Apologies in advance…
From the University of Michigan press center
Shrinking snow and ice cover intensify global warming
ANN ARBOR, Mich.—The decreases in Earth’s snow and ice cover over the past 30 years have exacerbated global warming more than models predict they should have, on average, new research from the University of Michigan shows.
To conduct this study, Mark Flanner, assistant professor in the Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space Sciences, analyzed satellite data showing snow and ice during the past three decades in the Northern Hemisphere, which holds the majority of the planet’s frozen surface area. The research is newly published online in Nature Geoscience.
Snow and ice reflect the sun’s light and heat back to space, causing an atmospheric cooling effect. But as the planet warms, more ice melts and in some cases, less snow falls, exposing additional ground and water that absorb more heat, amplifying the effects of warmer temperatures. This change in reflectance contributes to what’s called “albedo feedback,” one of the main positive feedback mechanisms adding fuel to the planet’s warming trend. The strongest positive feedback is from atmospheric water vapor, and cloud changes may also enhance warming.
“If the Earth were just a static rock, we could calculate precisely what the level of warming would be, given a perturbation to the system. But because of these feedback mechanisms we don’t know exactly how the climate will respond to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide,” Flanner said.
“Our analysis of snow and sea ice changes over the last 30 years indicates that this cryospheric feedback is almost twice as strong as what models have simulated. The implication is that Earth’s climate may be more sensitive to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other perturbations than models predict.”
The cryosphere is the planet’s layer of snow, sea ice and permanent ice sheets.
In the Northern Hemisphere since 1979, the average temperature rose by about 0.7 degrees Celsius, whereas the global average temperature rose by about 0.45 degrees, Flanner said.
For every 1 degree Celsius rise in the Northern Hemisphere, Flanner and his colleagues calculated an average of 0.6 fewer watts of solar radiation reflected to space per square meter because of reduced snow and sea ice cover. In the 18 models taken into consideration by the International Panel on Climate Change, the average was 0.25 watts per square meter per degree Celsius over the same time period.
Flanner points out that the models typically calculate this feedback over 100 years—significantly longer than this study, which could account for some of the discrepancy. Satellite data only goes back 30 years.
To further put the results in context, each square meter of Earth absorbs an average of 240 watts of solar radiation. These new calculations show that the Northern Hemisphere cryosphere is reflecting .45 watts less per square meter now than it did in 1979, due mostly to reduced spring snow cover and summer sea ice.
“The cryospheric albedo feedback is a relatively small player globally, but it’s been a surprisingly strong feedback mechanism over the past 30 years,” Flanner said. “A feedback of this magnitude would translate into roughly 15 percent more warming, given current understanding of other feedback mechanisms.”
To avoid the worst effects of climate change, the scientific consensus is that the global average temperature should stay within 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, of pre-industrial levels. Scientists are still trying to quantify the extent to which the planet will warm as greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere.
“People sometimes criticize models for being too sensitive to climate perturbations” Flanner said. “With respect to cryospheric changes, however, observations suggest the models are a bit sluggish.”
The paper is called “Radiative forcing and albedo feedback from the Northern Hemisphere cryosphere between 1979 and 2008.” This research is funded by the National Science Foundation.
For more information:
Mark Flanner:
http://aoss.engin.umich.edu/people/flanner
Michigan Engineering: The University of Michigan College of Engineering is ranked among the top engineering schools in the country. At $180 million annually, its engineering research budget is one of largest of any public university. Michigan Engineering is home to 11 academic departments, numerous research centers and expansive entrepreneurial programs. The College plays a leading role in the Michigan Memorial Phoenix Energy Institute and hosts the world-class Lurie Nanofabrication Facility. Michigan Engineering’s premier scholarship, international scale and multidisciplinary scope combine to create The Michigan Difference. Find out more at http://www.engin.umich.edu/.
==============================================================
I’m reminded of this:
…but I’m not so sure about the “shrinkage” of snow cover.
Rutgers snow lab shows it to be flat, that’s their trend line, not mine:
And for North America:
Of course then there’s the almost always ignored Antarctic ice and snow contrasting the Arctic:
But 30 years in the future, what will we see? Will the cycle reverse? Given NASA’s admission of inability to forecast the solar cycle, it illustrates how little we know about natural cycle forecasting. Also, where does the soot figure into the albedo change? There’s no mention of that.
