From the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology: Climate changes faster in the Arctic than anywhere else on Earth, a phenomenon that is often explained by retreating snow and ice leading to more solar surface warming (positive ice-albedo-effect).
In a new study in Nature Geoscience the scientists Felix Pithan and Dr. Thorsten Mauritsen from the department “The Atmosphere in the Earth System” at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology show that this effect is only secondary. Instead, the main cause of the high Arctic climate sensitivity is a weaker temperature feedback, due to 1) the low temperatures that prevail and 2) the increasing temperatures with height trapping warming to remain near the surface. For these reasons, the Arctic warms more in a global warming due to a forcing from e.g. CO2 than other regions.
Some commentary sheds further light on this.
NoTricksZone points out that the German Newspaper, Spiegel, writes:
To balance out the radiation budget at an ambient temperature of 30°C, an increase of 0.16° is enough. However at minus 30°C, an increase of 0.31 °C would be needed, i.e. almost double, which gives Pithan und Mauritsen cause for thought. According to their calculations the lower start temperature in the Arctic is an important reason for the more rapid temperature increase in the Arctic compared to the tropics.”
They found that the surface albedo feedback is only the second main contributor to Arctic amplification, and that other contributions are substantially smaller or even oppose Arctic amplification.
This casts many of the assumptions made in earlier climate models deep into doubt. It’s back to the drawing board (again) for the modelers.
– See more at: http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.K8HUQkuu.dpuf
The paper:
Arctic amplification dominated by temperature feedbacks in contemporary climate models
Felix Pithan & Thorsten Mauritsen
Nature Geoscience (2014) doi:10.1038/ngeo2071 Received 25 November 2013 Accepted19 December 2013Published online 02 February 2014
Abstract:
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 contributor7, 8, 9, 10. However, Arctic amplification is also found in models without changes in snow and ice cover11, 12. Here we analyse climate model simulations from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 archive to quantify the contributions of the various feedbacks. We find that in the simulations, the largest contribution to Arctic amplification comes from a temperature feedbacks: as the surface warms, more energy is radiated back to space in low latitudes, compared with the Arctic. This effect can be attributed to both the different vertical structure of the warming in high and low latitudes, and a smaller increase in emitted blackbody radiation per unit warming at colder temperatures. We find that the surface albedo feedback is the second main contributor to Arctic amplification and that other contributions are substantially smaller or even oppose Arctic amplification.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2071.html
Inherent nonlinearity is not a feedback. Temperature is not a “feedback” when you are measuring temperature. This entire debate (at least as framed here) appears to be nothing more than semantics.
I wonder what “a temperature feedbacks” is, or are…
Wouldn’t surprise Patrick Michaels, who emphasized in The Satanic Gasses (2000) that increased CO2 has a much stronger warming effect near the poles because cold polar air contains much less water vapor, making CO2 much less redundant with water vapor in its heat trapping effect. That was the basis for his conclusion that a human warming signal could indeed be detected, or was in evidence: the observed pattern of greater warming at the poles is just what the GHG theory predicts. But of course he did not think there was any reason to believe that this bit of warming was something to be avoided. For such still-modest forcing effects to present any danger they would have be combined with highly positive feedback effects, for which there is no evidence.
It is not clear that Michaels’ enhanced polar-GHG effect is even taken into account in the present paper. They are claiming that the greater warming near the poles is from unaccounted feedbacks other than the albedo feedback, not from greater forcing near the poles. Odd that they don’t even mention the greater GHG forcing near the poles. That would be a glaring omission, since they present themselves as trying to explain why there has been greater polar warming.
“Climate changes faster in the Arctic than anywhere else on Earth, a phenomenon that is often explained by retreating snow and ice leading to more solar surface warming (positive ice-albedo-effect).”
