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

[DaveH]

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/gistem...dt=1&ds=14
data: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/ST...tation.txt

Antarctic polar region mean temperature (60S to 85S, land only)
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8239/86611...d0_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/8254/86611...60_b_d.jpg
data: http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/flask_co...ly_spo.csv

South Pole CH4
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8265/86611...b6_b_d.jpg
data: ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/ch4/flask/mo..._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/8263/86611...0a_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.

[Jesse]

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.

[Noah]

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.

[Ottawa Mike]

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)

[Jeff M]

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/10.1...S-86-2-245
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=8239
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_webpag...hanges.htm

"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. "

[Hey Dook]

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.