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.
Just hope Obama doesn’t silence Dr. Hansimian.
Chris1958 says:
May 25, 2010 at 9:47 pm
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)?
We do know that infrared is absorbed in the first microns or millimeters of water, in contrast to visible, but obviously not all of it, since here are some lovely pictures taken by infrared.
http://www.photos-of-the-year.com/articles/digital-infrared-image/
I think one would have to sit down and calculate how much of the infrared is reflected and how much absorbed.
stevengoddard says:
May 25, 2010 at 10:14 pm:
‘The sun doesn’t produce much infrared.’
I note anna v’s comments. But you actually haven’t answered my question, which relates to absorbtion of energy via the infra-red spectrum. Moreover, to what extent is energy from the non-infra red spectrum retained in the form of thermal energy when sunlight strikes water at an angle?
BTW, in response to a few ad hominem comments posted in response to my comments on Lord Monckton, I’m actually strongly sceptical of CAGW. However, I sometimes wish more of the responses here focused on the science.
RE: Mike: (May 25, 2010 at 4:44 pm) “The heat would not have been in the water to radiate out if the ice had been there. The amount of energy radiating out of the dark ocean is less than the amount that would be reflected and radiated back by the white ice. Are you even trying to make sense?”
I think this statement applies only if the ocean were frozen solid all the way to the bottom at zero degrees K. Otherwise there *is* heat in the water. Reflected energy does not qualify as heat loss, it is only heat rejection, and also, this does not apply after sunset when most freezing occurs. I suspect that the primary protection that the ice provides is the reduction of conducted heat loss to subzero arctic winds during the winter. That is why the Eskimos build igloos.
All you have to do is look at Hansen or Mann and you know they’re lying.
Looks like one heck of a trend to me.
… yessiree bob it sure does
… so when do we tip over again ?
Can we try and keep some perspective on sea ice, always difficult to do of course at this time of year?
Arctic sea ice melts. It melts with surprising regularity to levels we now consider ‘abnormal’.
It melted abnormally in the period 1915 to 1940
It melted abnormally in the period 1820 to 1860 (see my article here)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice/
It melted abnormally in the period 1700-1740
It melted abnormally in the 1400’s.
It melted extremely abnormally around 1000 AD (the Vikings) and 1000 years before that (The Ipiatuk).
Melting ‘abnormally’ is what the arctic does. Our satellite records in 1979 caught it at a historically high point and it would be expected melt back from those levels.
We must invite James Hansen (and others) to look at a much broader historic perspective in order to put the modern age into its proper context.
Tonyb
If the indication of sea ice concentration in the cryosphere graphics is reliable, the bulk of the Arctic Ocean has never had higher sea ice concentration than it has now. Even in 1979 there were areas with lower concentration:
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=05&fd=25&fy=1979&sm=05&sd=25&sy=2010
(forget about the borders e.g. in the Barents Sea – these parts of the Sea Ice melt every year anyway – look at the Arctic Ocean itself)
Anna v,
“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.”
I previously wondered how come sunlight felt warm if it had little IR. Now you’ve answered that – thanks.
I have another question though Anna. Can you explain why it is that IR feels warm on your skin but radiation in the visible spectrum only would not feel warm? What is it about IR that it can do this but visible can’t?
R .Gates,
“Now some people might be confused about what a “death” spiral is, and specifcally what it might look like as sea ice declines. It means it doesn’t go straight down, but has a few down years, and then a few up years.”
I see now. So whereas a trend would go straight down, a death spiral goes up and down.
New idea for a Climate-related game show (I’m sure Fox will pick it up), called “The Biggest Liar” (or Outlier…). Goal being, whichever Climate Scientist can convince people they’re serious about the hugest AGW related impending catastrophe wins.
I dunno if Pachuri or Hansen is a better horse to bet on.
Gates
You have a peculiar description for a spiral. I’d call it variation myself with an inconsistently measured negative trend w.r.t ice increase over a short period of recent time. A spiral goes in one direction. You know, like a helter-skelter. You really do have a peculiar view of the world.
Anu,
Are you aware that the temperature increase associated with an increase in CO2 concentration is logarithmic? This means that the greater the increase in CO2, the less temperature rises, until adding more CO2 will not make any difference as the entire heat absorption frequency available is saturated.
Increasing CO2 by a factor of 3 will NOT create 3 x 3 (+/-1.5) Celsius degrees of warming.
Doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels should produce 2 Celsius degrees of warming. A further doubling would produce a further 1 Celsius degree of warming, and a further doubling would produce a further 0.5 Celsius degree of warming.
The near doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels has resulted in approximately 0.7 degrees in reality, so there are some negative feedbacks mitigating the warming. (and that is accepting the official temperature record, which is now open to serious doubt due to the methodology involved in constructing [manipulating] the official record through removing temperature stations in colder locations and extrapolating and homogenising data from warmer stations subject to UHI effect).
RE: stevengoddard: (May 25, 2010 at 10:14 pm) “The sun doesn’t produce much infrared.”
[Speculation] It occurs to me that this may be the reason for what I have elsewhere called ‘The Tropopause Ice-locker Effect, ‘ as the temperatures there are much colder than the -18 degree or so surface temperature one might expect from a black-body in thermal equilibrium with incoming solar radiation. The tropopause, I believe, is at the top of the column of IR fog created by the Earth’s ‘greenhouse’ [or ‘earthshine resonant’] gases. I believe it represents the radiator coils of the Earth’s natural refrigeration system.
