Image Credit: Cryosphere Today – University of Illinois – Polar Research Group
By WUWT Regular Just The Facts
Global Sea Ice Area, shown above, has remained quite average this year. However, this is not due to a recovery in Northern Sea Ice Area;
or Arctic Sea Ice Extent;
which are both still trending below average. Rather Global Sea Ice Area appears to be average due to the fact that Antarctic Sea Ice is trending well above average;
having been above average for much of the last two years:
It is difficult to draw any concrete conclusions from this, as we only have a 34.5 years of satellite sea ice measurements;
on an approximately 4,540,000,000 year old planet. However, there are some things that we can infer, for example in this Change in Maximum, Mean and Minimum Sea Ice Extent graph;
there is a large decline around minimum, with a much smaller decline around maximum. The reasons for the large decline around minimum according to Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University are as follows:
“The average thickness of the pack ice has fallen by roughly half since the 1970s, probably for two main reasons. One is a rise in sea temperatures: in the summer of 2007 coastal parts of the Arctic Ocean measured 7°C—bracingly swimmable. The other was a prolonged eastward shift in the early 1990s in the Arctic’s prevailing winds, known as the Arctic Oscillation. This moved a lot of ice from the Beaufort Gyre, a revolving current in the western Arctic, to the ocean’s other main current, the Transpolar Drift Stream, which runs down the side of Siberia. A lot of thick, multi-year ice was flushed into the Atlantic and has not been replaced.” The Economist
There is ample evidence to support influence of Atmospheric Oscillations on sea ice, however it is that “summer of 2007 coastal parts of the Arctic Ocean measured 7°C—bracingly swimmable” that jumps out at me, because of this current Northern Hemisphere Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly map:
which shows large coastal temperature anomalies in the Arctic. Does anyone know why is it so warm along the Arctic coasts? Per the large anomaly in the Western Hudson Bay, is that a sensor failure or is there another cause? And what’s going on along the coast of Russia along the Kola Peninsula and near the White Sea? If you look at these satellite images;
that bright blue area really doesn’t look natural. Kola Bay, which is to the West of the bright blue area, is “Contaminated with Hydrocarbons”;
Kola Bay of the Barents Sea is seriously polluted with oil products. That has been demonstrated by satellite monitoring of coastal areas of the Kola Peninsula and the Kola and Kandalaksha Bays areas, both of which are passageways for oil product transportation and in which near-shore zone facilities for hydrocarbon reloading, transportation and storage are located. According to the satellite-based monitoring data from the second half of 2011, oil slicks were detected on 60% of images of the Kola Bay. Spill-International.com
and a couple years ago in:
Kandalaksha Bay in Russia’s far northern Kola Peninsula, some 400,000 square meters of the coast and 200,000 square meters of the bay’s basin area had been polluted with oil products as a result of the May 7, 2011 accident – including a range of islands that are part of a local nature reserve. The oil slick spreading from Belomorskaya (or White Sea) oil bulk plant, a coastal facility in the town of Kandalaksha in Murmansk Region, was threatening hundreds of protected wild species inhabiting the Kandalaksha National Park, only a kilometer and a half away. Belonna.org
Does anyone know what the cause of the current bright blue area off of the Kola Peninsula is? Has anyone seen any studies on the potential impact of anthropogenic effluent, waste heat and oil slicks on Arctic Sea Ice?
To see more information on sea ice please visit the WUWT Sea Ice Reference Page.
Manfred says:
August 2, 2013 at 3:16 pm
I would not call the opinion that sea ice may disappear after 2015 “farfetched”
Wadhams quote,
“It could even be this year or next year but not later than 2015 there won’t be any ice in the Arctic in the summer,” he said, pulling out a battered laptop to show a diagram explaining his calculations, which he calls “the Arctic death spiral”.
Source:-http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/4084c8ee-fa36-11e2-98e0-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2aqAxFmce
Not ‘After’ 2015 but ‘No Later’.
