by Steven Goddard
Looking at the June 14 satellite photo above, you see the view which the Sun sees of the North Pole.
Well not exactly, because the elevation of the Sun at its peak (mid-June) is actually fairly low in the sky. At the Pole, it is only 23.5º above the horizon. The video below shows what the earth would look like now, viewed from perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic. Note that the region north of 66.5º is in perpetual light. The image of the Sun is from the days when it used to have sunspots.
Now, looking at the satellite photo again, we see three different shades of white. Snow is the brightest white (highest albedo) and can be seen in Greenland. Clouds are next brightest white, and at least partially cover almost the entire Arctic. In a few locations, you can see dirty white sea ice peeking out through the clouds.
We often hear that sea ice controls Arctic albedo. There is some truth to this statement, but the real story is that the albedo of clouds actually controls the area of sea ice. When it is cloudy, little melting occurs. When it is sunny, the ice is more prone to melt.
Consider this chart from the University of Alaska.
They forecast the breakup of sea ice based on the total amount of sunshine received. When accumulated sunshine reaches 700 MJ/m², the ice breaks up. In a cloudy year (like 2009) this occurs later. In a sunny year (like 2007) it occurs earlier. 2010 is right in the middle. On a cloudy day, most of the sunshine reflects back into space from the top of the white clouds. That is why we see the bright white clouds in the satellite image.
The real key to Arctic albedo, and melt – is clouds. Can climate models effectively forecast cloudiness? Short answer – no. Clouds are one of the Achilles Heels of climate models. So next time you hear about a climate model forecasting an ice free Arctic, ask if they have the cloud problem under control.
It is cloudy at Santa’s Workshop right now.
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/webphotos/noaa2.jpg
I am sure this will upset the “Don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up” crowd who have become increasingly vocal about Steve’s posts on the Arctic ice.
I read claims that the Arctic is warm yet the DMI plot on the border shows the Arctic temperature above 80 N is right on the 52 year average line and just at the freezing point.
Could someone explain the difference to someone who has not spent his career studying the Arctic temperature.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Would the insulating effect of the clouds have an effect positive or negative on the surface temp?
The lack of input energy from the sun would be a major effect but the insulating effect of the clouds could effect the ground temp either a + or – way. Low overcast clouds would tend to keep heat trapped at the surface or conversely would trap low temps there. Just wondering if anybody has looked into this , it could be negligable but worthwhile to take a look
“The image of the Sun is from the days when it used to have sunspots.”
Misleading, off topic, and guaranteed to take the comments off in the wrong direction. An off-the-cuff phrase like that can prevent your readers from remembering the point of the article.
Owen from Cornwall Ontario
Maybe the sun came out for a while at 1100?
vukcevic says:
June 16, 2010 at 4:23 am
Arctic temperature during the last 150 years or so appear to be closely correlated to the average geomagnetic field (GMF) in the area.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
Kinda funny that isn’t it Vuk? Keep telling ‘em, maybe some of them will wake up.
I was writing on a related subject last year:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/north-pole-position-shifts/
Don Shaw
NOAA temperatures in the Arctic Basin have been normal to below normal during June
Steve,
While clouds and Sunlight are factors in ice melt at the Arctic, the water currents and water temperature are the main factors. The water temperature depends on Sun and clouds also, so there is an indirect relation there. However, currents are controlled from greater distances, and by other events than direct Sun or clouds at the Arctic. Your analysis is too simplistic.
Ric,
Are you suggesting that the sun didn’t used to have sunspots?
Steve,
I do want to point out that your analysis is valid for land based ice, so Greenland and other locations near the Arctic are mainly affected by the Sun with major modification by clouds.
After Obama’s energy speech yesterday, his poll numbers have dropped to 42%
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history
The man inspires confidence!
“In a cloudy year (like 2009) this occurs later. In a sunny year (like 2007) it occurs earlier. 2010 is right in the middle.”
What is the source of the relative cloudiness over the arctic during melt season of 2009 vs 2007 vs 2010?
stevengoddard says:
June 16, 2010 at 6:38 am
After Obama’s energy speech yesterday, his poll numbers have dropped to 42%
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history
The man inspires confidence!
You just can’t stop propagandizing can you Steve? An accurate post would say “Before Obama’s………..”, but you can’t resist twisting the facts.
“These results are based upon nightly telephone interviews and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. As a result, today’s results are based almost entirely on interviews conducted before the president’s speech to the nation. The impact of the president’s speech will be seen over the next several days.”