OK I’m being lazy, but I’m just not motivated by this study to do much work, since it’s just old news rehashed. Suffice to say this entry is mainly for entertainment purposes only.
Now, we’ll watch the squabbling begin.
Frank says: Wrote
January 18, 2011 at 11:09 pm
“In the interest of fairness, you could show your readers data from the Rutgers snow lab indicating that spring snow extent has dropped about 10% over the last 30 years.”
We had global warming back then. Now we have global co[o]ling.
Get with the program.
Jimbo, thanks for those two links. Those darn clouds! No overall albedo effect at all and that is surprising how they cancel out. Little ice, lots of clouds, lots of ice, little clouds. Antarctica too though the process is totally different as shown by one of those.
Michael, your video presentation about the Precautionary Principle, invented by and beloved of the Greens, is excellent and should be shown in movie theatres following Gore’s claptrap to provide somme background and balance. Congrats!
Reminds me of an old joke. Q: In a room full of people, how can you tell who the Michigan grad is? A: He tells YOU.
In the church of global warming, it’s blasphemous to even question a study such as this.
If there is less snow cover/sea ice in the northern hemisphere making it get warmer and more snow and sea ice in the southern hemisphere making it get colder then on the balance of probabilities does that mean it’s all down to global warming?
If so is this inversely proportional to the angle of dangle?
I dare the author to take his Albedo modelling back to the ice ages.
Global warming theory doesn’t work unless the Albedo impact from all the extra glaciers, sea ice, deserts, grassland and tundra in the ice ages results in only -3.5 watts/m2.
Here we have a constant snow extent resulting in -0.6 watt/m2. There is no way the small changes we have today should be in the same ballpark as the ice ages. Either one of them is way off.
A little logical consistency for once would make one trust the numbers a little more.
So which is it, global warming reduces snow cover or global warming increases snow due to more moisture in the atmosphere. I bet AGWers say they can have it both ways.
If I recall correctly, the number of models cited by the IPCC fourth assessment is 23, not 18. 22 of them used a different estimate of climate sensitivity.
Alexander K says:
January 19, 2011 at 1:51 am
Michael, your video presentation about the Precautionary Principle, invented by and beloved of the Greens, is excellent and should be shown in movie theatres following Gore’s claptrap to provide somme background and balance. Congrats!
………………………………………………………..
I too enjoyed the video posted by Michael. It is strange how reason is thrown to the wind. The extent to which action should be taken in the name of the precautionary principle is limited only by the boundaries of one’s imagination. However, it is strange that in pursuing this path, one does not also imagine the position that arises if one’s imagined position is wrong (in the climate debate lets say a positive feedback to one’s previously imagined position). People come up with half baked problems and half baked solutions precisely because they have only half thought things through.
To me the precautionary principle in the global warming context dictates a policy of adaption rather than a policy of mitigation.
Lets run with the program and assume that the world is warming (a possibility) and lets assume that a warmer world spells disaster (a highly unlikely scenario but one we have to play along with). We then imagine a situation where this is due to the evils of CO2 and the solution to our ills is to decarbonise the developed nations’ economies. We will also have to stop the developing world from developing since failing which they will become emitters of the evil CO2. We take that action and we imagine that the world is now saved and becomes some sort of utopian paradise where all are living under benign skies close to and under the protection of mother nature, just as she intended her children to live.
However, my imagination has another thought and continues, what if our steps of mitigation do not solve the problem and what if the world continues to warm and what if the imagined disasters still ensue. To meet this imagined scenario, we now need to adapt. But there is now a problem. We have bankrupted the world in taking the unsuccessful steps of mitigation. The developed nations have run out of cash and energy and industry and we have prevented the developing nations from developing such they do not possess these either. Consequently, we no longer can throw sufficient and mobilize resources quickly in adapting to the problems being caused by the continuing warming world. As a consequence of the steps that we took in mitigation and its knock on effect of being then unable to act properly in adaption, we all die in unprecedented heat waves, droughts, floods, hurricanes and the like.