Nick Stokes says:
August 2, 2013 at 3:03 pm
The movie is simply an animation of direct satellite SST measurements. That’s real data.
The Danish computation is a reanalysis, with modelling. But more importantly, it is of air temperature, not SST. It’s true that SST is used as a proxy for air temp over open water, but not over ice.
—————————————–
The movie “analysis uses in situ and satellite SST’s plus SST’s simulated by sea-ice cover.”
That’s NOT “real data”.
And I doubt there is ANY real satellite SST data for most of 80 deg North as that water is still mostly covered under ice.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/data.noaa.oisst.v2.html
The Danish data is described as follows: much more real data and “MUCH BETTER”
“An NWP analysis is based on vastly more information than available from any
single observing system. Data from ground, aircraft, bouys, ship, satellites,
radiosondes, etc. are all combined to adjust the first guess field. As a
consequence the quality of an analysis is much better than what can be obtained
from gridding, or treating in other ways, data from a single or a few observing
systems.”
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/documentation/arctic_mean_temp_data_explanation_newest.pdf
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
August 2, 2013 at 11:32 am
Slightly related post… Here in England we’re getting a great summer. However, when the sun is out it is VERY hot. As soon as the clouds roll in it ‘cools’ down to 24c. ……………………
I’ve noticed this as well. Does seem different from previous hot summers.
Manfred says: August 2, 2013 at 3:16 pm
I would not call the opinion that sea ice may disappear after 2015 “farfetched”
I have no confidence in the PIOMAS model, i.e.:
PIOMAS uses an erroneous data set, weights heavily when observations didn’t fit the model and then “nudges” the output. Sea Ice Area and Extent are the most accurate Sea Ice measurements we have and far as I can see, neither show indications of impending Arctic Sea Ice disappearance. Arctic Sea Ice disappearance within the next several years is farfetched.
Any explanation for Cryosphere Today’s bizarre inverted mislabelling of the data points on the ‘Current Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area’ graph? The current value is almost always overlaid by the lower mean value, making it unreadable.
Several emails have gone unaswered leading to dark thoughts of conspiracy to obscure.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/seaice-recent-antarctic.gif?w=640&h=480
I think that one needs to remember that any flow of warmer water to the poles is a global cooling mechanism.
To me its looking more and more like we are about to take a plunge in global temperatures..
Time will tell.
Let’s hope to heck that its not too fast or too deep !
Its certainly going to be fun watching all the huffing and puffing in AGW circles if we do start cooling down. 🙂
David Schofield says:
August 2, 2013 at 5:08 pm
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
August 2, 2013 at 11:32 am
Slightly related post… Here in England we’re getting a great summer. However, when the sun is out it is VERY hot. As soon as the clouds roll in it ‘cools’ down to 24c. ……………………
I’ve noticed this as well. Does seem different from previous hot summers.
So what ‘Previous hot summers’ are you talking about? we have not had any for years,please don’t confuse warm high humidity with ‘Hot’.
Manfred says: August 2, 2013 at 5:07 pm
‘The movie “analysis uses in situ and satellite SST’s plus SST’s simulated by sea-ice cover.”
That’s NOT “real data”.
And I doubt there is ANY real satellite SST data for most of 80 deg North as that water is still mostly covered under ice.’
In Arctic regions the data is mostly from satellite. The satellites see the ice and assign a temperature of -1.8°C, which is the temperature of sea-water in contact with ice. That’s what “simulated by sea-ice cover” means.
But you haven’t dealt with the main issue. The reason for any disagreement is that they are measuring different things. Sea temp vs air temp.
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
August 2, 2013 at 11:32 am
Here in England we’re getting a great summer. However, when the sun is out it is VERY hot. As soon as the clouds roll in it ‘cools’ down to 24c. I’m 54 years of age, and seen many summers come and go, but I don’t think I’ve ever experienced the change in temperature between cloudless and cloudy skies as much as this year. We have cleaner air now, of course, and maybe that’s why. … – apart from cleaner air (allowing sun’s radiation straight through)?
