happens on land. whether interior the sea you moreover mght have turbulent mixing and subduction, that may circulate the warmth from the warmed floor layer downward a lot swifter than what happens on land. nonetheless, interior the quick-term the heating is restricted to the mixed layer. i could point out that no longer basically is there evaporation from the sea floor, there is likewise precipitation back to the exterior. probably a warmed surroundings could have particularly hotter precipitation, besides the actuality that I actual have in no way seen any analyze in this.

Instead of cutting and pasting tons of irrelevant mish-mash and technical mumbo jumbo you don't understand, from anti-science sites, how about explaining your "question."

WHAT actually IS the difference (if there indeed IS ANY significant difference at all) between the warming in Antarctica vs the Arctic?

IF this difference is somehow important (and WHY should it be? WHY should the global average temperature trend be equally adhered to regionally?) what the Heck is it?

20% more temperature increase at North vs South?

50% more?

Over what time period?

According to which source?

Otherwise, the assumption will very logically be that this is just more anti-science deceit (which you clearly have penchant for) "disguised" through a fog of irrelevancy.

Edit: DaveH, WHO says the temperature hasn't warmed at Antarctica "at all"? Has any bonafide climate scientist specializing in temperature come to that conclusion? "Your" "data" surely doesn't indicate that. I lean harder than before to the most likely logical assumption here: you are flinging denier BS as usual.

Research by Steig found that the South Pole has been warming by about 0.1°C per decade for the last 50 years. The question was revisited by the skeptic O'Donnell, who also found that the South Pole is warming but in a different pattern than Steig had found. You are probably right that the main difference at the South Pole is that water vapor feedback is greatly diminished.

The article below discusses the Steig/O'Donnell controversy.