So what is the correct policy to adopt to a warming world? Mitigation only works if we are correct that the cause of the warming is CO2. If this is not the cause of the warming, mitigation is ineffective but more than that, it is counterproductive and dangerous. On the other hand, adaption works irrespective of the cause of the warming, ie., irrespective of whether the warming is or is not caused by CO2, irrespective as to whether the warming is due to natural causes or not (eg., manmade causes other than CO2). Thus adaption, is by far the better policy since it works in all scenarios.
Of course as soon as reason is applied, this is not the only benefit of a policy of adaption. What if the world is not warming? What if the world is warming but warming far from being dangerous is actually beneficial? In either of theses scenarios, there is no need to adapt. There is no need to spend any money. No need to curtail our life styles etc.
Thus any sane person can see that adaption wins hands down over mitigation as the correct outcome of the precautionary principle. As I see it. The problem is twofold: are politicians sane (I will leave readers to come to their own conclusions on that – I know where I stand on that); and adaption does not feed the pigs in the trough and is not immediately (and indeed may never become) a revenue stream.
wayne says:
January 18, 2011 at 11:17 pm
James Sexton says:
January 18, 2011 at 10:25 pm
rbateman says:
January 18, 2011 at 9:06 pm
James… surely you jest! Watts IS energy per time, you know, power, not just energy, that’s joules or BTUs or calories. Watts aleady have the time you are searching for within, seconds, it’s joules/second.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I keep reading Ohm’s law and can’t find that anywhere. Maybe you should take another run at that. Joules/second is what is typically used in conversion, but it isn’t the same.
Here, best explanation I can find.
Others have correctly identified “Joule” as a unit of energy. However, it was incorrect to express a Joule in terms of “Watts/second.” The correct relationship is
(1 Joule) = (1 Watt) TIMES (1 second)
Looking at it from the other direction, “power” is the rate at which energy is being generated, transmitted, or used. This could be expressed as follows (actually, this is the definition of a “Watt”)
(1 Watt) = (1 Joule) / (1 second)
Taking it one step further, consider your home electricity bill. It is based on energy usage in units of “kilowatt-hours.”
* (*) (1 kilowatt-hour) = (1000 watts) times (1 hour)
(*) (1 kilowatt-hour) = (1000 watts) times (3600 seconds)
(*) (1 kilowatt-hour) = 3,600,000 Joules
And just in case you have not yet had enough, consider the following definitions:
* (*) A “volt” is the amount of energy (in Joules) that it takes to move one unit of charge (in Coulombs) from one point to another.
(*) An “Amp” is one unit of charge (in coulombs) passing a given point in one second.
(*) Multiplying (1 volt) times (1 amp) is the same as (1 Joule/1 Coulomb) times (1 Coulomb/1 second).
(*) Therefore (1 volt) times (1 amp) gives (1 Joule/1 second)
(*) This is the basis of the formula P = V x I
Charles E. Beck, P.E., Seattle
Of course I am sure they take into account that most of the weak (3% in the summer due to atmospheric absorption and low angle) solar input in the Arctic ocean would be realized as evaporation almost immediately and that evaporation is not heat in the atmosphere. The energy has gone to cause a phase change, not heating of the atmosphere, making it a zero sum effective temperature effect. And, I’m sure they include the fact that albedo is meaningless in the dark.
Just wondering how they do this. The IPCC models are famous for exaggeration and they are claiming the IPCC is low here? That’s really suspicious.
I love it when the try to paint the IPCC as not being alarmist enough@ur momisugly
In my last post, I omitted to deal with the scenario: what if the world is warming and what if this is due to manmade CO2 emissions and what if a warmer world far from being bad is in fact good (personally, I believe that a warmer world would be beneficial to all life on earth)? Once again, mitigation is the wrong policy. In this situation we bankrupt developed nations and prevent developing nations from developing which is bad enough in itself, but further this action prevents everyone from enjoying the comforts and benefits which a warmer world would have brought. Accordingly, we have not only hurt ourselves in taking steps associated with mitigation, we have also deprived ourselves of a benefit that we could have enjoyed had we not sought to mitigate.
Once again adaption works best. Since as the world warms and as the evidence comes in that this is not disastrous but to the contrary appears beneficial, we do waste time energy and money needlessly adapting to a problem that does not in fact exist (since for the main part no adaption is necessary). Eventually, this policy (ie., not seeking to mitigate but rather to adapt as and when and to the extent necessary) leads to us all enjoying the benefits of a warmer world that we have created by continuing to emit CO2 which far from being harmful is actually beneficial.
co2insanity says:
January 18, 2011 at 7:49 pm
Yeah ……………… but before big-oil paid for the research and the lube! And for the PC; the condoms…………
Mauvine dye was applied in a fun way but not sure on the value-add of flavours later on.
