Prokaryotes (talk | contribs) |
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
::::::: So what? This article is not about polar amplification in the next few decades only. It is clearly written that the source of the previous quote is the IPCC AR5; the paper by Held et al. discuss the heat uptake in the southern ocean that limit transient warming in the antarctic region and shows the enhanced warming for the slow climate response so is very relevant for polar amplification at different timescales. --[[User:Giorgiogp2|Giorgiogp2]] ([[User talk:Giorgiogp2|talk]]) 17:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC) |
::::::: So what? This article is not about polar amplification in the next few decades only. It is clearly written that the source of the previous quote is the IPCC AR5; the paper by Held et al. discuss the heat uptake in the southern ocean that limit transient warming in the antarctic region and shows the enhanced warming for the slow climate response so is very relevant for polar amplification at different timescales. --[[User:Giorgiogp2|Giorgiogp2]] ([[User talk:Giorgiogp2|talk]]) 17:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC) |
||
:::::::: Ok, i found the quote now (Chapter 12, page 1062), however it is related to modeling under equilibrium conditions - thus it doesn't mean that Antarctic amplification "only" occurs under these conditions (as you wrote initially). Amplification response in Antarctica is different (Ozone hole, atmospheric circulation changes, melting from below etc). [[User:Prokaryotes|prokaryotes]] ([[User talk:Prokaryotes|talk]]) 17:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC) |
:::::::: Ok, i found the quote now (Chapter 12, page 1062), however it is related to modeling under equilibrium conditions - thus it doesn't mean that Antarctic amplification "only" occurs under these conditions (as you wrote initially). Amplification response in Antarctica is different (Ozone hole, atmospheric circulation changes, melting from below etc). [[User:Prokaryotes|prokaryotes]] ([[User talk:Prokaryotes|talk]]) 17:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC) |
||
{{od}} |
|||
P 1062 |
|||
:"''Amplified surface warming in Arctic latitudes is also a consistent feature |
|||
in climate model integrations (e.g., Manabe and Stouffer, 1980). |
|||
This is often referred to as polar amplification, although numerous |
|||
studies have shown that under transient forcing, this is primarily an |
|||
Arctic phenomenon (Manabe et al., 1991; Meehl et al., 2007b). The |
|||
lack of an amplified transient warming response in high Southern polar |
|||
latitudes has been associated with deep ocean mixing, strong ocean |
|||
heat uptake and the persistence of the vast Antarctic ice sheet. In equilibrium |
|||
simulations, amplified warming occurs in both polar regions.''" |
|||
I have not looked up the cited references. Why do you think that paragraph is explicitly talking about "equilibrium conditions" ? |
|||
[[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy|talk]]) 18:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Need to avoid POV Forking == |
== Need to avoid POV Forking == |
Revision as of 18:04, 28 April 2014
Environment: Climate change Stub‑class | |||||||||||||
|
POV issues
This article seems to have been written by somebody with a point of view.
Polar amplification refers to the principle that BOTH poles will heat up faster than the planet as a whole.
This is plainly the understanding in the current Doran reference.
The text of the article clearly implies that the first reference (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment - International Arctic Science Committee) has defined polar amplification as ONLY referring to the arctic. This is false. The ACIA report actually quotes from the IPCC TAR as follows:
"Climate change in polar regions is expected to be among the largest and most rapid of any region on the Earth, and will cause major physical, ecological, sociological, and economic impacts, especially in the Arctic,Antarctic Peninsula, and Southern Ocean (high confidence)."
NASA and Real Climate's Gavin Schmidt may have a model which does not predict antarctic warming, but that does not somehow render insignificant the numerous other papers and models which DO predict antarctic warming.