Interesting observation. Here in Perth, we have the cleanest air of any large city and also experience much higher temperatures (10C+) on sunny summer days. We also experience brilliant near horizontal sunshine after dawn and before dusk due to the very low levels of air pollution and aerosol seeded low level clouds, which is a major driving hazard. Have you noticed a similar thing in England?
BTW, while I buy Svensmark’s explanation of the polar seesaw, I think the current NH SH sea ice divergence is primarily due to reduced NH aerosols and black carbon, especially after the 1998 Russian Financial Crisis, which shut down much of the highly polluting Russian industry in the north.
Manfred, I would not put much faith in a modeled decline this summer given the storm last year which piled up the ice. The PIOMAS model will underestimate the vollume of that ice while overestimating the volume of the seasonal ice. That why the peak ice curves (apr, mar, may) have leveled off while the late summer curves have dropped. The model is increasingly overestimating spring ice and underestimating fall ice.
Popular science says that the blue area is phytoplankton. I’m sure they are the best to know. Right?
dang forgot the link. sorry. If MODS want to join this with last post I’d be happy.
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/big-pic-phytoplankton-bloom-north-atlantic-cold
Nick Stokes says:
August 2, 2013 at 5:43 pm
In Arctic regions the data is mostly from satellite. The satellites see the ice and assign a temperature of -1.8°C, which is the temperature of sea-water in contact with ice. That’s what “simulated by sea-ice cover” means.
But you haven’t dealt with the main issue. The reason for any disagreement is that they are measuring different things. Sea temp vs air temp.
———————————-
I did not address that point because I would agree in part.
Only in part, because taking your explanation, an SST of -1.8°C anywhere under ice would require an anamoly of zero and not positive in these regions.
So the other part of the explanation appears to be the color code used in the NCEP plot which uses yellow for [0, 1[ degrees, thus misleading the observer to think most of the basin has a positive SST anamoly while it is mostly zero.
Manfred says:August 2, 2013 at 6:30 pm
“Only in part, because taking your explanation, an SST of -1.8°C anywhere under ice would require an anamoly of zero and not positive in these regions.”
And so it is, in the SST animation. It shows ice as a region of uniform color, which is zero. It’s particularly clear in the refreeze (October), where you see a front of “zero anmaly” advancing.
We will have to watch as the ice melts over the next 45 days.
The trends right now indicate a substantial recovery this year, as does the temperature trends. July is looking to be a cold month overall and a cold month in most of the Arctic.
The northwest passage as an example looks to remain closed this year (and any big ship that Al Gore parked off of Baffin Island waiting for an opening, is going to be sailing back home in a southerly direction – time Is money for any transport ship and lots will be wasted waiting for opening in Arctic ice). But ship captains are not as dumb as the pro-warmers so no ship is now there – only small boats who have bought the global warming theory/scam/belief system).
“The milky blue color suggests the presence of coccolithophores, a microscopic plankton plated with white calcium carbonate, which when viewed through ocean water appears bright blue.”
http://e360.yale.edu/slideshow/nasa_images_of_2011/44/5/
So the beautiful blue is just the natural hue of the arctic water.
The whole idea of measuring Arctic sea ice based on something like 15% or even 30% within a geographic area. It is too easily effected by other causes like wind rather then temperature.
It’s sad the state of climate science.
Hmmmn. Good comments above.
Working on a series of items for Anthony to post here as “Sea Ice 101” pages to calculate (not guess, nor extrapolate, nor exaggerate) what the total heat balance of the Arctic and Antarctic Ocean waters will be with and without sea ice. Goal is have a credible net heat balance for every hour, for every day-of-year, at every latitude for realistic conditions of cloud cover, air temperature, water temperature, wind speed (calm, low, high winds), and solar elevation angle.
Finished some Sea Ice area/latitude calc’s today from today’s Sea Ice Page that are relevant, and invite your comments, criticisms, and corrections.