What a waste of human talent to spin all this great history into something promulgated negatively as human caused ……….. ‘pathetic science’ is mirrored in them. But they say prostitution is one of the oldest in human hisotry.
Layne Blanchard says:
January 18, 2011 at 9:09 pm
In your dreams baby …………..
and boys, I ain’t reading that huge earth shattering humour that had me cracking up laughin’ with tears down my face one weekend with the commentary ……………….
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/04/environmentalist-marries-gaia-in-e-ceremony/
Really? Really? This article got funded and published at the University Level?
Snow and ice cover in the NH trends quite nicely with the AO. There is correlation as well as well-researched mechanism. This article is such a bad attempt at describing climate change, I wouldn’t give it a passing middle school grade. Since no attempt was made to discuss this well-known non-AGW connection, I would venture to say that if they reported ants marching in a row, their cause and effect WAG would be related to AGW.
In 2005, scientists at Caltech/New Jersey Institute of Technology calculated that Earth’s albedo had increased from 2001. (See Science, May 28, 2005). Another article, which I can’t find now, claimed that lunar observations showed albedo rising from 1999. Help!
This graphic is very disappointing. Is there nowhere to escape the pornogrification of our culture? Despite the many excellent and though-provoking articles, I will no longer be able to refer people to this site if this is the new standard here. Please reconsider.
“People sometimes criticize models for being too sensitive to climate perturbations” Flanner said. “With respect to cryospheric changes, however, observations suggest the models are a bit sluggish.”
Good grief, you can’t go building actual observed, tested forcing factors into the models! If you did it for one forcing, you’d have to do it for all of them (fig 6 onwards). Besides sullying our model’s elegant, complex functionality with dirty old reality, that would obviously throw the painstakingly hindcast temperate curve all out of whack and cast doubt on CO2 being the central driver of climate change. Since we all know it is, we have to tailor the forcings in the models to reflect this fact and demonstrate that CO2 is the most important driver of climate change. Then equilibrium would transient climate response and catastrophic CO2 emmissions therefore inertia lagged thermal forcing 2.7 0.4 3.14259… Syntax error on Line 15..
The implication is that Earth’s climate may be more sensitive to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other perturbations than models predict.
Just insert this ‘worse than we thought’ type statement into the conclusions section of your paper and you will be awarded with a press release and some increase in funding.
Mother Earth must belong to the Judeo-Christian arm of the Church of Gobal Warming, because the iceberg looks circumcised to me.
I’ll be the mom here and give you a scolding–I’m disappointed to see that kind of image on this site. Be set apart, don’t lose that intelligent edge.
I actually scrolled back to the top of the post to see the author thinking it must be a guest post and saw Anthony’s name. Very,very disappointed.
Mary
@John Kehr you also should include the cooling of the transpiration of water from plants that would otherwise just runoff and head off to the ocean. The latent heat of evaporation is non-trivial in foliated areas. It is part of what gives the UHI its punch. The rain goes into the sewer and out to sea.
Karl Hren says:
January 19, 2011 at 6:13 am
This graphic is very disappointing. Is there nowhere to escape the pornogrification of our culture? Despite the many excellent and though-provoking articles, I will no longer be able to refer people to this site if this is the new standard here. Please reconsider.
——————————
It’s an iceberg.
It’s your mind that made it pornographic.
Don’t blame this site because you’ve got a vivid imagination.
That’s hilarious. Do it again.
Me thinks the good folks at U of M Engineering should turn their attentions to the smack-you-directly-in-the-face problems at home.
Detroit is bankrupt and in functional collapse, with other Michigan cities teetering on the brink. The State of Michigan has huge looming deficits and total debt combined with a rapidly shrinking tax base, as both citizens and businesses flee in droves. Yet these supposedly intelligent holders of advanced degrees waste precious capital on chimera and fevered fears of the future, while their present day house is burning down around their Globally Warming ears!
Nero could take fiddling lessons from these empire-in-collapse fools!