From the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology: Climate changes faster in the Arctic than anywhere else on Earth, a phenomenon that is often explained by retreating snow and ice leading to more solar surface warming (positive ice-albedo-effect).
In a new study in Nature Geoscience the scientists Felix Pithan and Dr. Thorsten Mauritsen from the department “The Atmosphere in the Earth System” at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology show that this effect is only secondary. Instead, the main cause of the high Arctic climate sensitivity is a weaker temperature feedback, due to 1) the low temperatures that prevail and 2) the increasing temperatures with height trapping warming to remain near the surface. For these reasons, the Arctic warms more in a global warming due to a forcing from e.g. CO2 than other regions.
Some commentary sheds further light on this.
NoTricksZone points out that the German Newspaper, Spiegel, writes:
To balance out the radiation budget at an ambient temperature of 30°C, an increase of 0.16° is enough. However at minus 30°C, an increase of 0.31 °C would be needed, i.e. almost double, which gives Pithan und Mauritsen cause for thought. According to their calculations the lower start temperature in the Arctic is an important reason for the more rapid temperature increase in the Arctic compared to the tropics.”
They found that the surface albedo feedback is only the second main contributor to Arctic amplification, and that other contributions are substantially smaller or even oppose Arctic amplification.
This casts many of the assumptions made in earlier climate models deep into doubt. It’s back to the drawing board (again) for the modelers.
– See more at: http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.K8HUQkuu.dpuf
The paper:
Arctic amplification dominated by temperature feedbacks in contemporary climate models
Felix Pithan & Thorsten Mauritsen
Nature Geoscience (2014) doi:10.1038/ngeo2071 Received 25 November 2013 Accepted19 December 2013Published online 02 February 2014
Abstract:
Climate change is amplified in the Arctic region. Arctic amplification has been found in past warm1 and glacial2 periods, as well as in historical observations3, 4 and climate model experiments5, 6. Feedback effects associated with temperature, water vapour and clouds have been suggested to contribute to amplified warming in the Arctic, but the surface albedo feedback—the increase in surface absorption of solar radiation when snow and ice retreat—is often cited as the main contributor7, 8, 9, 10. However, Arctic amplification is also found in models without changes in snow and ice cover11, 12. Here we analyse climate model simulations from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 archive to quantify the contributions of the various feedbacks. We find that in the simulations, the largest contribution to Arctic amplification comes from a temperature feedbacks: as the surface warms, more energy is radiated back to space in low latitudes, compared with the Arctic. This effect can be attributed to both the different vertical structure of the warming in high and low latitudes, and a smaller increase in emitted blackbody radiation per unit warming at colder temperatures. We find that the surface albedo feedback is the second main contributor to Arctic amplification and that other contributions are substantially smaller or even oppose Arctic amplification.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2071.html
Sorry, K/1 is always LESS than Y/X.
Stephan-boltzman equation shows that energy varies with the 4th power of temperature, so of course with a given energy increase, a lower temperature starting point will result in a higher temperature delta than a higher temp starting point. I would have thought the models already incorporated that. Surprising.
Here is an earlier stab at this issue.
I just don’t get the co2 forcing.
If i have a room with a source of heat set at say 65 degrees, I add another source of heat set at 65 degrees, I am guessing the room stays at 65 degrees no matter how many heaters i add set at 65 degrees,
So co2 absorbs longwave radiation from the ground and supposedly reflects back ( is this possible 2nd rule of TD etc ) if the same upward energy is the same as the downward how is this a forcing,
My science stopped at 14 but the only way it seems to me to get a forcing would be to use a thermal heat pump, say two rooms – the same temp, how do i increase the heat of one room with heat from the other – I would imagine i would have to use a thermal heat pump.
How about puting the weather stations back in artic isles that would help . Also the ice melts from under side because of the current speed
Or in short and not surprisingly , its all more complicated than with though and we are still ‘guessing ‘ what does what , how and by what degree .
Given despite massive amounts of computing power throw at it and with many , many years of practice ,you still cannot make a weather prediction more than 72 hours ahead worth a dam. Why should be be that other ‘forecasts’ are any better
What Arctic warming?
According to GISS, Arctic temperatures last year were less than in 2000.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/ZonAnn.Ts+dSST.txt
Joe wrote –
“Mods, can we please make people who want to suggest that the earth rotates pole-to-pole just go away?”
If you are going to build a house the most important thing is the foundation and presently there appears to be a visceral hatred to discuss a second surface rotation.
