No mention of missing “M’s” here in this press release from University of Melbourne
Melting sea ice has been shown to be a major cause of warming in the Arctic according to a University of Melbourne study.
Findings published in Nature today reveal the rapid melting of sea ice has dramatically increased the levels of warming in the region in the last two decades.
Lead author Dr James Screen of the School of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne says the increased Arctic warming was due to a positive feedback between sea ice melting and atmospheric warming.
“The sea ice acts like a shiny lid on the Arctic Ocean. When it is heated, it reflects most of the incoming sunlight back into space. When the sea ice melts, more heat is absorbed by the water. The warmer water then heats the atmosphere above it.”
“What we found is this feedback system has warmed the atmosphere at a faster rate than it would otherwise,” he says.
Using the latest observational data from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasting, Dr Screen was able to uncover a distinctive pattern of warming, highly consistent with the loss of sea ice.
“In the study, we investigated at what level in the atmosphere the warming was occurring. What stood out was how highly concentrated the warming was in the lower atmosphere than anywhere else. I was then able to make the link between the warming pattern and the melting of the sea ice.”
The findings question previous thought that warmer air transported from lower latitudes toward the pole, or changes in cloud cover, are the primary causes of enhanced Arctic warming.
Dr Screen says prior to this latest data set being available there was a lot of contrasting information and inconclusive data.
“This current data has provided a fuller picture of what is happening in the region,” he says.
Over the past 20 years the Arctic has experienced the fastest warming of any region on the planet. Researchers around the globe have been trying to find out why.
Researchers say warming has been partly caused by increasing human greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, the Arctic sea ice has been declining dramatically. In summer 2007 the Arctic had the lowest sea ice cover on record. Since then levels have recovered a little but the long-term trend is still one of decreasing ice.
Professor Ian Simmonds, of the University’s School of Earth Sciences and coauthor on the paper says the findings are significant.
“It was previously thought that loss of sea ice could cause further warming. Now we have confirmation this is already happening.”
Dr James Screen of the School of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne is the spitting image of the Dr James Screen at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia
The next time you feel cold, go open your refrigerator and warm up in the radiant cold.
Just remember, science has been pliticized, which means that politicians can write the science any way they want it to be.
With sea ice at perfectly normal, it is obvious thhat warming is melting it faster than ever.
D
The next time you feel cold, open your frig and warm up.
Remember that science has been polIticized, which means that the politicians can write the science to be any way they want it to be.
The Arctic Sea ice is perfectly normal, WHICH means that it is melting faster than ever.
DON’T ME THE FACTS, I’LL GIVE YOU MY OPINIONS WHEN I WANT THEM.
Icarus,
In my never ending quest to stamp out cherrypicking, here is my response to your link above: click
The basic question concerns global warming. Doesn’t it? So why is the Antarctic exempt?
Could it be that the Arctic ice fluctuations are simply regional, and part of a natural cycle? Or does the Antarctic have its fingers crossed behind its back, just waiting for that hidden heat in the pipeline to warm it up, and send the planet into catastrophic runaway global warming?
Look at what is really happening, not at what you are frightened about. Otherwise, the monster under your bed will control your thoughts and make your decisions for you.
But the AGW position has been, until now, that warming caused the melting.
If the melting causes the warming, that means the theory AGW promoters have relied on is 180° wrong.
If the mechanism of Arctic ice melt is not AGW, then its recovery is not depending on CO2, either.
That strongly implies that Arctic ice pack is not a great barometer of global climate irt CO2.
IOW, yet another AGW tenet bites the dust.
Icarus
The albedo claim is more controversial than you recognize. The Arctic minimum occurs in September when the sun is very low in the sky, so it has almost no effect on the radiation balance.
I now have incontrovertible proof that sea ice melt is caused by loops.
Well, that and government research grants.
rbateman says: (April 29, 2010 at 10:37 pm)
“the GCMchild radius”
LOL
This is a truly significant finding. Now that this process has been discovered many more modern and post-modern scientists will be able to see the connection between global warming and ice melting. Let us only hope that this trend continues and that soon they will put all these pieces together and have a better understanding of where we have been and where we are. What an amazing era we live in. We owe all this to Teacher’s Unions everywhere.
Well this sure is a suprise. NOT They had to come out with something since the ice is highest in ten years at this point .And it always the same line every time .It our fault and they wan t us to feel bad ane responsilbe for it.Also the record low sea ice back in 2007 . The records only go back to 1979 but they somehow always forget to tell that part.
Anthony,
On every map an science paper that has come out, they ALL display the angle of sunlight as STRAIGHT ONTO THE PLANET.
They angles of sunlight travel MUCH farther through the atmosphere as the planets angle changes to the surface point.
Deflecting MUCH energy!
Icarus
I don’t see any evidence that recent ice trends are unusual. We have satellite data for 30 years, starting during a period of unusually high ice cover. In 1895, Nansen took a boat north of 84N – much further than Pugh got his kayak during a “record low extent” summer.
