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.
Cryosphere Today shows the present Arctic sea ice anomaly dropping like a stone past one million square kms below the 1979-2010 mean. Fearless prediction – it will continue lower. Will it be the 4th lowest, 3rd lowest, 2nd lowest, lowest by September? Who knows, but arguing that nothing significant is happening in the Arctic is drawing a very long bow indeed.
R. Gates says:
May 25, 2010 at 4:43 pm
“Steve, as you (and most everybody else here on WUWT) well knows, we differ greatly in our perceptions of what the data says and what the condition of the arctic sea ice really is…”
=====================================
Yes but the difference is Steve speaks from authority and makes sense. Your “perception” holds very little water or significance, so the above is not a fair comparison.
Don’t flatter yourself (although I know that is not a safe bet.)
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
stevengoddard says: May 25, 2010 at 6:04 pm {…} 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.
Steven I have posted this before, and it looks to me like the change to a larger earth post 2008 has a smaller arctic overall. This is the 1979 shoreline scaled to the current larger diameter. http://i44.tinypic.com/2vrwuae.jpg
I suppose a higher altitude could cause this, if the first was too low to see the outermost circumference of the earth. That does not seem to be the case, it looks like the most change is at higher latitudes, least change toward the equator. It doesn’t look like an angular change either.
There was another change in late 2004, when snow was added to the depiction. This image has the snow from 2008 on the still smaller earth, overlaid with the shoreline from 1980. All of the white shows the decrease in area of the arctic sea and some lower lattitudes. http://i44.tinypic.com/330u63t.jpg
While I don’t think it is ‘sinister’, it is another peculiarly coincidental event in climate science that the area of shoreline change shows up in the NH anomaly graph as a step function late 2004.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
That’s funny, I’ve come to the conclusion that Hansen is the gag.
Charles S. Opalek, PE says:
May 25, 2010 at 4:41 pm
Dr. Hansen is famous for his tipping point nonsense.
When it comes to temperatures, for the last 550 million years the Earth’s temperature has varied between 12C and 22C. (Scotese). About 22% of the time during that period temperatures topped-out at 22C; only about 6% of the time they bottomed-out at 12C. The atmosphere contains 750 Gigatons of carbon. If all the 4,000 GT of fossil fuel reserves were burned, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 would increase from 390 ppm to 2,470 ppm. The resulting logarithmic temperature increase would be 1.4C, which would increase the temperature from the present 14.5C to 15.9C. So after burning all our fossil fuels, we would wind up 39% off the bottom of the historic temperature range.
So much for Dr. Hansen’s tipping points.
Are you aware that the Sun has been getting 1% brighter every 100 million years ?
And that people here argue about how powerful an effect 0.1% fluctuations in TSI (Total Solar Irradiance) caused by sunspots can be…
As for 2,470 ppm of CO2 – this is compared to the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm, not the current level – the warming in the pipeline from increasing from 280 ppm to 390 ppm is not realized yet (large inertia in planet-scale climate changes). The 280 ppm level lasted many centuries.
280 –> 2,470 would be a factor of 8.8. More than 3 doublings.
Each CO2 doubling causes 3 +/- 1.5 °C change in planetary temperature.
About 9 °C warming. On average. Some regions much higher.
So much for Charles S. Opalek, PE teacher
of climatology nonsense.
That is an astute observation about the 2007 ice loss starting when insolation is waning. The reason that melting is out of step with insolation is that Arctic melting is primarily caused by warm water reaching the Arctic Ocean from two sides. On the Atlantic side we have the Gulf stream entering it in a broad front between Iceland and Scandinavia and keeping the Russian Arctic ports ice free. In the west a smaller amount of warm water enters through the Bering Strait. It is usually enough to keep the Chukchi Sea, just north of the strait, ice free. Apparently a pattern of winds in 2007 caused more than the usual amount of warm water to enter the Arctic through the Bering Strait. This created a large ice-free bubble centered on the strait while the Gulf Stream side changed only a little. The Arctic warming itself is over a century old, having started suddenly at the beginning of the twentieth century. It had been preceded by a two thousand year old cooling trend. A sudden warming is impossible for carbon dioxide to cause without a simultaneous increase of its partial pressure in the atmosphere. We know that this did not happen. The only physical process that can start such a warming is rearrangement of the North Atlantic current system at the turn of the twentieth century that directed the Gulf Stream unto its present northerly course. There was a break in warming, with some cooling from the forties to the sixties, but then warming returned and temperatures that had been reached in the thirties were again reached by 2003. The Gulf Stream itself has melted approximately a third of the Arctic ice that would exist in its absence. For more info see “What Warming?” available on Amazon.com.