We have been saturated with the CAGW mantra that
So, it is natural to ask: Is this so-called Arctic amplification (a positive feedback spiral always towards more heat) actually correct? And, if it actually present, how big it it, when does it occur, and where (at what latitudes) does it occur? I have never seen any of these questions answered.
First, two rhetorical questions:
1) Would the CAGW community “notice” if the entire Ross Ice shelf melted this afternoon? That’s a lot of ice: The Ross shelf has total area of (472 Kkm2 (472,000 km^2). Notice, however, since it’s centered at about 82 south latitude, that’s only a projected area of 66 Kkm2.
2) Would the CAGW community “complain to their press corpse” if the entire Ronne-Filchner Ice Shelf melted? It’s smaller than the Ross at “only” 422 Kkm2, but is further from the pole at about 78 south. Projected area into the sun at the equinox? Only 88 Kkm2.
3) The rest of “permanent” Antarctic Ice Shelves total about 349 Kkm2, but are up near the coast of Antarctica at 71 south latitude. (Total projected area = 114 Kkm2.)
Background Information About Sea Ice Geography:
Where the sea ice is now (in today’s world) and how much sea ice there is at those locations.
At time of minimum Arctic Sea Ice extents always occurs at mid-September near the Fall Equinox. During this same two-week period, Antarctic Sea Ice is at its maximum. During the spring equinox, Arctic Sea Ice is at its maximum, and Antarctic Sea Ice extents are at their minimum.
Also, it is only at the fall and spring equinoxes that the sun’s rays fall perpendicular to the polar axis. Thus, it is only on this day of the year that there is 12 hours sunshine, and 12 hours of darkness, at EVERY latitude from the north pole to the south pole. (At any other day-of-year, you have to account for the earth’s ever-varying tilt of 23.5 degrees, but for right now, we can simplify things by noting the earth is perpendicular to the sun’s rays.)
Arctic sea ice is roughly centered around the north pole, covering all areas between the pole and the edge of ice like a “beanie” cap on the top of a sphere with a 6371 km radius. From spherical geometry, you can calculate the area of any cap if you specify the latitude. If you know the area of sea ice, you can calculate the latitude of the edge of the sea ice.
Antarctica Sea Ice geography is a bit trickier since the Antarctic Sea Ice surrounds an irregular land mass: but the same principle applies: Get the area of the land mass (14,000 Kkm2), then add the area of the sea ice around that land mass, then calculate the edge of total area. (This only works because essentially no part of the Antarctic continent ever melts. )
Reality check: Does the total of Antarctic land ice plus the permanent ice shelves plus the seasonal Antarctic Sea Ice really look like a “cap” centered around the South Pole? Yes.
Interestingly, I have been unable from any source to determine if the “standard” 14,000 Kkm2 “land area” for the Antarctic includes the 1,243 Kkm2 permanent ice shelves listed above. The NSIDC explicitly has stated that they do NOT include these permanent ice shelves in their calculated “Sea Ice Extents” for the Antarctic. However, no source, including National Geographic, knows whether the 14,000 Kkm2 continent includes or excludes the ice shelves. (For the present, I have conservatively assumed that the 14,000 Kkm2 does include the major ice shelves.)
The Arctic Sea Ice Extents include the Arctic Ocean of course, but also the ice-covered parts of the Bering Sea, the Greenland Straits, the Hudson Bay, Norwegian Sea, Chuckio Sea, and Denmark Strait. However, since all of these areas melt completely every year, they are irrelevant towards any calculation or concern about minimum Arctic Sea Ice extents.
Current Minimum Arctic Sea Ice Conditions.
Average minimum Arctic sea ice extent used to be 7,000 Kkm2 using 1970-1980 satellite-observed averages, but recent Arctic sea ice minimums range average about 4,000 Kkm2.
2012 broke a record set in 2007 with a minimum Arctic sea ice extent of 3,500 Kkm2.
4,000 Kkm2 sea ice area => 79.8 North Latitude of the sea ice edge.
3,000 Kkm2 sea ice area => 81.2 Lat.
