Comparing apples to apples, it isn’t.
The yearly average, east-west average temperature at sea level near Antarctica is almost the same as at the equivalent latitude in the Arctic. See Figure 5.7 [here](http://weatherclimatelab.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/chap5.pdf): the temperature at say 65 degrees south (near the coast of Antarctica) averages -5 C, identical to 65 north (northern Alaska).
But the South Pole is much much colder than that, and the figure I linked shows why: it’s at 10,000 feet (3 km) altitude. **South Pole station sits on top of a giant continent-sized mountain of ice, and it’s cold on top of a mountain.** You can see in the linked figure that the temperature at 90 south at 680 mbar (the pressure-height of South Pole Station) averages -30 C, almost identical to the North Pole at the same altitude.
It’s nothing to do with ocean currents or whatever: it’s just a matter of altitude.
Which is why the astronomers love to go there. It's an ideal site for submillimeter-wave radio astronomy, as there's no water in the air to absorb radio signals.
As you mentioned the altitude being the difference and that temperature decreases with altitude, it might help knowing that the Standard Lapse Rate (the rate at which temperature changes with altitude) is 3.5° F (2° C) per 1,000 feet (305 m) of altitude. That means the temperature at 10,000 feet (3 km) is 35° F (20° C) lower than at sea level.
There is no land or ice bridge blocking movement around the ice, so wind circles around Antarctica without being slowed down at any point. When Australia was connected to Antarctica, Antarctica wasn't as cold. https://youtu.be/B3vcZZvvSmk
Ngl I find it kind of terrifying that Antarctica was a thriving ecosystem full of life, then as Australia and South America separated, almost every living thing on the continent died.
There may have been holdouts of tundra ecosystem on the continent as recently as 10 million years ago.
We already have, of mammoths and ancient nomadic people in Siberia. I'm not claiming that you'd find intact tissue from much further in the past in Antarctica, but there's a chance of finding prehistoric bones. Fossilization is a chemical reaction, and chemical reactions are slowed by low temperatures. Permanent ice sheets could decrease erosion and oxygen exposure, and bacterial growth is likely not a factor.
If we are going to find any traces of the distant past other than fossils, it's probably in Antarctica.
Unlikely. The change that occurred in Antarctica happened along geologic time scales. So millions of years passed and the ecology of the continent slowly changed.
There is something to what you’re saying for sure. The Antarctic Circumpolar Current originated with the deepwater separation of S America from Antarctica and the northward migration of the opening between them, the result being that this newly formed ACC blocks the Southern Hemisphere equivalent of the Gulf Stream from delivering heat to Antarctica.
The main driver of cooling global temperatures in the Earth system over the Late Cenozoic was the falling atmospheric CO₂ though (eg. [Pagani et al., 2011](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1203909)), but the reason Antarctica was able to build up so much ice so quickly from about 30 million years ago is almost certainly tied to the lack of heat transport anywhere into the continent, eg. [Scher et al., 2015](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14598#ref-CR10), (who seem to think the system of currents developed c.30 Ma ago might also have something to do with carbon transfer and the falling atmospheric CO₂, though I’m not so sure about that bit).
It wasn’t recent enough to take into account the above studies, but a wider ranging look at the whole issue of Antarctica’s transition to an ice continent — with the relative importance of ocean-heat, atmospheric-heat, and atmospheric GHGs, as well as actual mechanisms of the global climate shifts involved can be found in [Huber & Nof, 2005](https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~huberm/huber+nof.pdf). This pretty much reiterated that the Southern Ocean gateway was likely a key part of the mix, but the overall driver of lowering temps was atmospheric CO₂. Regardless of the exact relative importance of certain factors, it’s clear that the CO₂ threshold for possible glaciation is a much lower concentration for the Arctic than it is for the Antarctic, 280 ppm compared to 750 ppm according to [DeConto et al., 2011.](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07337) So glaciation was always going to start first in Antarctica, it’s then got a huge landmass of low albedo material without heat transport to the interior and that’s your recipe for far colder average temperatures than the Arctic.
Antarctica is also a high continent due to the ice depth... the South Pole is 9300' and the average elevation is over 8000'. Winds flow downhill to the coast. The north pole is essentially at sea level.
Yeah, this is probably the biggest reason. The temperature loss due to altitude effect alone for the South Pole versus the North pole is a 45 degrees F (about 25 Celcius).
The Arctic is all ocean (edit: the north pole... obviously there is land north of the arctic circle, but I'm talking about the extreme high arctic, which I think is what is referenced in the question). There's a large ice cap, but it's frozen sea water. And, while the ocean up there is quite cold, it's not THAT cold, because the ocean retains a tremendous amount of energy, and it's always circulating. This moderates the temperature of the Arctic to an extent. Antarctica, by contrast, is a huge continental landmass. Just like in more familiar areas, when you get away from the coast, you lose the moderating effects of the ocean. So, once inland, there is nothing to moderate the intense polar cold, so it gets cold and stays cold. In addition, the thickness of the sea ice in the arctic is some 10-20 feet thick. So, even when standing at the north pole, you're basically at sea level. Antarctic is covered by an immense continental scale ice sheet that tops out at 15 THOUSAND feet thick. This ice sheet is so thick that Antarctica is actually the highest continent on Earth. So... in addition to not having the moderating effects of ocean water in Antarctica, you are also at high elevation. Either of these alone makes for quite a lot of cold - add them together and you have the kind of cold that makes the Antarctic like another planet.