Simple logic, The Earth has a maximum Equatorial speed which diminishes to zero at the North/South polar latitudes hence no rotation. These geographical polar points offer a window into the orbital behavior of the planet and to the fact that All locations turn once to the central Sun,coincident with an orbital period and entirely separate to the planet’s daily rotation.
It is absolutely impossible to discuss the cyclical appearance and disappearance of polar sea ice without the primary dynamic which causes it as a gateway into actually discussing global climate before even considering the next level of inputs.
The polar day/night cycle is a fact just as the daily day/night cycle is a fact and for goodness sake would somebody please come to grips with the fact that the polar day/night cycle and the seasons at lower latitudes requires a second surface rotation to explain it. It won’t register with a carbon dioxide cult or even those who argue against their dictates and is solely for those who wish to escape that small minded,vindictive impasse.
If ice albedo was really a factor, surely Arctic warming would be greatest in summer?
Yet DMI consistently show no summer warming at all.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
William Connolley says:
February 3, 2014 at 10:57 am
> climate models need to be reworked
You seem to have made that up. Its not in the paper.
########################
yup reading is fundamental
#############
Much as I hate to agree with Mr. Connolley, the abstract appears to clearly state that this analysis is from climate model simulations. That is, they analysed the output of the climate models and it is their conclusion that the data from the models indicates this alternative source of polar amplification.
###########
Bonus points for you!
REPLY: it’s an opinion, are you prepared to argue that models should not be reworked, updated and improved? – Anthony
Since 1958.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_1958.png
Ulric Lyons says:
“”””
The dominant warming of the Arctic is from poleward transport of warm sea water during negative AO/NAO episodes … “” …and being the negative AO/NAO phase means it is the wrong sign for [global] warming. “”””
Am I the only one who finds it quite strange that no-one is arguing with Ulric’s hypothesis that runs counter to the accepted dogma? Everyone seems to talk around it whenever he brings it up. What’s up with that? It’s simple enough – evidence points to the opposite of current(pun intended), conventional wisdom. This could have profound effects within (at least Arctic) climate science. Discuss.
At a lecture I attended last year the prof said (I paraphrase) “…. with the large body of papers in ANY field it is now possible to pick your argument and then trawl the library to find peer reviewed support for your conjectures …”
I prefer empirical evidence. How ’bout you?
richard says:
February 3, 2014 at 11:39 am
——————————————————
Co2 doesn’t warm the surface, it inhibits LWR cooling. In your analogy it would be more akin to closing an open window than adding another heater.
Here is something I found some years ago but I can’t track down a follow up. It’s about clouds compensating for loss of ice albedo in the Arctic.
———————-
If CO2 is a factor, why do the ice-core proxies for temperature vary consistently by about twice the tropical proxies for the 800,000+ years before humans started burning carbonaceous fuels? Poor Max Plank, who has voodoo priests such as Pithan and Mauritsen acting in his name.
David says: @ur momisugly February 3, 2014 at 10:59 am
Alex Rawls. Interesting post but wouldn’t the lack of water vapour cause LESS warming near the poles as water vapour is by far the biggest GHG and the relatively small amount of CO2 would not make up for the large drop in water vapour?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually water vapor modifies temperature by making the high temperatures cooler and the low night time temperatures warmer and also makes the average temperature cooler because some of the energy used up in the heat of vaporization. (The temperature does not change as water boils it just evaporates faster as more energy is applied – think tea kettle on a stove)
You can see this in the temperatures for 2013 link (click date 2013 on left) in the Arctic temperature data. When the temperature was above freezing the temperature graph is quite smooth. Below freezing in much lower humidity the temperature swings wildly. (don’t forget the Arctic is an ocean)
> Much as I hate to agree with Mr. Connolley,
Dr. But apart from that, yes, you’re correct. This is an analysis of model simulations. The article makes no claim at all that the models are flawed, all it is doing is analysing the actual causes of a certain affect *in the models*. The suggestion that “climate models need to be reworked” appears to be an interpolation by our host, possibly based on the post at NTZ, which has made a similar error.
See-also http://notrickszone.com/2014/02/03/climate-modelers-flub-again-albedo-not-the-number-one-arctic-amplifier-after-all/#comment-916718
REPLY: Yet, CMIP5 models still don’t match reality. So yes, they need to be reworked on many levels until they can properly predict climate with accuracy. The dialing in Arctic albedo and feedbacks (plus many other things) aren’t quite there yet. If they were, we’d see better agreement in graphs like this one:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png
Unless of course, you’d like to argue that models are “good enough” and need no improvement whatsoever.
-Anthony
It is true that the temperature of equilibrium of a colder body increases more rapidly with a relative increase in forcing. But the warming is not faster, you still need as much energy to increase the temperature.