2,000 Kkm2 sea ice area => 82.8 Lat.
1,000 Kkm2 sea ice area => 84.9 Lat.
In round numbers:
4000 => 80 North
3000 => 81 North
2000 => 83 North
1000 => 85 North.
No other numbers matter: there is NO Arctic Sea Ice anywhere else in the world.
By the way, the MOST the Arctic can melt is today’s minimum of 4,000 Kkm2. After this sea ice is melted in any given year, there can be no further “arctic amplification” as CAGW theory defines it, because there is simply no more Arctic sea ice available to melt. (This is NOT the case in the Antarctic by the way, since the Antarctic sea ice can continue expanding until it hits Hawaii.)
But remember, CAGW theory holds that “Sea Ice Area => Reflection of solar energy => Cooling => Good.”
Therefore, we must next calculate the AREA of this Arctic Sea Ice that can reflect the sun’s rays. This can be found by finding the latitude of the middle of each area of sea ice, then projecting that area (use the cos of latitude) into “space”. For the moment we will ignore – as the CAGW community always seems to do – the effect of the the earth’s rotation on exposure to the sun, the air mass at the latitude in question, the optisal properties of the air at that latitude at that time of year, clouds, diffuse solar radiation, and everything else that really matters. Those will come later.
From 4,000 Kkm2 => 79.8 was the original ice edge, center of lost 1000 Kkm2 => 80.5 Lat, projected area at 80.5 Lat = 165 Kkm2
Hmmn. Only 165 Kkm2 newly exposed ocean area if we melt 1000 Kkm2 of sea ice in September?
Let’s keep looking.
From 3,000 Kkm2 => 81.2 was the original ice edge, center of the lost 1000 Kkm2 => 82.0 Lat, projected new ocean area at 82.0 Lat = 139 Kkm2.
Even less area when we melt 1000 Kkm2 of sea ice this time.
What if we melt another 1000 Kkm2, going from 2000 to 1000 Kkm2 Arctic Sea Ice?
From 2,000 Kkm2 => 82.8 was the original ice edge, center of melted ice => 83.9 Lat, projected new ocean area at 83.9 Lat = 107 Kkm2.
(This is, by the way, about the area of Cuba on Hansen’s NASA-GISS-favored Mercator projection map of the Arctic Ocean and its environment.)
Let us melt the final 1000 Kkm2, leaving no sea ice at all in mid-September.
From 1,000 Kkm2 => 84.9 was the original ice edge, weighed average area of 500Kkm2 sea ice will be the center of melted ice => 86.4 Lat.
Projected area of 1000 Kkm2 of sea ice at Lat 86.4 = 63 Kkm^2. An exposed Arctic Ocean area about the size of Sri Lanka.
So, does the world’s (CAGW community) every-increasing concern about (the admittedly decreasing) Arctic Sea Ice extents really matter in today’s world?
But it’s even worse than you think; wait until you see what happens when you project the ever-increasing Antarctic Sea Ice areas.
I look forward to updates.
In particular what effect a 1 sqkm increase in SH sea ice has compared to a 1 sq km decrease in NH sea ice. I estimate the cooling effect of the former is substantially greater than the warming effect of the latter, but I have never seen it quantified.
From above, I showed that the combined newly exposed Arctic Ocean area – if you suddenly melted 4,000,000 square kilometers of current Arctic Sea Ice in mid-September at its yearly minimum – is only 474,000 square kilometers of water.
And this ignores – as the CAGW community always seems to do – the effect of the earth’s rotation on exposure to the sun’s rays, the air mass at each latitude in question, the optical properties of the air at that latitude at that time of year, clouds, diffuse solar radiation, and everything else that really matters. Every one of these factors reduces the heat transfer from the sun into the Arctic Water. Add in increased evaporation heat loss of each square meter of the “new” ocean water, increased long wave radiation losses from the newly exposed upper water surface of the upper ocean mass, and greater probability of increased “clean” snow and ice deposition on land from the newly evaporated ocean water -> The more Arctic Sea Ice that melts under today’s conditions -> The cooler the Arctic Ocean will become.