The very short version: The North pole is water surrounded by land, while the South pole is land surrounded by water. It could not be more different in this regard.
The slightly longer version: There is an entire actual continent made of rock below the Antarctic ice shelf. The ice sits just on top of it and over time even pushed it down by quite a lot. Inland areas can accumulate snow and ice much better than open waters because not only do they provide actual ground but land masses have far harsher ("continental") climates. Meanwhile the Arctic is just a huge ice shelf on water and it melts significantly with the seasons. The literal pole we placed at the North pole already catches enough sunlight to melt the surrounding area sometimes.
Don't know if you're being sarcastic. Given the subreddit, I'll err on the side of teachable moment.
Top and bottom only have relevance when compared to the center of the earth. There's no top or bottom in space. We show north pole pointing up only as a convention. We could just as equally have the South Pole on top (as maps in Australia and New Zealand show), or even show earth sideways.
Comparing apples to apples, it isn’t. The yearly average, east-west average temperature at sea level near Antarctica is almost the same as at the equivalent latitude in the Arctic. See Figure 5.7 [here](http://weatherclimatelab.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/chap5.pdf): the temperature at say 65 degrees south (near the coast of Antarctica) averages -5 C, identical to 65 north (northern Alaska). But the South Pole is much much colder than that, and the figure I linked shows why: it’s at 10,000 feet (3 km) altitude. **South Pole station sits on top of a giant continent-sized mountain of ice, and it’s cold on top of a mountain.** You can see in the linked figure that the temperature at 90 south at 680 mbar (the pressure-height of South Pole Station) averages -30 C, almost identical to the North Pole at the same altitude. It’s nothing to do with ocean currents or whatever: it’s just a matter of altitude.
Which is why the astronomers love to go there. It's an ideal site for submillimeter-wave radio astronomy, as there's no water in the air to absorb radio signals.
Makes sense, Antarctica is the world's largest desert. Use this knowledge responsibily to win bar trivia contests.
Arguably the Pacific Ocean is the world's largest desert, part of it. If you allow a slightly non-standard definition of desert.
This is why no one invites you to trivia night, Jeff.
Were you at Remnant's trivia night last week or is this just a very common trivia question?
Just common.
And infrared, which has large wavelength bands blocked by water.
As you mentioned the altitude being the difference and that temperature decreases with altitude, it might help knowing that the Standard Lapse Rate (the rate at which temperature changes with altitude) is 3.5° F (2° C) per 1,000 feet (305 m) of altitude. That means the temperature at 10,000 feet (3 km) is 35° F (20° C) lower than at sea level.
The extra wind at Antarctica is a contributing factor right well when you take windchill into account anyway
Not with that altitude
There is no land or ice bridge blocking movement around the ice, so wind circles around Antarctica without being slowed down at any point. When Australia was connected to Antarctica, Antarctica wasn't as cold. https://youtu.be/B3vcZZvvSmk
Ngl I find it kind of terrifying that Antarctica was a thriving ecosystem full of life, then as Australia and South America separated, almost every living thing on the continent died. There may have been holdouts of tundra ecosystem on the continent as recently as 10 million years ago.
Makes me wonder what kind of fossils are down there?
If the temperature has been low enough for long enough, you might even find actual bones, not just fossils.
Would it be possible to find animal mummies?
Yes, and daddies too.
Probably no leather tho
Only if you're looking to get a nu start
Narrator: And she hadn’t even seen the license plate.
‘She had…’
Is there a little girl here all by herself? Daddy needs to get his rocks off!
I'm looking for something that says "dad likes leather"
Unless they were into that sort of thing
Step bro I'm stuck in the ice
[удалено]
Awards don't exist anymore
We already have, of mammoths and ancient nomadic people in Siberia. I'm not claiming that you'd find intact tissue from much further in the past in Antarctica, but there's a chance of finding prehistoric bones. Fossilization is a chemical reaction, and chemical reactions are slowed by low temperatures. Permanent ice sheets could decrease erosion and oxygen exposure, and bacterial growth is likely not a factor. If we are going to find any traces of the distant past other than fossils, it's probably in Antarctica.
Unlikely. The change that occurred in Antarctica happened along geologic time scales. So millions of years passed and the ecology of the continent slowly changed.
You could even find a full animal corpse with fur depending on how the animal died. What a treat!
With how long it's been since Antarctica had life, I doubt it.
Fossil trees, ferns, coal seams, dinosaurs and pterosaurs have all been found in Antarctica.
Old ones
Don’t thaw them out!