I'll make edits now.Jsolinsky (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- The problem here isn't POV, it's that the article is plain wrong. Rewrite, or tag for deletion? --Gergyl (talk) 10:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- No, the problem here, assuming there is a problem, is that people who claim to know enough to criticize it do not make an effort to improve it, based on what wikipedia calls "reliable sources". Gergyl (talk · contribs) please start a new thread to discuss your specific criticism, alternatively make the edits you think would improve the thing. FYI, the Dr Jennifer Francis' hypothesis that arctic amplification is effecting the jetstream is a featured news story in a recent issue of Science Mag(subscription required). Don't know if that helps inform your thinking about this article, but it is an interesting read. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Friendly of you. "It is not observed in the Antarctic, largely because the Southern Ocean acts as a heat sink and because of small seasonal variations in snow cover." That is referenced to an old blog post (your "reliable source"?), and appears to be a miss-read even of that. The statement is wrong: wrong in palaeoclimate terms -- see e.g. Hansen et al 2013, where a pretty standard polar amplification of 2.0 is applied to an antarctic record -- and wrong in modern terms too. If we're going with RealClimate, why not a more recent post. That shows continental Antarctica warming of about 0.2°C/decade 1957-2006, compared with a bit over 0.1°C/decade for the same interval globally (land+ocean). It would be correct to say that modern polar amplification is less in the antarctic than the arctic; even much less. But "not observed" is simply wrong. --Gergyl (talk) 11:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know what the RSs say well enough to edit, and had no particular RS in mind when I commented before. What I said - or tried to say - I will repeat: If you know the content of enough RSs to feel qualified to critique, then then please propose some actual text based on those RSs. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Friendly of you. "It is not observed in the Antarctic, largely because the Southern Ocean acts as a heat sink and because of small seasonal variations in snow cover." That is referenced to an old blog post (your "reliable source"?), and appears to be a miss-read even of that. The statement is wrong: wrong in palaeoclimate terms -- see e.g. Hansen et al 2013, where a pretty standard polar amplification of 2.0 is applied to an antarctic record -- and wrong in modern terms too. If we're going with RealClimate, why not a more recent post. That shows continental Antarctica warming of about 0.2°C/decade 1957-2006, compared with a bit over 0.1°C/decade for the same interval globally (land+ocean). It would be correct to say that modern polar amplification is less in the antarctic than the arctic; even much less. But "not observed" is simply wrong. --Gergyl (talk) 11:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- No, the problem here, assuming there is a problem, is that people who claim to know enough to criticize it do not make an effort to improve it, based on what wikipedia calls "reliable sources". Gergyl (talk · contribs) please start a new thread to discuss your specific criticism, alternatively make the edits you think would improve the thing. FYI, the Dr Jennifer Francis' hypothesis that arctic amplification is effecting the jetstream is a featured news story in a recent issue of Science Mag(subscription required). Don't know if that helps inform your thinking about this article, but it is an interesting read. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Why its bad to use POV definitions: I found this at qwhatis.com:
"What is Polar Amplification? Polar amplification is a climate term which means that climate change is happening faster and is more pronounced in the North Pole or the Arctic faster than anywhere else in the world. Polar amplification is caused by a number of things, and it only applies to the North Pole because the South Pole is mostly water."Jsolinsky (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Notability?
Is this actually a notable term/concept? If so, it would be a good idea to add a reference that uses it. Robofish (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
http://research.iarc.uaf.edu/~igor/research/amplif/index.php http://research.iarc.uaf.edu/~igor/research/amplif/amplif_jul02_2.pdf http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/polar-amplification/ http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JCLI3297.1 http://www.knmi.nl/publications/showAbstract.php?id=7097 http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~bitz/bitz_goosse.pdf http://www.pnas.org/content/102/12/4397.full.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.217.45.85 (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Article update
Here is an overview of related science, look at permafrost melt, glaciers melting from below, mass lose etc. I plan to further extend the article in the coming days/weeks. prokaryotes (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Antarctic amplification occurs only in equilibrium climate simulation not in transient warming because of the strong heat uptake around antarctica and small changes in the ice sheet, see the IPCC AR5 (fig 12.10) and the text in the next page: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter12_FINAL.pdf This paper also highlights the difference between the fast and slow climate response, as long as global warming is dominated by the fast response there is no antarctic amplification: http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/cms-filesystem-action/user_files/ih/papers/recalcitrant_2.pdf Giorgiogp2 (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the pointer to the AR5, however it is unclear why you mention ECS. The warming in Antarctica is different, ofc the article has to point out the uncertainties and unique features at the south pole, as well as highlight related research findings. prokaryotes (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- I cite ECS simply because this article should point out the very different antarctica vs arctic amplification expected under transient and equilibrium warming.--Giorgiogp2 (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Equilibrium climate conditions are certainly not tied to Antarctic amplification, the current period of a transient climate phase is not well understood in the southern ocean. Otherwise please provide direct links to studies supporting your arguments, thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- I cite ECS simply because this article should point out the very different antarctica vs arctic amplification expected under transient and equilibrium warming.--Giorgiogp2 (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- What does it exactly mean "Equilibrium climate conditions are certainly not tied to Antarctic amplification"?