OT: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627583.700-designing-greenhouses-for-the-red-planet.html
Don’t worry they can just redesign our greenhouse, they just need to model it and plan. *phyew*
Since the 2 appear to be linked, did he stop to consider maybe a portion of the warming is driven by decreasing sea ice & not the other way around – it will be interesting to see how increasing sea ice is now explained – especially since temps are poised to fall with the fading el nino & strengthening cold phase of the pdo. I think he might have made linkage observation OK, but has it backwards between cause & effect.
“Using the latest observational data from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasting” ….. is this a surface based dataset? We have seen multiple article about problems in the far north on surface data sets, especially with under sampling & sampling bias. If the dataset is suspect, then even the linkage observation is suspect.
“The trend is your friend until the bend in the end.”
There is no positive feedback in the process of melting and thawing of Arctic sea ice. Warm water melts ice, not melting ice warms water. That warm water originated near the equator and has cooled as it traveled north. Even in summer. because of the low sun angle, the arctic ocean absorbs much less energy than it is constantly radiating to space. In winter, the ocean absorbs no energy from the sun and sea ice freezes as heat is lost to space. Rising levels of CO2 have not slowed the rate of OLR in the Artic (http://www.kidswincom.net/CO2OLR.pdf). OLR increases as SST increases.
starzmom says:
April 30, 2010 at 4:45 am
So this positive feedback of ice melting causes warming and more ice melting. So exactly why is there more ice now than any time in the past 9 years on this date? Must have missed something in that analysis.
You didn’t miss anything. There is no feedback, otherwise recovery is impossible. They are mistaking the heat sink caused by ice for something that it is not. When the ice is gone, it’s back to blackbody behavior, nothing more.
Why publish this? If we are currently experiencing increasing Artic sea ice then their theory must be incorrect, right? There is no way they can use a straw dog like “this is climate not weather dummy.” If the theory is that the melting of the ice is causing increased temperatures in the Artic, then Artic ice could not expand.
stevengoddard says:
April 29, 2010 at 9:24 pm
20,000 years ago, Chicago and New York were a mile deep in ice. Then the Neanderthals invented the Hummer LOL!!
You are right!, too many “Hummers”…
So, now, the thing is: I put a glass of liquid water in my freezer and it will melt all the ice in it? Wow!, just couldn´t believe it!
All these post normal scientists should be subjected to the mayeutic Socratic method of questioning, to find the “primum mobile” of climate (not theirs, of course, we already know it is money). That is why we all must ask ourselves what the heck is that round ball of fire hanging up above?, what is it that “sunny breeze”, “solar wind” or that f#* current that connects that gigantic light bulb with the earth?, which is the most common meteorological event on earth?, is it the millions of lightnings?,etc.,etc.
What does it cause Climate?
It’s a death spiral. It’s a tipping point. NO, it’s Positive-Feedback-Man.
This is what passes for scientific observation in the 21 century. Good grief.
stevengoddard says:
20,000 years ago, Chicago and New York were a mile deep in ice. Then the Neanderthals invented the Hummer, and all that beautiful ice started melting – forming the Great Lakes. This proves that the long-term trend is downwards. 55 million years ago, the Arctic was normally ice free. This proves that the long term trend is upwards. Both trends can be correctly blamed on ancient soccer moms.
Followed by:
Icarus says:
April 30, 2010 at 4:14 am
What exactly was the point of this comment? Long-term trends in climate are due to long-term forcings, e.g. the Milankovitch cycles. Now we have introduced anthropogenic forcings and they are causing long-term climate change too. Is there anything controversial about that? People here like to discuss the type and magnitude of anthropogenic changes, which is perfectly valid, but no-one sensible argues that we’re not having any effect at all on climate.
The Arctic temperature records determine that temperatures were greater in the 30’s and 40’s than now while human co2 emissions were 1/10 the current rate. (peer -reviewed, sources included)
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/RS_Arctic.htm
Please show the correlation between co2 and arctic temperature. Only then can you make the statement ” causing long-term climate change”. Otherwise, you’re just trolling.
This is bad news for ice cream.
Isn’t it rather painfully obvious there’s a positive feedback in this situation? Duh!
In today’s world, it doesn’t matter whether these scientists are, or this paper is, wrong or right. The trouble with all these competing theories is that there is no incentive to get it right among the people publishing this stuff, even the ones that are getting it right. Their money they use at the grocery store depends on government sources. Once a topic falls out of favor or a theory is found to be wrong, no harm no foul, they just study something else.
Meanwhile small business mainstreet suffers under such fowl winds of change. If it isn’t big business/wallstreet/stock holders/unions strangling our greatest source of employment, its green freaks telling us we can’t make or ship our measly little produce and products anywhere without harming sea levels.
Under this “user, used” system, eventually something is going to break and it won’t be pretty.
Does anyone know if stable high pressure cells develop over the Arctic in the summer, perhaps near the North Pole? I was thinking that descending air, warmed by adiabatic compression, at the very center of such cells might naturally cause a Chinook (ice-eater) effect that could, when combined with 24 Hr daily sunshine, cause localized melted zones to develop deep inside regions of thick multiyear ice.
As for the University of Melbourne study, I imagine the world will give a collective yawn and then ask “So, what else is new?”