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)
Definition (Mechanisms and modeling)
- 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" ? revised later by me
What is the issue being debated in this thread? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- The problem was that Giorgiogp2 (talk), was not very clear with his initial argument (Nutshell: Antarctic amplification only with ECS). As pointed out above, the context doesn't suggest Antarctic amplification only under ECS, it is just that the transient modeling assessed in Chapter 12/AR5, doesn't show amplification. He took two parts from different pages, the first part - original for reference: This polar amplification is not found in Antarctic regions due to deep ocean mixing, ocean heat uptake and the persistence of the Antarctic ice sheet - which explicit refers to strong warming, which is not observed in Antarctica (Chapter 12 p 1031). However, only because there isn't such a pronounced air temperature response in Antarctica, doesn't mean there aren't mechanisms, contributing to Antarctic amplification, see for instance this Scholar search, and a particular example and here, for ice shelf thinning due to tides. prokaryotes (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Polar amplification refers to the amplified warming at polar latitudes it has nothing to do with tides amplification, again the above quote from the IPCC AR5 is quite clear: "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".--Giorgiogp2 (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- No, PA is not only about temperature, since 1980 the definition of PA has changed, see AR5 as cited in the article now. Tides are a mechanism, which could contribute to amplification (ice shelf thinning). prokaryotes (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
The currently cited IPCC chapter states this: "Second, the projected warming in wintertime shows a pronounced
polar amplification in the NH (see Box 5.1)." I still don't see any evidence that polar amplification definition has changed.
see also the nsidc:http://nsidc.org/monthlyhighlights/2009/09/arctic-amplification/ --Giorgiogp2 (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- You can read a definition here (it refers to climate change in general), the IPCC doesn't offer a definition but outlines related modeling and common conclusions. However, the RC definition includes the suggestion to only refer to surface temperatures. Anyway, your initial statement in regards to modeling is still wrong and adding related Antarctic amplification mechanisms and observations for PA are still valid for the article, and have been added accordingly. prokaryotes (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
The RC link quite clearly refers to arctic warming and at the end of the article cecilia Bitz also states that antarctic amplification can be expected only after a long time just like the IPCC AR5 and my initial statement. "Nonetheless Arctic amplification in models (and most likely in nature too) is a robust result of forced climate change, provided the forcing is sufficiently large to overcome internal climate variability. Antarctic amplification only occurs if a model is run long enough so ocean heat uptake in the Southern Ocean does not damp the positive feedbacks and if trends in stratospheric ozone do not cause compensatory cooling. Predictions with climate models indicate that Arctic amplification will be significant (above the 95% confidence level) in one to two decades, while significant Antarctic polar amplification will take much longer.--Giorgiogp2 (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- This doesn't support your conclusion that there is no PA in Antarctica with transient modeling (which very well could be, considering transient climate response stretches a century). Anyway there is no poiont in discussing this further. Also notice this recent study, which states Feedback effects associated with temperature, water vapour and clouds have been suggested to contribute to amplified warming in the Arctic, but the surface albedo feedback—the increase in surface absorption of solar radiation when snow and ice retreat—is often cited as the main contributor. Thus we have to make a distinction between amplification in the Arctic and Antarctica. prokaryotes (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Also read A Decomposition of Feedback Contributions to Polar Warming Amplification. prokaryotes (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose describing polar amplification as done in this version as " amplifying changes in the climate system at the Earth's poles, in response to global warming" without consensus on an RS to back up that definition. When an ed changes the definintion of basic concepts without RS or explanation, others will often scrutinize all lesser edits from that ed a lot more carefully. It's a credibility thing.