I have already provided a link to a paper and the ipcc report; it quite clearly states that there is no antarctic amplification in both the cmip3 and cmip5 climate models under transient climate warming but it is expected for climate equilibrium.
From the IPCC AR5: "The lack of an amplified transient warming response in high Southern polar latitudes has been associated with deep ocean mixing,strong ocean heat uptake and the persistence of the vast Antarctic ice sheet.In equilibrium simulations,amplified warming occurs in both polar regions."
but still stronger in the arctic(see the previously cited paper by Held et al.).--Giorgiogp2 (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- What does it exactly mean "Equilibrium climate conditions are certainly not tied to Antarctic amplification"?
- Notice that you refer to "long-term" assessments by the IPCC (the GFDL paper you linked has nothing on Antarctica), see AR5 chapter 11 for near-term changes. Also from where is this quote "In equilibrium simulations,amplified warming occurs in both polar regions"? If you cite something provide the direct link (url + page number). And please format your comments, thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- So what? This article is not about polar amplification in the next few decades only. It is clearly written that the source of the previous quote is the IPCC AR5; the paper by Held et al. discuss the heat uptake in the southern ocean that limit transient warming in the antarctic region and shows the enhanced warming for the slow climate response so is very relevant for polar amplification at different timescales. --Giorgiogp2 (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, i found the quote now (Chapter 12, page 1062), however it is related to modeling under equilibrium conditions - thus it doesn't mean that Antarctic amplification "only" occurs under these conditions (as you wrote initially). Amplification response in Antarctica is different (Ozone hole, atmospheric circulation changes, melting from below etc). prokaryotes (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- So what? This article is not about polar amplification in the next few decades only. It is clearly written that the source of the previous quote is the IPCC AR5; the paper by Held et al. discuss the heat uptake in the southern ocean that limit transient warming in the antarctic region and shows the enhanced warming for the slow climate response so is very relevant for polar amplification at different timescales. --Giorgiogp2 (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
P 1062
- "Amplified surface warming in Arctic latitudes is also a consistent feature
in climate model integrations (e.g., Manabe and Stouffer, 1980). This is often referred to as polar amplification, although numerous studies have shown that under transient forcing, this is primarily an Arctic phenomenon (Manabe et al., 1991; Meehl et al., 2007b). The lack of an amplified transient warming response in high Southern polar latitudes has been associated with deep ocean mixing, strong ocean heat uptake and the persistence of the vast Antarctic ice sheet. In equilibrium simulations, amplified warming occurs in both polar regions."
I have not looked up the cited references. Why do you think that paragraph is explicitly talking about "equilibrium conditions" ? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Need to avoid POV Forking
If I understood the prior thread correctly, one or more eds are planning on expanding this article, and the description of that goal sent up red flags that at best we'll be creating a large redundancy with Climate_change_in_the_Arctic, and at worst we will create a WP:POVFORK. Both should be avoided.
Request How about first outlining specific points we think are lacking in the article here on talk, and first get consensus on the need to add them? It might well be that instead of just working on this article we improve the way a collection of articles interact, thus making an even better improvement due to the synergy. Total is more than the indivdiual sum sort of thing. Is that a reasonable approach? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- The science advances fast and it is unclear to me where NPOV issues are, in the current version. Besides extending the article, there are refs in the page which need to be updated (since they are old), same for the images. prokaryotes (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)