If the increase in greenhouse gases returns one percent of the infrareds back to the ground, it is a very small amount of energy in the Arctic. There is a very small amount of infrareds in the Arctic because of the same fourth power law that guarantees that colder places will warm more in the long term. The Arctic is also an ocean covered with ice, it might take a lot of time to warm this with one percent of ground emissions of infrareds there. So it is true that the poles should warm the most from a one percent increase in forcings, but they should also warm slower than the tropics.
But if the warming is due to more heat brought there from a change in circulation, than it gets trapped there because the Arctic air emits little infrareds for its temperature(fourth power law).
The polar amplification is compatible with any warming, but a fast warming in the Arctic can only occur with a change in circulation.
That the CMPI simulations aren’t perfect would be agreed by all who work on model development. But that’s not the point here: which is that *this study* provides no evidence for that assertion; its entirely orthogonal to that idea, since its an analysis of model output. I don’t know what you mean by “dialing in Arctic albedo”; that appears to continue your misunderstanding of the paper. The paper isn’t suggesting the models should “dial in” the albedo at all. All its doing is presenting an interpretation of the model results.
REPLY: And you are honing in on a headline, not the body, tough noogies if it upsets you. The fact remains that
1. CMIP Models still have a poor understanding of feedbacks
2. CMIP Models still don’t have a handle on real-world albedo changes
3. CMIPModels aren’t matching reality as measured
Hence, they need to be reworked. That is an opinion shared by many. I’m not going to change the headline simply because you interpret it in your own special way. Now run along and write up your usual smear. – Anthony
William C0nn0lley:
In your post at February 3, 2014 at 1:11 pm you say
Please provide a clarification which would remove the ambiguity in your post.
Are you saying
(a) the models are wrong so their indications that albedo is not the main cause of polar amplification is wrong
OR
(b) the models are wrong because there is no indication of polar amplification.
OR
(c) nature is wrong because it refuses to provide the polar amplification indicated by the models?
If (c) then you need to buy a clue. So, your clarification would be appreciated.
Richard
Arctic sea ice albedo feedback has loooooong been a CAGW religious staple, but is both greatly exaggerated and greatly misunderstood and greatly simplified.
Classic CO2-based Arctic amplification is based on 2 legs: Let’s look at each separately.
Arctic Amplification Assumption 1. Increased CO2 will have a much greater effect in the Arctic than in lower latitudes.
The high Arctic average temperatures are very cold compared to the tropics and mid-temperate zones, therefore there is little water vapor present. But, CO2 is expected to be uniformly mixed worldwide, so ANY increase in CO2 levels worldwide will increase CO2 levels in the Arctic as well. But, since the water vapor is lower in those latitudes, the effect of CO2 will be increased as a proportion.
It is never explained in this reasoning what happens to the “multiplier” effect of greater vapor (more water evaporates due to greater temperatures from CO2) that is essential to the CAGW requirement of doubling CO2’s effect will occur when the amount of water vapor needed to double CO2 forcing is not present.
> honing in on a headline, not the body
Not at all. Later on you include: “This casts many of the assumptions made in earlier climate models deep into doubt. It’s back to the drawing board (again) for the modelers.”
This is as wrong as your headline. As I said, that models can be improved is doubted by none, but what we’re talking about here is this study.
> Please provide a clarification which would remove the ambiguity in your post.
Mmmm, this is difficult. (a) and (b) are wrong, because the study doesn’t talk about errors in the models. (c) is wrong, because the study isn’t really talking about nature very much. I think you’re missing the basic point: this study is about the interpretation of model output; its trying to work out what processes in the models are responsible for a certain result in the models. Models are complicated things; its often not at all easy to work out why they do what they do.
Henry Galt. says:
February 3, 2014 at 12:13 pm
I prefer empirical evidence. How ’bout you?
Empirical evidence without [at least some] theoretical understanding is not science
None of the above, I’d say.
IIUC: Basically, one of the points of Watts and NoTricksZone was that this shows the models to be wrong. It doesn’t. It can’t. You can’t analyze a physics-based computer model, and just from that, come to the conclusion that the model is wrong. (Not without comparing it to the real world, which was really not the point of this paper, and probably not feasible in this case anyway).
No, the point of this paper is something like this:
“Mechanism A is often cited as the main contributor to Effect X. We analyzed some models, and found that in these models, Mechanism B is actually more important, and Mechanism A is the second-most important mechanism.”
The paper is about understanding what’s going on inside the climate models.
Hey, Everyone – Don’t scare of Connolley. If he can be kept occupied here, then a host of corrections can be made over at that other favorite site of his without being flipped back within minutes.