Steve, here is the May time-series from NSIDC:
year mo data_type region extent area
1979 5 Goddard N 14.06 11.04
1980 5 Goddard N 14.04 10.88
1981 5 Goddard N 13.90 10.93
1982 5 Goddard N 14.17 11.10
1983 5 Goddard N 13.54 10.80
1984 5 Goddard N 13.68 10.81
1985 5 Goddard N 14.23 11.19
1986 5 Goddard N 13.52 10.63
1987 5 Goddard N 13.81 10.91
1988 5 Goddard N 13.69 11.35
1989 5 Goddard N 12.98 11.30
1990 5 Goddard N 13.30 10.84
1991 5 Goddard N 13.51 11.44
1992 5 Goddard N 13.25 11.37
1993 5 Goddard N 13.54 11.35
1994 5 Goddard N 13.73 11.60
1995 5 Goddard N 13.04 10.76
1996 5 Goddard N 13.06 11.22
1997 5 Goddard N 13.32 11.17
1998 5 Goddard N 13.80 11.35
1999 5 Goddard N 13.86 11.61
2000 5 Goddard N 13.18 11.18
2001 5 Goddard N 13.72 11.32
2002 5 Goddard N 13.12 11.11
2003 5 Goddard N 13.00 10.82
2004 5 Goddard N 12.58 10.86
2005 5 Goddard N 12.99 10.83
2006 5 Goddard N 12.62 10.39
2007 5 Goddard N 12.89 10.71
2008 5 PRELIM N 13.16 10.83
2009 5 NRTSI-G N 13.39 11.08
As you can clearly see, 1990 is not the record low in sea ice extent or sea ice area. Given that the ice extent today is at the same level as in 2006, it would seem your conclusion that 2010 has substantially more ice than in 1990 is incorrect.
Also, I believe R. Gates linked to a ppt the other day that discussed non-linearity of the Arctic sea ice cover. In that ppt I saw a figure that showed cummulative anomalies in absorbed shortwave energy, the amounts of which show positive anomalies in recent years in total absorbed solar energy on the order of 150 MJ m-2 that would be equivalent to melting 49 cm of ice given an ice density of 917 kg m-3 and a latent heat of fusion of 334000 J kg-1. Thus, there is a positive ice albedo feedback happening. Don Perovich has written many papers recently about this, and even discussed how much energy was absorbed during the 2007 melt season and how much this contributed to bottom melting, which was quite extreme that year as evidenced in the buoy data. I believe the ppt also showed some data/figures from Perovich. The absorbed solar energy is cummulative over the entire summer melt season, just because the minimum happens in September does not mean that earlier melt onset, more advanced summer melt do not have an impact on the energy balance of the ice.
Thus, I do not understand how you reach conclusions such as 2010 has more ice than 1990, and that the ice-albedo feedback affect doesn’t matter.
does this include Guam tipping over?
Tommy says:
May 25, 2010 at 7:02 pm
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).
No, it’s just cropped different. Notice how the horizon is the same.
Speaking of tipping points,
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
2010 just dropped below the 2004 curve.
The latest value : 11,331,563 km2 (May 25, 2010)
May 25, 2004: 11,375,000 km2
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv
In a few days, it will probably drop below 2006, thus entering “lowest extent in recorded data for this date” territory.
See, some people thought nothing interesting would happen in the Arctic till June or July.
Arno Arrak says:
May 25, 2010 at 9:22 pm
Arno, can you point to a paper or figure that shows that 2007 showed more influx of warm water from the Pacific side? My understanding from papers I read was that the warm waters in the Chukchi that year were not a result of the inflow of warm water through Bering Strait, but rather the retreat of the sea ice combined with unusually clear skies allowed the ocean to absorb more of the sun’s energy, warming the SSTs.
Also, observations show very little mixing of the warm water entering through Fram Strait and the surface. This is because of the very stable mixed layer. Thus, this does not appear to be a factor of sea ice retreat in that region.
jeff brown,
As George Orwell noted, clear writing = clear thinking. Therefore:
cummulative = cumulative
“…ice-albedo feedback affect…” = “…ice-albedo feedback effect…”
Carry on.
