Why don't we see the atmosphere warm at the South Pole in response to increased CO2 concentration?
I'm curious about this. I know the South Pole has some unique climate properties, but shouldn't we still see the atmospheric temperature change in response to increased CO2 concentration? In fact, more than this, we should see just how much response there is to Co2 (and CH4) in the absence of water vapour (and therefore also water vapour feedback).
What happens at the South Pole to minimise or obscure the 'greenhouse effect' of CO2?
The only thing I've come up with is that the air temperature is so cold that the radiative absorption is greatly diminished... but I've not found this discussed anywhere, perhaps someone here has.
Here are a bunch of bits and pieces of data around this question that may be useful.
The annual mean temperature at the South Pole is -48C. Winter mean is -60C summer mean is -28.2C.
Atmospheric water vapour: specific humidity is zero as near as makes no difference.
South Pole temperature since 1957
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=700890090008&dt=1&ds=14
data: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/STATIONS/tmp_700890090008_14_0/station.txt
Antarctic polar region mean temperature (60S to 85S, land only)
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8239/8661130957_09cb4cacd0_b_d.jpg
data: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt (use column "land" after "sopol")
South Pole CO2 (and Mauna Loa)
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8254/8661130951_7a67176d60_b_d.jpg
data: http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/flask_co2_and_isotopic/monthly_co2/monthly_spo.csv
South Pole CH4
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8265/8661130941_6274e64ab6_b_d.jpg
data: ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/ch4/flask/month/ch4_spo_surface-flask_1_ccgg_month.txt
For comparison
The annual mean temperature at the North Pole is -2.9C. Winter mean is -40C, summer mean is 0C.
Atmospheric water vapour: specific humidity in summer is 0.74 g/m3.
Arctic polar region mean temperature (60N to 85N)
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8263/8661130969_7492ca2d0a_b_d.jpg
data: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt (use column "nopol")
(GCNP58: #serious)
Edit Jesse.
I'm familiar with both the Steig and O'Donnell analyses. I work in the field of spatial analysis. The Steig and O'Donnell papers both use analytical techniques we've not touched since the nineties. They are both completely unrepresentative in the way they distribute the individual temperature histories across the continent, but I'd rather keep that for another day.
Respectfully, I'd suggest we don't need to look at temperatures implied from the peninsular stations when looking at the Pole itself... we have good quality and continuous measurements right there.
You say "You are probably right that the main difference at the South Pole is that water vapor feedback is greatly diminished", but I don't actually see any signal to be amplified.
Edit Noah. Actually Noah, the question WAS why the atmosphere isn't warming.
Edit OM. I think there's no water vapour because it's just too cold. There's no evaporation possible because there's no free liquid, and any vapour present will simply freeze out (the average January high is -25c). Virtually no new (moist) air comes in due to the circumpolar wind.
That means there's no water vapour feedback, but why don't I see the warming due to co2 before amplification? Radiation should still excite the co2 molecules... it doesn't require that water vapour be present for this to happen. So where is the bulge in the temperature anomaly caused by 'just' co2? The South Pole ought to be the perfect place to study the effect of co2 in the atmosphere specifically because we see its direct effect without feedback. The direct effect appears to be nil, or it so small that it can't be distinguished from natural variability.
(Re the hash tag; I value his knowledge of the underlying science).
Edit Jeff M.
You wonder about changes in pre
-cipitation. But the South Pole is in a desert. No water vapour, no precipitation. No amplification. No variation. "The South Pole has a desert climate, almost never receiving any precipitation. Air humidity is near zero. However, high winds can cause the blowing of snowfall, and the accumulation of snow amounts to about 20 cm (7.9 in) per year. (Wikipedia).
"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". The change in forcing would have to occurr in inverse relation to, and contemporaneously with anthropogenic emissions.
"...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 expect the physics to work exactly the same at the south pole as it does elsewhere. I haven't found any satisfactory conclusion, that's why I'm asking the question.
.
Edit. Oh dear Dookie, are you confused again?
"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." "
I re-read the question, and it seems perfectly intelligible to me. However, I'll write it again slowly... perhaps you'll get it this time.
Co2 is a greenhouse gas.
Increasing the concentration of co2 in the atmosphere must warm it.
Co2 at the South Pole has increased from 312ppm in 1957 to 391ppm currently.
Why hasn't the atmosphere warmed at the South Pole? Not why hasn't it warmed as much as other places.?.. but why hasn't it warmed at all?
Re that "technical mumbo jumbo you don't understand"... it's called data, measurements, observations. It seems that you're the one that doesn't understand it.