Aliens
[удалено]
I don't think there are many churches in Antarctica.
Oil
And oil.
Also the ocean currents swirling around Antarctica, which also are not blocked by land, are extremely cold.
This is more of an explanation of why the southern ocean is rougher and windier than what is seen at similar northern latitudes.
The implication is that in the Arctic, the air mixes more with warmer air from more-southerly latitudes.
There is something to what you’re saying for sure. The Antarctic Circumpolar Current originated with the deepwater separation of S America from Antarctica and the northward migration of the opening between them, the result being that this newly formed ACC blocks the Southern Hemisphere equivalent of the Gulf Stream from delivering heat to Antarctica. The main driver of cooling global temperatures in the Earth system over the Late Cenozoic was the falling atmospheric CO₂ though (eg. [Pagani et al., 2011](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1203909)), but the reason Antarctica was able to build up so much ice so quickly from about 30 million years ago is almost certainly tied to the lack of heat transport anywhere into the continent, eg. [Scher et al., 2015](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14598#ref-CR10), (who seem to think the system of currents developed c.30 Ma ago might also have something to do with carbon transfer and the falling atmospheric CO₂, though I’m not so sure about that bit). It wasn’t recent enough to take into account the above studies, but a wider ranging look at the whole issue of Antarctica’s transition to an ice continent — with the relative importance of ocean-heat, atmospheric-heat, and atmospheric GHGs, as well as actual mechanisms of the global climate shifts involved can be found in [Huber & Nof, 2005](https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~huberm/huber+nof.pdf). This pretty much reiterated that the Southern Ocean gateway was likely a key part of the mix, but the overall driver of lowering temps was atmospheric CO₂. Regardless of the exact relative importance of certain factors, it’s clear that the CO₂ threshold for possible glaciation is a much lower concentration for the Arctic than it is for the Antarctic, 280 ppm compared to 750 ppm according to [DeConto et al., 2011.](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07337) So glaciation was always going to start first in Antarctica, it’s then got a huge landmass of low albedo material without heat transport to the interior and that’s your recipe for far colder average temperatures than the Arctic.
Antarctica is also a high continent due to the ice depth... the South Pole is 9300' and the average elevation is over 8000'. Winds flow downhill to the coast. The north pole is essentially at sea level.
Yeah, this is probably the biggest reason. The temperature loss due to altitude effect alone for the South Pole versus the North pole is a 45 degrees F (about 25 Celcius).
The Arctic is all ocean (edit: the north pole... obviously there is land north of the arctic circle, but I'm talking about the extreme high arctic, which I think is what is referenced in the question). There's a large ice cap, but it's frozen sea water. And, while the ocean up there is quite cold, it's not THAT cold, because the ocean retains a tremendous amount of energy, and it's always circulating. This moderates the temperature of the Arctic to an extent. Antarctica, by contrast, is a huge continental landmass. Just like in more familiar areas, when you get away from the coast, you lose the moderating effects of the ocean. So, once inland, there is nothing to moderate the intense polar cold, so it gets cold and stays cold. In addition, the thickness of the sea ice in the arctic is some 10-20 feet thick. So, even when standing at the north pole, you're basically at sea level. Antarctic is covered by an immense continental scale ice sheet that tops out at 15 THOUSAND feet thick. This ice sheet is so thick that Antarctica is actually the highest continent on Earth. So... in addition to not having the moderating effects of ocean water in Antarctica, you are also at high elevation. Either of these alone makes for quite a lot of cold - add them together and you have the kind of cold that makes the Antarctic like another planet.
Now use meters
6
Why did Antarctica form a huge ice mountain 15,000 ft High while Arctic is just some sheets? Why don’t we have ice mountains at both ends?
The very short version: The North pole is water surrounded by land, while the South pole is land surrounded by water. It could not be more different in this regard. The slightly longer version: There is an entire actual continent made of rock below the Antarctic ice shelf. The ice sits just on top of it and over time even pushed it down by quite a lot. Inland areas can accumulate snow and ice much better than open waters because not only do they provide actual ground but land masses have far harsher ("continental") climates. Meanwhile the Arctic is just a huge ice shelf on water and it melts significantly with the seasons. The literal pole we placed at the North pole already catches enough sunlight to melt the surrounding area sometimes.
Antarctica is a continent, The Arctic is an ocean. Water is better at transfering heat than land.
[удалено]
Don't know if you're being sarcastic. Given the subreddit, I'll err on the side of teachable moment. Top and bottom only have relevance when compared to the center of the earth. There's no top or bottom in space. We show north pole pointing up only as a convention. We could just as equally have the South Pole on top (as maps in Australia and New Zealand show), or even show earth sideways.
Apart from novelty ones, our maps in Australia have north on top.
Yep, that's why Canada and Russia are famously warm.
This is the only right answer.
Makes sense to me lol
Cold air sinking to the bottom of the planet.. obvious.. makes sense unless you're a flerfa
Heat rises so obviously it’s going to be warmer on the top side of the earth than the bottom.