By Steve Goddard
In 2007, Dr. Hansen boldly declared
“…defying government gag orders. Hansen told Reuters, quote, “The reason so much (of the Arctic ice) went suddenly is that it is hitting a tipping point that we have been warning about for the past few years.”
and Mark Serreze placed the blame squarely on CO2.
“…the effects of greenhouse warming are now coming through loud and clear.”
So let’s see how the greenhouse gas induced tipping point is working out. By this date in 1990, there was already a large hole in the ice in the Laptev Sea (upper right, near Siberia.) Watch the video:
Generated from UIUC maps.
Solar radiation in the Arctic is very close to it’s peak by May 25, so there was a lot of solar energy being absorbed through the ice in the Arctic ocean by this date in 1990.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/images/annual_solar_insolation.png
Sea ice concentration is considerably higher now than it was on this date 20 years ago.
Generated from UIUC maps.
This means higher albedo (reflectance) and less absorption of solar energy. Note in the insolation graph above, that by the end of July the amount of sunshine in the Arctic begins to drop off very quickly.
You can see in the JAXA graph above that the 2007 divergence occurred in late July after Arctic insolation was already shutting down, essentially nullifying the Arctic albedo feedback argument. The Arctic minimum comes too late in the summer to have a significant impact on the radiation budget, due to the very low angle sun at that time. In fact, CERES has measured that during September 2008, the Arctic net radiation balance was strongly negative. The open water loses heat to the atmosphere (because it is not insulated by ice) meaning that declining ice cover is probably a negative feedback, not a positive one. NASA’s Earth Observatory explains:
This map (below) of net radiation (incoming sunlight minus reflected light and outgoing heat) shows global energy imbalances in September 2008, the month of an equinox. Areas around the equator absorbed about 200 watts per square meter more on average (orange and red) than they reflected or radiated. Areas near the poles reflected and/or radiated about 200 more watts per square meter (green and blue) than they absorbed. Mid-latitudes were roughly in balance. (NASA map by Robert Simmon, based on CERES data.)
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/images/ceres_net_radiation_200809.jpg
Looks like the Arctic is less tipped than it was 20 years ago. It is a shame that Dr. Hansen feels like he is gagged, when he has such important information needed to save the planet.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
ZT says:
May 25, 2010 at 4:48 pm
Yes, but in those time, if you got it wrong they chopped your head off or sacrificed you.
The sun has a negative elevation for a long period of each year in the arctic, and when it is not negative it never becomes very large. At midsummer it reaches a maximum of only 45 degrees elevation even in northern Alaska/Canada. Deep water is not especially dark at low angles, so the feedback is quite attenuated, even if the water were truly clear of ice.
Walter Pitman and I had a brief exchange about this “feedback” at a seminar he gave in Laramie, Wyoming a few years ago. He proposed that the appearance of Polynya in the Arctic ocean is the trigger that ends ice ages — in effect arguing for the effectiveness of this positive feedback. I argued that open water in the Arctic at practically any time of year during an ice-age would probably radiate heat away quickly and refreeze. Neither of us made any impact on the thinking of the other. Does anyone here have thoughts on this matter?
R. Gates: May 25, 2010 at 4:43 pm:
I think the disconnect you appear to have with most of the non-troll posters on WUWT relates to your treating those lists and graphs as one might normally do, i.e. as information. When I look at them, my first thought is to see if I can figure out how they’ve been manipulated. Anything that has come within sniffing distance of Hansen or a large batch of others, probably has been. In essence, then, you still believe, and the rest of us don’t. We’ve been conned too often. No mystery.
/dr.bill
Not much light makes it into water at low angles. We are all very familiar with this in a practical sense.
http://www.bergoiata.org/fe/lakes/Reflections%20over%20Water.jpg
If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Sir Francis Bacon
The jist of this seems to be-
The sun ain’t doin’ it.
RE: difference between Steve Goddards maps and R. Gates’ maps
You can clearly see what Steve is talking about by comparing the Cryosphere Today images side by side. http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=05&fd=24&fy=1990&sm=05&sd=24&sy=2010
There is more ice extent now than in 1990. However, you can also see that the links R. Gates provide show that the current ice extent is less now. Which is correct?
BTW – if anyone wants to download the UIUC maps, here is the csh script I used and ran on Cygwin
#!/bin/tcsh foreach date (01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25) wget "http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ARCHIVE/199005${date}.png" end foreach date (01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25) wget "http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ARCHIVE/201005${date}.jpg" endstevengoddard,
What do you mean by ‘concentration’? All the figures that I have – JAXA, NSIDC – show that we are currently at the lowest or equal lowest ice extent for this time of year in the satellite record. (The reason I say ‘or equal lowest’ is that 2004 and 2006 were within the margin of error).
So: can you explain specifically what you mean by ‘concentration’?
R. Gates says:
May 25, 2010 at 4:43 pm First, looking at this chart, which represents the best continuous long term data we have:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
In looking at the trend line for anomalies, I see that on this date, May 25, 1990, it appears that the anomaly, while admittedly negative, was not nearly as negative as we are on May 25, 2010.
Whoops! There was a bit of a cherry dip in the anomaly right there in early 1990! Well, I’m sure this year will turn out just the same as 1990, with that anomaly sliding right back up.
The two animations make it obvious that there are UIUC shenanigans going on…
1) Look at the size of Greenland… By making it much bigger, less sea ice!!!
