Sea Ice News Volume 3 number 13 – 2012 Arctic sea ice minimum reached, it's all gain from here

W. Falicoff says:
September 20, 2012 at 5:44 pm (replying to)
” David L. Hagen says:
September 19, 2012 at 10:38 am
Contrast: Antarctic Ice Area Sets Another Record – NSIDC Is Silent
Posted on September 16, 2012
Day 258 ice area in Antarctica is the highest ever for the date, and the fifth highest daily value on record.
Antarctic ice area is more than one million km^2 larger than the highest value ever recorded in the Arctic. By definition, excess ice has more impact on the climate than missing ice, because it occurs at lower latitudes where the sun is less oblique. There is no sun at the North Pole now, but lots of sun shining on the excess Antarctic ice at 70S.”
Falicoff’s comments follow)
First I should point our that the average altitude/elevation of the Sun at 70N latitude is approximately the same as at 70S latitude for this time of year, around 20 degrees at noon.
{“Real World Correction: The furthest SOUTHERN Arctic ice edge for today’s 3.4 million km^2 ice extent) corresponds to a latitude just past 81 degrees, with the remainder of the Arctic sea ice well-approximated as a “cap” between 81 north and the pole. The furthest NORTHERN border of the Antarctic ice is, as you admit, about 70 degrees south latitude. Thus, the actual Arctic sea ice is – right now, under real world conditions – at a weighted average latitude of approximately 85 degrees north. As you will see, this makes all of your attempted “corrections” using a comparison with Antarctic conditions at an assumed 70 degrees south latitude comparisons dead wrong.}
Secondly, the reflectance of open water at low solar altitudes even at say 10 degrees is very low even for direct radiation even for calm water (see for example http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281954%29011%3C0283%3AAOWRW%3E2.0.CO%3B2).
{“Real World Correction: Yes, but your gross approximations are not “quite” right. Water absorption increases greatly between 5 degrees incidence angle and 10 degrees, rising from an ice-like near zero at incident angles between 0 and 5 degrees. Between 11:00 am (local solar time) and 13:00 pm (local solar time), at the autumn equinox (today’s date of the summer Arctic sea minimum!), 90% of the sun’s direct energy is reflected from open water at latitude 88 north, approximately 80% is reflected at latitude 87 north, approximately 60% is reflected at latitude 85 north, and right at 50% is reflected at latitude 83 north. Since the sun’s elevation is even lower at ALL other times of the day, and since the sun is below the horizon for the remaining 12 hours of night at every latitude on earth at the equinoxes, there is very, very little solar energy that can be absorbed into the Arctic sea at the time of minimum sea ice extent. Of course, right now in today’s world, all of this area is covered by ice, and so essentially no solar energy is absorbed at all in today’s conditions. What no so-called “sea ice” expert is willing to calculate is just how little ADDITIONAL solar energy could be absorbed in the Arctic if the sea ice were to suddenly melt. That calculation doesn’t fit the CAGW agenda.)
Further, since there is essentially NO Arctic sea ice south of 82 degrees north latitude right now, there is NO possibility of increased energy absorption of solar energy under today’s real world condition. All Arctic sea ice area between 80 north and the equator is already exposed to all of the solar radiation it can get even if ALL of the remaining Arctic sea ice between 82 north and the pole were to melt. In contrast, if this remaining ice did melt for some reason, the increased evaporation of the newly exposed Arctic water would greatly COOL the Arctic air. Granted, IF there were Arctic ice between 80 north latitude and, say, 60 north latitude, melting this sea ice “could” increase heat absorption because of increased water albedo at the higher solar incidence angles. To repeat – there is no such sea ice between 80 north and the equator. Therefore, under NO circumstances in today’s real world can the Arctic albedo increase due to sea ice melt rates . There can be NO positive Arctic feedback due to melting Arctic sea ice in today’s real world.
Antarctica. Now, once the solar incidence angle rises past 10 degrees, there is a very, very large absorption of solar energy into all open water. Ice, and snow-covered ice at the same angle of incidence, reflects nearly all of the energy at nearly all of its incidence angles. Therefore, in the real world, nearly 95 % of the inbound solar energy is absorbed into open water at latitude 60 degrees south latitude at local solar noon, 83% is absorbed into open water at 70 degrees south latitude at the equinox (today’s date!) at noon, and – if there were water at 80 degrees south latitude, 65% would be absorbed. But there is no open water at these southern latitude. Only ice and snow-covered ground. And a few mountain tops. (Note that I excluded the Greenland mountains between 80 north and 83 north from a SEA ICE discussion. If northern Greenland were melting in vast areas, we would discuss that area change.
Therefore, any CHANGE in the Antarctic ice “borders” between open water and sea ice between latitudes 70 south and latitude 60 south IS significant in determining the net world albedo!}
In the case of diffuse radiation, which dominates on non clear days, the reflectance as a function of solar elevation is nearly constant.
{“Real World Correction: In cloudy days, nearly 80 percent of the potential solar energy is reflected by the clouds, and therefore, there is still no effective absorption of solar energy at high latitudes past 82 north. (Or 82 south for that matter. However as noted above, the Antarctic continent IS covered by ice and snow all year to several thousands of meters thickness, and thus there is NO Antarctic “sea ice” between 80 south and the south pole that could change the Antarctic’s albedo under diffuse radiation or cloudy days or direct (clear) radiation conditions.}
Thirdly, the area of open water in the Arctic now is approximately 4 million square kilometers below the 1979 to 2000 average. This is 4 times the 1 million square kilometers referred to above.
{“Real World Correction: As noted above, this is false. You are comparing an area change at the north latitude where there is no change in net albedo between sea ice and open ocean, to an area change in the southern ocean where there IS a significant change in albedo between sea ice and open ocean. However, since the net sea ice is approxiamtely the same – NOT the differenec you claim – the effect is even more significant}.
Fourthly, the fact remains that sea ice extent around Antarctica goes to 0 during the summer months and has done so for a very long time (as opposed to the sea ice in the Arctic during the Summer/Fall). So the increase in ice extent at this time of the year has little impact on the Earth’s heat balance compared to the excess heat that is absorbed in the Summer/Fall in the Arctic with its record low ice extent (which has happened in just a few decades).
{“Real World Correction: We have just demonstrated your fourth claim is false.
I would like to see the moderator of this site provide some editorial “balance” on the site concerning the “demise” of the Arctic sea ice, which is clearly going to have a major impact on the heat balance on this planet.
[Reply: WUWT moderates with a light touch. Unless a comment violates site Policy, it is approved. Others can then correct facts and misconceptions as they see fit. Thus is the truth winnowed out. — mod.]