New paper: Arctic amplification of temperature not primarily due to albedo changes, climate models need to be reworked

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

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
105 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 5, 2014 4:17 am

Windchasers says:
“If you look at that chart again, you’ll find that the Arctic was about flat from 1980-1994, and particularly so within the range of variability.”
What do I need to look again for when I saw the drop from the mid 1980’s the first time I looked at it? It’s you that needs to look again.
North pole UAH to Dec 1994: http://snag.gy/YV4Ny.jpg
So the north pole cooled slightly during 16yrs of “global warming” from 1979 to 1994 inclusive.
Windchasers says:
“In reality, it’s plain that temperatures in the Arctic are more variable than the global average (just as with most regions), and to account for that, we should look at the long-term trends. And if you do that, the Arctic amplification pops out, nice and clear, warming about 3x as faster as the rest of the world”
No we should look at precisely when it warmed from, only then we can have a logical and rational explanation for the warming, which is the increasingly negative NAO/AO episodes from 1995. The Arctic warming from 1995 is an internal negative feedback to a drop in forcing, it’s completely the wrong sign for a forced warming, where the NAO/AO would be more positive.

February 5, 2014 4:34 am

Windchasers says:
“In reality, it’s plain that temperatures in the Arctic are more variable than the global average (just as with most regions)”
On UAH, the most variable region in the monthly figures by far is the NoPol Ocean:
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt
See how well the positive NoPol Ocean anomalies there correlate to negative monthly NAO/AO values.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/norm.nao.monthly.b5001.current.ascii.table
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/monthly.ao.index.b50.current.ascii.table

February 5, 2014 6:29 am

UAH North Pole Ocean, from December 1978 to December 1994:
http://snag.gy/onPhk.jpg

Gail Combs
February 5, 2014 9:36 am

Santa Baby says: February 3, 2014 at 7:56 pm
What I really have a problem grasping is that Earth’s global temperature for a very very long time up to 30 million years ago was stable at 23-24 deg C. And what was different was that there was less temperature difference over distance than there is today?
More ocean area and less land area?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(William McClenney could probably give you a better answer than I but I will take a stab at it.)
Possibly the Oligocene Epoch topography see: http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/globaltext2.html
map
There was the opening of Drake Passage.
Drake Passage and palaeoclimate

ABSTRACT: The effect of Drake Passage on the Earth’s climate is examined using an idealised coupled model. It is found that the opening of Drake Passage cools the high latitudes of the southern hemisphere by about 3°C and warms the high latitudes of the northern hemisphere by nearly the same amount. This study also attempts to determine whether the width and depth of the Drake Passage channel is likely to be an important factor in the thermal response. A deeper channel is shown to produce more southern cooling but the magnitude of the effect is not large. Channel geometry is relatively unimportant in the model because of a haline response that develops when the channel is first opened up.
Introduction
South America and Australia separated from Antarctica between 20 and 40 million years ago, isolating Antarctica and the South Pole behind a continuous band of ocean water. The palaeoceanographic record shows that this separation led to the accumulation of glacial ice on Antarctica and an abrupt cooling of the ocean’s deep water (Kennett, 1977). Both effects persist to this day. The palaeoceanographic record gives every indication that the isolation of Antarctica was a major step in climate evolution.
Today, the band of open water around Antarctica is most restricted between the tip of South America and the Palmer Peninsula, a feature known as Drake Passage. In one of the earliest scientific papers written about the output of an ocean general circulation model, Gill and Bryan (1971) showed how a gap such as Drake Passage alters the ocean’s meridional circulation and heat transport. With Drake Passage closed, the ocean transports heat southward by moving warm water poleward near the surface. Cooling at the Antarctic margin leads to deep-water formation and the northward flow of cold water at depth. With Drake Passage open, warm upper ocean water from the north is unable to flow into or across the channel because there is no net east–west pressure gradient to balance the effect of the Earth’s rotation. The ocean’s ability to transport heat southward is thereby diminished. Cox (1989), England (1992) and Mikolajewicz et al. (1993) carried out similar experiment…..

The closing of the Isthmus of Panama came quite a bit later:
The closure history of the Panama Isthmus
This may be of interest: Extinction and environmental change across the Eocene-Oligocene boundary in Tanzania

…For the first time, we are able to place this event clearly in the plateau between the two main steps in the isotope records. This should enable improved correlation of the epoch boundary in a variety of geological settings, removing the need to shift the GSSP to some other section or point. The boundary corresponds to the climax of the marine extinctions and lies within an extended interval of severe global change that lasted ∼500 k.y., as bracketed by the first nannofossil extinction (Discoaster saipanensis) and the beginning of the early Oligocene glacial maximum
The Eocene-Oligocene transition marks a profound shift in global climate and marks the end to an extended period of predominantly “greenhouse” conditions on Earth that stretches back into the Mesozoic. The stepwise pattern of biotic events in the surface ocean and shelf seas, as recorded in the new cores, mirrors the pattern of global change. This pattern contrasts with sudden and catastrophic mass extinctions such as at the end-Cretaceous, suggesting that multiple causes, prolonged effects, and complex feedbacks between the geosphere and biosphere are necessary to explain the sequence of events that is only now becoming clear.

In other words they really do not know at this point. Unfortunately CAGW mania pollutes everything now a days so CO2 is the catch-all explanation that is tied to everything.

tobyw
February 7, 2014 6:35 am

How many tree cores are taken from the arctic or near arctic?

1 3 4 5