Troubling, isn’t it?
Philip Bradley says:
August 2, 2013 at 10:57 pm
So let’s quantify what ANY increase in Antarctic Sea Ice means, but in particular let’s see what two specific measurable increases mean to our (very simplified!!) “model” that only calculates “newly exposed area of ocean to the sun’s rays.” This time, instead of “melting sea ice” to “expose ocean water to the sun” our calc’s will find out much more sea ice is reflecting the sun’s energy with each change. Again, we will look at ONLY exposed sea ice area – there are other factors, but notice that every square km of “new” Antarctic Sea Ice is “closer to the equator” than what was original present. Every square km of “new” ice that is discussed below IS ACTUALLY and ALREADY REFLECTING ENERGY this year, this month, today, tomorrow, and the day after – in this section of Sea Ice 101 we are not “imagining” melting sea ice in some indefinite future: the changes have already happened and are cooling the world now.
In today’s world, the “average” minimum Antarctic sea ice extents is “only” 1,900 Kkm2. But, this Antarctic Sea Ice minimum BEGINS at the north coast of our idealized Antarctic continent of 14,000 Kkm2.
Notice that this “idealized” Antarctic total MINIMUM area of 15,900 Kkm2 (14,000 land ice + 1,900 Kkm2 “average” minimum sea ice) is already greater than the MAXIMUM Arctic Sea area of 14,000 Kkm2. On Hansen’s NASA-GISS Mercator projection, the “edge” of the Antarctic Sea Ice BEGINS at Lat 70 South and expands away from the pole: roughly equal to a cap from the north pole down to the north coast of Alaska, and all the way around through Siberia to the middle of Greenland and through the Canadian islands and back to Alaska’s north coast. And this is at ‘average” conditions.
Look at his map again, but consider what happens at today’s world’s “typical” maximum “average” Antarctic Sea Ice maximum extents of 18,000 Kkm2. Total area of Antarctic sea ice = 14,000 land ice + 18,000 sea ice = 32,000 Kkm2. Now run an arc from the bottom of Alaska, across Canada and through the southern tip of Greenland, below Norway, across Sweden, below Finland, through half of Russia, and back to the southern coast of Alaska. This area between Lat 70 South and 61 South is where the “Antarctic Sea Ice” plays every year.
But the CAGW community needs to ignore it as it voraciously expands each year, each year reflecting more and more solar energy.
By the way, it is also irritating to see so much attention being paid the Arctic Sea Ice Extents 915% ice coverage or more) … but almost NONE (no graphs or charts or full-year data) of the much-more important antarctic Sea ice Extents. Even on WUWT’s Sea Ice page, there is only a single chart of the previous 2-years of Antarctic Sea Ice Area – but at least the full year’s data is visible. There is only a six months chart of the Antarctic Sea Ice Extents graph.
I mentioned that the ‘average” Antarctic Sea Ice minimum was 1,900 Kkm2, forming a northern edge around our idealized continent of 14,000 Kkm2 at 69.7 South Lat.
But in 2012, the actual Antarctic Sea Ice minimum was more than this: 2,100 Kkm2, moving that sea ice edge at the start of the 2012-2013 freezing season even further north to Lat 69.5. Not a big change? The projected area of this little bit of ice in the Antarctic was over 70 Kkm2 of “new” sea ice exposed to the sun the entire freezing season. This 70 Kkm2 increase at Lat 69.5 was more than the entire “potential” loss of 1,000 Kkm2 of the “projected” area of the loss of ALL Arctic Sea ice between 85 north latitude and the pole.
But reality in the Antarctic is even worse than this.
In 2013, the actual minimum Antarctic Sea Ice Extents was 2,500 Kkm2, not 1,900 Kkm2 average sea ice minimum. This brought the northern edge of the Antarctic Sea ice to 69.3 Latitude. Projected increase in the actual “new” area exposed to the sun this year? 210 Kkm2. About equal to the projected area of 2000 Kkm2 of “potentially melted” Arctic sea ice.