Charles Wilson says:
May 25, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Great stuff! I’m still wiping my eyes and trying to get some breath back. Ever considered standup?
stevengoddard says:
May 25, 2010 at 5:42 pm :
Fascinating photo at
http://www.bergoiata.org/fe/lakes/Reflections%20over%20Water.jpg
However, the image is relevant to light in the visible spectrum. The real question applies to the infrared spectrum. This seems partially addressed by other comments relating to LW radiation. Even so, at the risk of being pedantic, I think this bears qualifying – does water have a much higher albedo when incident heat radiation strikes at an acute angle? If so, how does this affect the modelling (yes, I know no one here likes models but every scientific hypothesis must involve some form of model)?
Tommy is correct. They changed the eye altitude from 5971 miles to 5941 miles.
By the way, regarding tipping points, I am wondering if this will be a summer that will see valley snow every month till snow season starts again. It happens rarely but it has happened. We have had snow fall to the valley floor somewhere in the county every month since spring officially started. I have seen it snow on July 4th. So we shall see.
The absorbed solar energy is cummulative over the entire summer melt season,
That cannot be right. Energy doesn’t accumulate over time if there is a temperature differential in operation.
Take two glasses of water. Allow one to be put in the microwave for a minute and then left on the bench for an hour, and the other to be left on the bench then put in the microwave at the end.
They will not have the same heat at the end, despite having similar energy histories.
Charles
Wrong grammar boy!
“It’s” is also short for “it has”, as in “It’s become tiresome listening to all these pedants railing about the word it’s.”
REPLY: It’s the pirates of pendants, aarrhhh! -A
Chris1958
The sun doesn’t produce much infrared.
How come that “effects of greenhouse warming” were not able to beat historical temperature records in Arctic so far?
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icrutem3_hadsst2_0-360E_70-90N_na.png
Not speaking about the starting decline. Hide the decline! HIDE THE DECLINE!
stevengoddard says:
May 25, 2010 at 10:14 pm
Chris1958
The sun doesn’t produce much infrared.
I am sorry?
It looks to be about half of sunlight in energy.
quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared
Bright sunlight provides an irradiance of just over 1 kilowatt per square meter at sea level. Of this energy, 527 watts is infrared radiation, 445 watts is visible light, and 32 watts is ultraviolet radiation
there is a reference for this quote.
Anu says:
May 25, 2010 at 9:25 pm
Speaking of tipping points,
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
2010 just dropped below the 2004 curve.
The latest value : 11,331,563 km2 (May 25, 2010)
May 25, 2004: 11,375,000 km2
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv
In a few days, it will probably drop below 2006, thus entering “lowest extent in recorded data for this date” territory.
See, some people thought nothing interesting would happen in the Arctic till June or July.
From IJIS graph page
[Updated on May 18, 2010] Previous version of data processing had made an erroneous blip of sea ice extent on June 1st and October 15th which was seen in the graph of sea ice extent as a small peak on these dates. We improved the processing to make the graph much smoother. The apparent blip had arisen due to a switching of some parameters in the processing on both dates. The parameter switching is needed because the surface of the Arctic sea-ice becomes wet in summer due to the melting of ice which changes satellite-observed signatures of sea-ice drastically. By this improvement most of the sea ice extent values are not affected at all except for the period of May 20-June 11 and October 8-26 of each year.
In principle, SIC data could have errors of 10% at most, particularly for the area of thin sea ice seen around the edge of sea-ice cover and melted sea ice seen in summer. Also, SIC along coastal lines could also have errors due to sub-pixel contamination of land cover in an instantaneous field of view of AMSR-E data.
I also am of the opinion that the amount of ice is less at this date than in 1990 simply due to the graphs at cryosphere, as pointed out before show it is
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
I’d take the graphs over eyeballing a map anyday. Steve hasn’t commented on this discrepency yet, so it would be good to hear his thoughts.
Andy
anna v
I should have been more specific. The sun doesn’t produce much infrared at wavelengths which are absorbed by CO2. I assumed that was his point.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png
Steve,
Very interesting post. You wrote:
“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…”
Do you have any hard data to support this statement, other than the guess that it’s “probably a negative feedback” ???