This cracks me up !. In addition to and aside from daily rotation ,all locations on Earth turn once to the central Sun as a component of its orbital motion hence the polar coordinates turn parallel to the ecliptic plane as seen in those sequence of images of Uranus –
http://londonastronomer.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/uranus_2001-2007.jpg
Is there some mental block which prevents readers here from ascertaining the dynamical cause behind Arctic sea ice appearance and disappearance ?. It is not rocket science and actual images should put the issue beyond doubt so rather that load the planet with the awkward ’tilt’ towards and away from the Sun,for goodness sake ,introduce the second surface rotation necessary to explain Arctic conditions and the seasons at lower latitude where it mixes with daily rotation.
It ain’t the models that need adjusting, it is an entirely new way to approach planetary climate.
‘New paper: Arctic amplification of temperature not primarily due to albedo changes, climate models need to be reworked’, if this true it’s, because it’s due to the increased co2 levels and the extra trapped warmth! It is after GLOBAL warming!
But the Polar regions historicaly has always warmed or cooled more than the rest of the World?
“To balance out the radiation budget at an ambient temperature of 30°C, an increase of 0.16° is enough. However at minus 30°C, an increase of 0.31 °C”
Climate “science” finally notices Stefan-Boltzmann Law!
So, climate is a lot more complex than they thought … LOL. With overly simplistic climate models they’ve been essentially denying this for decades.
There is no link to CO2, no evidence that CO2 causes any significant part of the warming. It should read “global warming due to a forcing from natural cycles, and stratospheric warmings”
More bogus conclusions
> climate models need to be reworked
You seem to have made that up. Its not in the paper.
REPLY: It’s an opinion. much like many of your Wikipedia entries – Anthony
Alex Rawls. Interesting post but wouldn’t the lack of water vapour cause LESS warming near the poles as water vapour is by far the biggest GHG and the relatively small amount of CO2 would not make up for the large drop in water vapour?
(Just wondering)
John West says:
February 3, 2014 at 10:53 am
“To balance out the radiation budget at an ambient temperature of 30°C, an increase of 0.16° is enough. However at minus 30°C, an increase of 0.31 °C”
Climate “science” finally notices Stefan-Boltzmann Law!
———————————————————————————————————————–
Ahh, but for that to matter we’d have to stop assuming that the planet is at a uniform “average” temperature. Which would make the sums really hard,
Does this not reinforce the idea of Solar/other changes rather then albedo. And not to include the changes of incidence of light, refraction of light, and reflection. Then add the incidence of less water vapor, and many other factors. Such as season, which the warmests never accepted.
This is rubbish, the Arctic winter has an inversion with much colder air nearer the surface:
http://createarcticscience.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/temperature-inversion-in-the-arctic/
The dominant warming of the Arctic is from poleward transport of warm sea water during negative AO/NAO episodes, and being the negative AO/NAO phase means it is the wrong sign for warming.
Ulric Lyons says:
February 3, 2014 at 11:04 am
…and being the negative AO/NAO phase means it is the wrong sign for [global] warming.
Mods, can we please make people who want to suggest that the earth rotates pole-to-pole just go away?
I know there’s a strong, and worthy, principle against censorship here but when someone insists on insisting on something that’s absolutely and demonstrably wrong, and refuses in at least one thread to take heed of long and patient explanations, it does give those who’d call us headless chickens free ammunition.
William Connolley says:
February 3, 2014 at 10:57 am
> climate models need to be reworked
You seem to have made that up. Its not in the paper.
————————————————————————————–
Ahh, Bill me old mucker, how the devil are you?
It’s what’s called inductive reasoning. Long ago, as children, we used to be taught something called The Green cross Code. It was all about how to cross the road safely. Now, in the Code, it never specifically said “otherwise you might get your brains splodged over the tarmac by an artic” but most of us were able to see that implication.
The same applies here.
If there are factors that are more significant than what the models treat as the “most significant” ones then the models will be wrong (again) and should be re-worked to account for these newly recognised, even ore significant, factors. For anyone with half a brain cell, the paper shouldn’t need to say that any more than the GCC needed to say “or you might die”.