But reality in the Antarctic is even worse than this.
Today, 02 August 2013, the actual area of Antarctic Sea Ice is 1,041 Kkm2 MORE than the year-to-year average of 13,836 Kkm2 at this date. The total of 14,877 Kkm2 of antarctic sea ice is (today) at Lat 62.5 South. Center of today’s “actual” extra sea ice? Lat 62.7.
Projected area into the sun of this real-life, actually present “new” Antarctic Sea Ice that NO ONE expected nor predicted anywhere in ANY CAGW-theory?
477 Kkm2.
More than the entire area of the Ross Ice Shelf.
More than the entire area of the Ronne-Filchner Ice Shelf.
More than the entire area of all of the other Antarctic Ice Shelves put together.
And nobody has noticed.
Nobody has issued a press release.
Nobody has published ANY journal article explaining what might happen if we don’t get back to normal Sea ice Extents in the Antarctic.
Nobody has called for urgent new spending on Sea Ice Control Measures.
I’ve run the numbers on the impact on Albedo of the Arctic sea ice melting out in the late summer and it is really so small, close to Zero, that it will have no impact.
First of all, there is the angle of the Sun at the time of the year when the ice melts out. We are talking late August and September here when the solar angle falls to a very low number. At about 15 degrees, the Albedo of open water starts to increase at an exponential rate so that it is no different than sea ice below 8 degrees or so, ie late August, September. It sets on September 25th or so at the North Pole for six months so there is no Albedo impact from late August till late March.
Secondly, the Arctic is a very small portion of the total Earth surface, and it receives a very small portion of the total solar budget. Even if it changes, it will just be a close to Zero impact on the total Earth solar budget.
Third, cloud cover. The Arctic is more than 65% cloud covered all year. As the ice melts, there is strong evidence the cloud cover rate actually increases offsetting most of the open water Albedo decline. In any event, cloud cover is a large fraction of the Arctic’s Albedo and it will stay high regardless of a change in sea ice cover.
The impact is larger (than Zero) if the ice starts melting out at a greater rate in let’s say June and early July when the Sun is higher and shining for 24 hours per day. But even today, its early August and the entire Arctic Ocean basin is one big white spot with very high Albedo (including the cloud cover).
The sea ice Albedo argument of the warmers is way over-blown. If you crunch the numbers, you can’t get an amount worth talking about. (Now if you are talking sea ice down to 65N as in the ice ages, then you start to get big numbers. But climate science goes the other way on calculating these numbers because they want to keep the CO2 impact higher).
RACookPE1978, excellent analysis.
I’m a bit surprised the alarmists have not jumped on the sea ice changes to explain the flat temperatures. Clearly, based on the data RACookPE1978 presented, the albedo of the planet has increased over the last decade. With less energy available the global temperature would surely be affected.
I suppose they avoid this because otherwise it would point out their hypocrisy in focusing on the Arctic for the last 10-15 years.
“The sea ice Albedo argument of the warmers is way over-blown. If you crunch the numbers, you can’t get an amount worth talking about. (Now if you are talking sea ice down to 65N as in the ice ages, then you start to get big numbers. But climate science goes the other way on calculating these numbers because they want to keep the CO2 impact higher).”
Bill, there’s also the fact that they want to (inappropriately) apply glacial to interglacial “sensitivity” calculations to the modern climate. Since the CO2 rose a particular amount and there was a particular temperature rise in the paleo data, they assume that the same feedbacks are in play today. IOW the albedo increases that took place with the melting of the great continental ice sheets will be matched by the melting of a few glaciers and some Arctic ice (oops, let’s not worry about the Antarctic). The goal is to maintain sensitivity at the high end of the 2-5C range estimated from the paleo data.
Here’s a nice stub from the stubmasters at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice-albedo_feedback with a helpful link to “declining Arctic sea ice” (Antarctic anyone?).