So, show me wrong.... why should we change from the former (and current) "greater temperature increases in the ________ compared to the earth as a whole as a result of the effect of feedbacks and other processes"
- Note I replaced "arctic" with underlining to not get sidetracked talking about Antarctica
- Note your diff creates a circular definition "Polar amplification means amplifying changes" I doubt you've got a high weight RS that does that, but you're welcome to prove me wrong. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
re prokaryotes:
You are going on citing articles that have little to do with the initial discussion about transient vs equilibrium polar amplification, the paper by Pitha et al. it's a relevant one but it's about the mechanism underlying the arctic amplification it has nothing to do with the transient climate response in antarctica, the second is a very good one and it starts defining polar amplification just like the IPCC:"Enhanced warming of the polar surface temperature with respect to the global-mean temperature, referred to as polar warming amplification (PWA)"
so can we agree at least that polar amplification refers to the amplified warming at polar latitudes and not tides etc.? It also shows that under a transient 1% co2 increase the CCSM4 model has some antarctic amplification too, this occurs at the time that co2 doubles relative to preindustrial times(569ppm) however this is just a single model and run; and after they estimate the various contribution they conclude once again that the southern ocean heat storage is a major factor limiting antarctic warming relative to arctic warming: "The cooling influence of ocean heat transport and storage is nearly 3 times larger in the Southern Hemisphere". While those are certainly good papers that could be cited going on searching for single articles and quotes that support a specific claim is really not the best way to write an article that reflect the scientific consensus.--Giorgiogp2 (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Article update and Need to avoid POV Forking
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)
- If I understand correctly, you 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)
I didn't much like your re-write, sorry William M. Connolley (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Without further explaining why you reverted the new AR5 sourced content, your contributions to this article (and others as well), are not helpful. prokaryotes (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) reverted my recent edits, without providing explanation. Notice that the first sentence refers to global warming, and what follows are changes in the climate system. prokaryotes (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- I did say actually, it was better as it was. Was there something in that you found hard to understand? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Your NPOV on recent edits is no measure to assess edits. There is currently an ANI discussion involving the recent reverts, William M. Connolley and NewsAndEventsGuy disrupted my edits. prokaryotes (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
This is first in my wikipedia career.... about this OH FOR GOD SAKES. There, I said it. How many times must I ask you to describe your desired changes? There is no RS that defines polar amplification as "amplifying changes" of which I am aware, but I'm willing to listen if you've got an RS with chops.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- The first sentence is pretty clear, Polar amplification can refer to amplifying changes in the climate system at the Earth's poles, in response to global warming. Where do you think the word amplification comes from? And great that you for the first time discuss your revert.prokaryotes (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Nonresponsive. And it's my 2nd complaint, after you equated the South Pole with continental Antarctica. And my third complaint is not "can refer" but does/means/describes, because we do have RSs that say that. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Why don't you quote the entire part? Polar amplification can refer to amplifying changes in the climate system at the Earth's poles, in response to global warming. cite and you also should read (linked above) Climate change is amplified in the Arctic region. Arctic amplification has been found in past warm1 and glacial2 periods, as well as in historical observations3, 4 and climate model experiments5, 6. Feedback effects associated with temperature, water vapour and clouds have been suggested to contribute to amplified warming in the Arctic, but the surface albedo feedback—the increase in surface absorption of solar radiation when snow and ice retreat—is often cited as the main contributor http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n3/full/ngeo2071.html If you want to improve my edits you can do this in a constructive way, which means to post HERE before you revert, and you just ignored my edit when i changed south pole to southern hemisphere. prokaryotes (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Nonresponsive. And it's my 2nd complaint, after you equated the South Pole with continental Antarctica. And my third complaint is not "can refer" but does/means/describes, because we do have RSs that say that. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Real climate source
I tagged this "failed verification" after searching for "sink" and "snow" and finding neither term. However, I later realized it does talk about extra "heat uptake", so I can accept "heat sink" as being in the RS after all. I still can not find anything about seasonal snow in the source.
I also think we should snow down, errr, I mean slow down the unilateral undiscussed overhaul underway by actually talking about the current state of the article and how what is already there could be improved through consensus and collaboration instead of unilateral overhauling.
Request list your desired changes, not including wordsmithing, and try to get consensus on the three you think are most important. That will probably make your editing here efficient, and result in speedy improvements where there is consensus.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- This article is pretty old. It would probably be best to poke around in the AR5 for updates William M. Connolley (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Improved article version
An improved article version (April 28, 2104), i ask other experts on the subject to restore my edits and then discuss future edits here. Additions include more article structure, sourcing per AR5, mention of climate sensitivity and mechanisms and some minor cleanup. prokaryotes (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Getting eyes here is great. There is appropriate ways such as WP:RFC, and there are big no-nos such as canvassing. If you set out to get more eyeballs please read both. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)