It’s not the only model reworking they need to accomplish in 2014
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/02/new-paper-finds-negative-feedback.html
New paper finds negative-feedback cooling from water vapor could almost completely offset warming from CO2
Going to be a busy, busy year for those modelers.
It is unclear to me if the authors considered the physical differences between arctic air & say tropical air. Arctic air being dry & cold has a much lower heat capacity than moist & warm tropical air. Thus, for any change in radiation budget ( ie increase in energy ) will have a larger effect on temperature of dry air than it will on moist air.
This is easy to see in daily weather. Compare the diurnal temp range of say Denver to Wash DC in the summer. Both cities are at roughly the same latitude & would have roughly the same daily radiation budget. However, DC is much more humid & the diurnal range of temps is much smaller (on average). Moister air = higher heat capacity = lower temperature response.
Same analog should apply to the arctic. Very dry air so any change in CO2 radiative forcing should have a bigger effect than seen in more humid air, all else being equal ( which probably isn’t the case).
This seems pretty obvious so perhaps it is already incorporated into their thinking
Originally the magic word “albedo” sounded so gosh-darned mysterious and magical and scientific that ordinary laymen were backed off. However over the past ten years a lot of self-education has occurred, and people are starting to see the original scary-idea just doesn’t pass a number of tests. (The increased ice at the South Pole ought increase albedo more than the decreased ice in the Arctic would decrease it; the fact the arctic sun is setting in September means rays are striking at such a low angle that open water has a higher albedo than ice-covered water; and so on and so forth.) Therefore we can expect to see people distancing themselves from the idea albedo is some sort of super-villain out to destroy the planet.
Pity, because I was just learning to spell the word correctly.
William Connolley:
At February 3, 2014 at 10:57 am your post says in total
Surely, you really mean you don’t like it so you have deleted it from Wicki?
Richard
Well this looks like it answered my earlier query in September 2013 when the Arctic saw a 50% increase in sea ice extent (and volume?) over September 2012.
Now what did Professor Peter Wadhams say in September 2013?
I know he is an Arctic scientist but he really should read the news.
There are two sources of radiation to the ground, direct from the sun, and back radiation from the sky. The atmosphere operates as a heat engine, taking energy from the equator and distributing it at the poles. The radiation the equator gets is 1 from the sun, and say X from the sky, for a total of 1 + X.
The radiation the poles get is K + Y., where K is some small fraction of 1, and Y is less than X. Thanks to the earth redistributing heat, the ratio of radiation from sun to poles and equator , K/1, is always greater than the ratio of radiation from atmosphere to poles and equator, Y/X. With increased greenhouse effect, radiation from the atmosphere increases, and the ratio of radiation from ATMOSPHERE to poles and equator will increase.
Since temperature is proportional to the 4th root of radiation, temps at the poles will increase faster than temps at the equator. That’s all the article says- extra warming at the poles is due to simple radiation calculations, and NOT due to albedo changes.
Much as I hate to agree with Mr. Connolley, the abstract appears to clearly state that this analysis is from climate model simulations. That is, they analysed the output of the climate models and it is their conclusion that the data from the models indicates this alternative source of polar amplification.
I don’t have a Nature subscription so I can’t say if the article indicates if this model behaviour matches real-life observations. If it does, then the models are, in this one respect, matching real-life. If they don’t, then, yes, it means not only are the models wrong, but also this suggested information on polar amplification.
From phys.org/news:
“Things are very different in the Arctic—there is very little churning, which means that warm air close to ground (just one to two kilometers thick) remains where it is, trapped by a heavy layered atmosphere.
The simulation also helps to explain why Arctic warming is more pronounced in the winter than during other seasons—even less mixing of the air in the atmosphere occurs because the air is so cold.” http://phys.org/news/2014-02-temperature-feedback-magnifying-climate-arctic.html
In fact less mixing during more positive AO/NAO conditions will ensure that the very cold low altitude air in the polar night inversion will be even colder.