2) Look at numerous islands… The islands are bigger now!!! less sea ice…
3) Look ar numerous bays, river outlets and coastlines…
Do they really think no one will notice?!?!?!?
stevengoddard says:
May 25, 2010 at 5:22 pm
R Gates,
It is extremely clear from the maps that sea ice concentration is greater now than it was 20 years ago. Some trend, eh?
There seems to have been more ice in the Barents and west of Greenland, and in Hudson Bay, from the maps. What kind of analysis did you do? A simple pixel analysis for color?
Mike Bryant
Good observations. There is a story behind the change in size of Greenland. A few years ago I wrote an article discussing a discrepancy between NIDC and UIUC maps. One of the discoveries that came out of that discussion was that the eye-elevation of the UIUC maps wasn’t what they thought it was, and they apparently corrected it. So post 2008 maps have a different perspective and do not line up exactly at lower latitudes.
But it is nothing sinister.
Cloud cover (whether it’s a positive or negative) was seen to increase in the last couple of decades. http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/climate-clouds.shtml
In my part of the world high pressure usually means clear skies and there’s been generally high pressure over the Arctic since the winter started. Not sure how you’d separate incoming from outgoing radiation, but there’s certainly been mostly clear skies over the Arctic since October.
David Gould
Extent is defined as a grid cell which has 15% ice (NSIDC) or 30% ice (DMI.) The UIUC map shows that the most of the Arctic Basin has close to 100% ice – i.e. little or no open water.
Hey, sorry for all the posts, but this is quite interesting. Those are obviously low resolution archive images, because when I got to the sites, the large images show much more detail. Here is a good one for today: http://www.iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/arctic_AMSRE_nic.png
So, where can a high resolution image for some year past (like 1990) be found?
craig james
There was a lot more ice in 1990 in the Barents Sea. That is pretty much of a don’t care, because that ice always disappears in the summer anyway.
craig james,
I completely disagree. It is not obvious to me that the 1990 one shows more ice than 2010. It is made even more difficult by the fact that the second image (2010) is of a larger globe than the first (1990). Just eyeballing the image is not an objective measure of ice extent. It is clear from the data that 1990 had much less ice than 2010.
Mike Bryant says:
May 25, 2010 at 5:54 pm
Yes, I’ve noticed this too, and the images prior to 2007 are smaller, so there’s an optical illusion going on as well.
I shall have to get out the Image Processing software and do some enlarging/blink-compare.
>> R. Gates says:
I don’t see how someone, even the most elementary chart reader, could not easily see what the longer term trend has been in the sea ice since long before 1990, even going back to the 1960′s— it’s been down, slowly, but perceptively spiraling down. <<
How was Arctic sea ice measured before satellites?
Changes in observation equipment and masks / methods of evaluating ice changes. Yes Mike Bryant they think no one will notice. Rewriting history is easy if you can keep the facts hidden!
O/T but wondering if these figures are accurate:
24 May: Politico: EPA can’t regulate climate change
by SEN. JOHN BARRASSO (R-Wyo.), member of the Environment and Public Works Committee.
Regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant, for example, would require all stationary sources that emit more than 250 tons of carbon dioxide — a threshold that catches even small emitters — to apply for “prevention of significant deterioration” permits for new construction or modifications. The typical PSD permit costs an applicant approximately $125,000, according to the EPA’s own estimate, and takes roughly 866 hours to obtain. If America’s small businesses are forced to operate under these sorts of conditions, it will crush them.
By June 7, the Senate has a chance to pass a resolution that would stop the EPA from regulating climate change through the Clean Air Act.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37660.html
OH! OH!, watch out for those ‘image adjustments’ isn’t that an option in Photoshop?
Once more we have a principal member of the TEAM – Hansen – who should really buy a place in the country beside a major highway – get a large hand sign – some lighting for the sign – preferably flashing – and open a “palm” reading business.
A fitting and proper use of his talents.
craig james says:
May 25, 2010 at 5:43 pm
R Gates has ‘rotten’ views.
stevengoddard says:
May 25, 2010 at 5:42 pm
Not much light makes it into water at low angles. We are all very familiar with this in a practical sense.
Not to mention science still is in the still, snap of time mindset. They have not incorporated rotation and deflections( Planetary Mechanics).
Looks like Stever got the term “concentration” right off the images he pointed to. The legend is labelled “sea ice concentration (%)”.
For example, compare today (May 25) with May 25 of ’90:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ARCHIVE/19900525.png
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ARCHIVE/20100525.jpg
(open the above as new broswer tabs so you can flip back and forth)
Notice the satellite is closer to the Earth in today’s image than it was 20 years ago. (Either that, or the Earth is suffering from CAGE: catastrophic anthropomorphic global enlarging). Therefore, comparing the images side-by-side is useless in terms of getting a feel for the comparative cap sizes. You could scale the images until the horizons of the Earths are the same, but that would be forgetting that the Earth is in 3D, and when cameras come closer to something the middle scales up faster than the edges. So I think you would have to project the 2D images to orbs, scale the orbs in 3D to match, then project those to 2D image before making a cap size comparison.
But even if you did that, your missing the whole point of the images. Concentration has nothing to do with how big the ice cap is, or what shape it is, or whether or not the image is closer or farther. It is something measured all over the ice.
It seems to me Goddard is saying “ice cream sure is sweeter than it used to be” and Gates is saying “no way, the scoops are definitely smaller than the good old days!”
But I’m no expert.