Sometimes in life you realize there’s some glaringly obvious or basic thing that you never realized you didn’t understand or comprehend. This one’s been bugging me for about a month I think?, so screw it, at the risk of sounding dumb, here’s my question: Why are the southern tip of South America, and Australia, and all the stuff close to Antarctica/the South Pole really, really hot and arid, even though they’re close to the South Pole/Antarctica, whereas the territories on Earth close to the North Pole (Canada, Northern Europe, Russia, etc.) are freezing cold?
I bet the answer will make me look ignorant, but screw it, I can’t figure this one out.
I don’t think there are a lot of places south of Australia that are “really, really hot”. The Falkland Islands? Tierra del Fuego? They’re pretty cool, I think.
This is because the Southern Hemisphere has significantly more ocean and much less land; water heats up and cools down more slowly than land.[3] The differences are also attributed to oceanic heat transfer and differing extents of greenhouse trapping.
That’s good info, but I think the title of the study has it backwards: shouldn’t it be “Why is the Southern Hemisphere Warmer than the Northern Hemisphere?”
Also, do a quick googling of the latitudes of the places you’re looking at. The southern-most tips of Australia and Africa are significantly further away from the South Pole than the northern cities/countries are from the North Pole you’re looking at.
Lands close to the South Pole are cold. Australia is not a land close to the South Pole. Melbourne, the southernmost major city in Australia, is at a latitude of 37.8º south. That’s about as far from the Equator as Richmond, VA.
Australia isn’t as close to the Antarctic as you may think. There is a lot of empty water between them, and the Antarctic land mass extends quite a distance too. Whereas the Arctic has no land mass in itself, it’s just ice, and instead of empty ocean there is a lot of land extending from Russia, Greenland, Canada, etc.
So the northern land masses are very close to the pole, while the southern land masses are not very close to the pole, the polar land mass is instead extending towards them.
I also don’t think the southern tip of South America is very warm. It does get the tropical currents on the western coastline, but that’s about it.
I knew someone was gonna say “Well, those southern landmasses are further from the South Pole than those northern landmasses are from the North Pole.” But South America’s southernmost tip is 600 miles from the edge of Antarctica, and Svalbard, Norway is 600 miles from the North Pole, yet Svalbard has glaciers.
Granted, the edge of Antarctica is the edge, whereas the North Pole is the precise center, but still… I guess the answer is what was already said, waters in the Southern Hemisphere make it warmer.
Yeah, a google search tells me the southernmost tip of South America is 8,700 miles from the South Pole- a lot more than the 600 miles it is from the edge of Antarctica. So I guess that answers it, plus the whole “waters make it warm” answer.
This page shows the southern hemisphere superimposed on top of the northern hemisphere. Note how much further South American, Africa, and Australia are away from the top of the map than North America, Europe, and Asia.
Argentina and Chile both have glaciers. Argentina has one of the largest glacier masses in the world outside of Antarctica IIRC. Southern Chile looks a lot like Sweden, snow-covered and carved out with glacial fjords. You may want to rethink your premise a little bit.
I agree with the OP — that graphic is helpful, even for me (a card-carrying geographer).
It shouldn’t be surprising that southwestern Australia (and South Africa) and central Chile share latitudes with north-central California — all good wine country.
Australia, overall, is the biggest surprise for me (though it shouldn’t be, given a moment’s thought). We just drill into our heads how far south it is — but it isn’t at all. Its northern bits are quite close to the equator.
The Southern Hemisphere is often underestimated, which is not surprising. There is a lot less land mass, a lower population, not much in the way of significant history for Western Civilisation, and it’s all so far away*. It doesn’t take much to also picture Australia in your heads as being physically small, when it’s actually the same size as Continental Europe or the contiguous US.
*far away for you, maybe, but I’ve lived here my whole life