I am not sure how accurate that animation is supposed to be, but it clearly aint very accurate as it shows all of northern scandinavia to be in dark, when in fact they have been experiencing 24/7 sunlight for quite some time already.
Leonard Weinstein
Sun makes a huge difference in melt rate as any skier will affirm 🙂
There was an interesting article in last Months National Geographic to do with Greenlands melting ice (they mentioned the Vikings in passing but didn’t seem to make the connection to cyclical warming)
There were some good pictures showing some very dirty ice (which Steve also mentioned in his article)
The first reference I can find in old literature to sooty ice is some rather anecdotal material on the Romans mining in Iceland (yes really). Rather more reliable are British Naval reports from 1850 when there was a considerable melt in the arctic and some notable areas of sooty ice were recorded. (The blame was pinned on America’s emerging industries)
I don’t know if you or anyone else here have any figures of the amount of melting that can be caused when snow/ice is contaminated by varying degrees of soot? I am inclined to think that whilst there are many factors involved in ice melt-of which the sun, clouds, surface and sea temperatures, wind, storms etc are all highly relevant-that soot is also significant. The latter can be solved to the advantage of everyone by better emissions controls on dirty industry-primarily in China and India.
TonyB
tom in co says:
June 16, 2010 at 5:41 am
@Pascvaks
I’ve got a nice big white SUV, am I helping?
____
Well. I’ll match your big white SUV and raise you with my big white van as well. And my motor home is white too. So I’m practically saving the planet on my own.
Here’s a quote that I ran onto the other day from some guy whose name I can’t spell or pronounce but who was smart enough to translated Plato’s Republic. It sums up the climate situation as good as anything: “Doubt flies in the window when inquiry is barred at the door.”
Ric, relax. I think Steve’s sunspot comment was made in good fun.
Steve
Don’t forget sublimation. It can be significant at ‘low’ temperatures and ‘bright’ sunshine.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
This site is good for daily artic temps. Temps still around 0°C
“Ric Werme says:
June 16, 2010 at 6:19 am
“The image of the Sun is from the days when it used to have sunspots.”
Misleading, off topic, and guaranteed to take the comments off in the wrong direction. An off-the-cuff phrase like that can prevent your readers from remembering the point of the article.”
No, actually it seems to be just a hint of humor to perhaps brighten the reader’s day and make the article a little bit more layman-friendly. The point is made loud and clear.
The Antarctic Ice seems to be doing very well as usual, driving the global sea ice mean slightly above normal. It would be interesting to see a comparison of cloud cover and Antarctic melt seasons.
Ric Werme (6:19 am) says: [The sunspot comment is] “Misleading, off topic, and guaranteed to take the comments off in the wrong direction.”
Please, only those who don’t want to face the facts would seriously go in the wrong direction. “Please take me in some other direction with amusing tangents, my mind is discombobulated by the facts.” No one goes off track because of a little humor.
And…
tallbloke (6:20 am) and vukcevic (4:23 am): I agree. Keep telling ‘em.
In the arctic, clouds consist of ice crystals (snow flakes) that tend to align horizontally.
Most UV from a low sun angle will be reflected back to space when it strikes these crystals. Also, the processes in the formation of these clouds control the rate of OLR from their tops and CO2 has little to do with them. http://www.kidswincom.net/CO2OLR.pdf.
I still don’t see surface albedo having much of an effect on global temperature. The climate clearly isn’t very sensitive to it, as we saw this last winter in the NH. Most of the NH was covered with snow and ice, yet there was no dramatic climate shift, no tipping point into an ice age, just business as usual.
Now cloud albedo, that’s a different story. That prevents a lot of energy reaching the surface…
Money Quote:
“The real key to Arctic albedo, and melt – is clouds. Can climate models effectively forecast cloudiness? Short answer – no. Clouds are one of the Achilles Heels of climate models. So next time you hear about a climate model forecasting an ice free Arctic, ask if they have the cloud problem under control.”
Beautiful, Steve, beautiful…
Many parts of AGW are filled with guesswork and the word “uncertainties” [pdf] and clouds, even they admit, are quite a problem, yet they are 90%+ certain about the dominant human ‘signal’ during the end of the last decades of the 20th century.
Climate Change 2007: Working Group I – 2007
stevengoddard says:
June 16, 2010 at 6:38 am:
After Obama’s energy speech yesterday, his poll numbers have dropped to 42%
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history
The man inspires confidence!
As if we needed any more proof that
American Libertyreality trumpslatte’ commiefantasy? Amazing!