I now suspect that the low temperatures at the tropopause may be due to the low equilibrium temperatures established by the minimal fraction of solar radiation that is actually in the absorption-emission bands of the cocktail of greenhouse gases at this level. This equilibrium temperature would set the upper limit for average non-convecting surface temperatures as a function of the effective adiabatic lapse rate at the point of incipient, full-column convection. Of course, incoming short-wave solar radiation would drive surface temperatures to this limit.
REPLY: It’s the pirates of pendants, aarrhhh! -A
Not wishing to be ‘pendantic’, but did you mean ‘pirates of pedants’?!
Spector’s right – liquid water contains latent heat which is yielded up on freezing – just as water vapour yields thermal energy upon condensation – which is why warmer temperatures often precede rainfall or snowfall.
So Steve does make sense :-). However, it does also mean that an area of water comprising so-called poor quality ice contains more energy than a similar area comprising good quality ice even at the same ambient temperature. Hence, arguments about the extent of ice coverage and the quality of ice are relevant. At the same time, we need to remember that any recovery of ice coverage would have to be preceded by initially poor quality ice while the Arctic waters yield latent heat stored up during the 2007 melt (a process which must take time). Consequently, the obsession of some of the CAGW and sceptical camps with current ice coverage is utterly premature.
A pedant is someone who interferes with small words
Vincent says:
May 26, 2010 at 1:08 am
I have another question though Anna. Can you explain why it is that IR feels warm on your skin but radiation in the visible spectrum only would not feel warm? What is it about IR that it can do this but visible can’t?
This needs a biologist to answer. I’d rather not handwave.
tonyb says:
May 26, 2010 at 12:23 am
So, what is going on here seems contrary to current conventional wisdom:
Periods of high GCR’s (? ACR’s) /low AP index & low solar wind coincide with increased melting in the Arctic.
Current conventional wisdom being ‘what else can it be’ CAGW.
The ballast of the Arctic is seen in the Antarctic.
Pamela Gray says:
May 25, 2010 at 9:59 pm
While sitting out the entire month of May awash in storm after storm for N. Calif., I am reminded of the Alaskan Summer which comes every 10 years or so. 1976 or 1977 was one of those years.
Nice. The Arctic gets a rare summer, we get an extended winter, and the Alarmists go on a binge bummer.
To hell with the Arctic Ice I say: I want my garden to grow and the crops to make it in the Pacific Northwest.
willnitschke
The linked NASA article explains that more radiation is lost from the Arctic than is received. If the region was perpetually covered with ice and snow (good insulators) that would be impossible. If the region was completely ice free in October, there would be a lot more radiative heat loss. The ice “traps” heat in the ocean, similar to how CO2 “traps” heat in the atmosphere.
Mike says:
May 25, 2010 at 4:44 pm
“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.”
The heat would not have been in the water to radiate out if the ice had been there. The amount of energy radiating out of the dark ocean is less than the amount that would be reflected and radiated back by the white ice. Are you even trying to make sense?
_________________________________________________________________________
“energy radiating out of the dark ocean is less than the amount that would be reflected and radiated back by the white ice….” is covered in the article.
FRESH SNOW not ice has the high albedo. The difference between fresh snow and ice, is as great as the difference between ice and water.
Also the albedo for water changes. “….Although the reflectivity of water is very low at low and medium angles of incident light, it increases tremendously at high angles of incident light such as occur on the illuminated side of the Earth near the terminator (early morning, late afternoon and near the poles). However, as mentioned above, waviness causes an appreciable reduction. Since the light specularly reflected from water does not usually reach the viewer, water is usually considered to have a very low albedo in spite of its high reflectivity at high angles of incident light.
Note that white caps on waves look white (and have high albedo) because the water is foamed up….” http://www.answers.com/topic/albedo#Water
Your statement would make more sense if you were talking about fresh snow vs still water at the equator The difference is a heck of a lot less when talking of ice and ocean at the north pole. Again notice the statement “….water is usually considered to have a very low albedo in spite of its high reflectivity at high angles of incident light.“ At the pole you are talking abouthigh angles of incident light. since the sun is close to the horizon most of the time.
Gentlemen,
What has not been factored in is that the salinity of the oceans have unstablised from being pretty constant around the planet before 1970.
” Charles Wilson says:
[…]
…. Remember, even 1/4 the energy of 300 mph = “only” 150 mph sustained for 2 months = likely 225 mph gust = no Buildings survive outside the Tropics save the Pyramids.”
There are people who build their houses from concrete, you know.
But that was a great diatribe, especially the “costs only 6 cent per American”, great stuff! I’m european so i have a little bit of experience with the costs. At the moment i would probably say “costs only 6, maybe 10 eurocent per kWh, fuel tax rises not included and future prize hikes not included” so i found it refreshingly funny.
I am some what non-plussed by all the concern about sea ice in the northern climes.
The Vikings enjoyed the fishing and hunting, and, a sun tan,around the North Pole area, in the not to distant past. Catastrophic worlds end did not occur then, fact is, the world blossomed. Cyclic patterns determine sea ice and the very long term sine waves of this pattern, are not on the satellite data, the only real detective science, that is slowly emerging from behind the clamour of alarmist rhetoric, shows the true past histories of our planet. Alas 2c warming would be the greatest boon our planet could receive. Recent science in many fields would suggest this is but a wish and we are overdue for the worst possible thing that could happen. Global cooling.