From PNAS:
Direct satellite observation reveals that the Arctic planetary albedo, a measure of reflectiveness, decreased from 0.52 to 0.48 between 1979 and 2011, a change in albedo that corresponds to a climate forcing 25% as large as that due to changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the same time period, according to this study.
But looking at more recent CERES measured data showing what is light is reflected into space by the posited changing albedo, neither Arctic nor Antarctic seem to have changed much at all; less than a watt per decade everywhere. For recent CERES data the trend lines look dead flat at any reasonable scale. See the graph:
The graph is from Willis Eschenbach, who will have more on this in subsequent post.
I’ve said in the past that black carbon is likely playing a role in Albedo change in the Arctic, but I’ll have to admit it is puzzling why the signal isn’t stronger in Willis’ graph above.
Compare the period above from 2000-2013 to the graph they cite in the paper:
the entire Arctic region. Solid lines are direct CERES observations, and
dashed lines are estimates derived from sea ice observations. The error bars
in the Bottom Left corner indicate the uncertainty in the pre-CERES clear-sky
and all-sky albedo values (Supporting Information). (B) All-sky albedo as in A
compared with annual-mean observed sea ice area (as a fraction of the
ocean in the Arctic region) and surface air temperature averaged over the
ocean in the Arctic region.
Note they claim a drop of clear sky albedo from about 36 to 33%, that may be true for their method, but the base CERES all sky reflected data suggests no trend at all. Tis a conundrum that may be due to the sea-ice method they chose:
The sea ice surface albedo is estimated using two steps. First, the clear-sky planetary albedo associated with 100% sea ice cover is computed from an ordinary least squares linear regression between albedo and sea ice cover for each month constrained to go through an ocean albedo of 0.175 (cf . ref. 25) at 0% sea ice cover. For this calculation, a region containing all ocean grid
cells between 80 and 90°N is used to reduce the extrapolation to 100% ice calculation and to focus on multiyear ice for comparison with the in situ observations. Next, surface albedo (ásfc) is calculated from this clear-sky planetary albedo (ács) based on a linear estimate, ásfc = (ács . a)/b, with empirically derived seasonally varying monthly parameter values of a and b adopted from a previous study (17).
The clear-sky albedo during 1979–1999 is computed from sea ice using a total least squares linear regression between 2000 and 2011 clear-sky albedos and sea ice. All-sky albedos during 1979–1999 are similarly computed from clear-sky albedos using a total least squares linear regression between the two albedos during 2000–2011. In both regressions, the quantities are
normalized by their uncertainties, and error bars are estimated based on the regression confidence intervals (details provided in Supporting Information).
The study:
Article #13-18201: “Observational determination of albedo decrease caused by vanishing Arctic sea ice,” by Kristina Pistone, Ian Eisenman, and Veerabhadran Ramanathan.
Abstract:
The decline of Arctic sea ice has been documented in over 30 y of satellite passive microwave observations. The resulting darkening of the Arctic and its amplification of global warming was hypothesized almost 50 y ago but has yet to be verified with direct observations. This study uses satellite radiation budget measurements along with satellite microwave sea ice data to document the Arctic-wide decrease in planetary albedo and its amplifying effect on the warming. The analysis reveals a striking relationship between planetary albedo and sea ice cover, quantities inferred from two independent satellite instruments. We find that the Arctic planetary albedo has decreased from 0.52 to 0.48 between 1979 and 2011, corresponding to an additional 6.4 ± 0.9 W/m2 of solar energy input into the Arctic Ocean region since 1979. Averaged over the globe, this albedo decrease corresponds to a forcing that is 25% as large as that due to the change in CO2 during this period, considerably larger than expectations from models and other less direct recent estimates. Changes in cloudiness appear to play a negligible role in observed Arctic darkening, thus reducing the possibility of Arctic cloud albedo feedbacks mitigating future Arctic warming.
The paper:
Paul Pierett says:
February 17, 2014 at 2:25 pm
“The hard part will being a human in a moderately populated world. The Earth will need a mini Ice Age for two centuries just to get the Population back to a point that the people left have a food source on which to survive.”
——————————————–
What’s up with that? What’s that supposed to mean? I think you are sitting on the wrong side of the Malthusian fence, Paul. Not many people here fall for the mainstream Lefty nonsense that food production is inevitably doomed to fall with “climate change” (in whichever temperature direction) and population bound to rise towards 10 billion.
In fact with proper application of best agricultural practices, which are far from being in use today, we could easily feed 10 billion though any fool know world pop will never pass 9 billion [as per UN lowest estimate] and that capacity is irrelevant anyway as it is the economic policies of the ruling elite which determine the price of wheat and pork bellies, the “who gets what”.
Apologies for being off-topic but this kind of defeatist misinformation needs combating at every instance.
And what do they suppose the forcing from CO2 was over the period? I’m guessing the 40% of the greenhouse effect attributed to it in the models. Loaded for bear, this gas comprising less than 2% of the greenhouse gasses by volume.
@gymnosperm-The forcing from CO2 increased from 1.027 W/m^2 in 1979 (relative to 1750) to 1.818 W/m^2 in 2011. Note that the total forcing from various greenhouse gases increased from 1.712 W/m^2 to 2.873 W/m^2.
Is the primary effect of black carbon on arctic ice a change in albedo? I would have thought a chemical effect would be stronger.
Paul Pierett says:@ur momisugly February 17, 2014 at 2:25 pm
Daniel says: replys @ur momisugly February 17, 2014 at 6:00 pm
…. is irrelevant anyway as it is the economic policies of the ruling elite which determine the price of wheat and pork bellies, the “who gets what”.
Apologies for being off-topic but this kind of defeatist misinformation needs combating at every instance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thanks for saving me the trouble.
I detailed how the ruling elite are making sure of starvation and volatile food prices HERE.
You should read it Paul. It shows you just how despicable these people you listen to are.
Enough has been said. Trembley nailed the issue. More wack a mole from the increasingly desperate AGW crowd. They cannot deny the pause, so now they use models to speculate on esoterics in under observed (except by satellite) regions.
Anyone here listen to CBS News tonight to hear more of Jennifer Francis’s BS about how the Arctic is getting warmer? (Jennifer Francis, who was picked apart by Drs, Spencer and Pielke, Jr. at the Senate Energy and Environmen5t Committee hearing last year.). Of course the MSM lapdogs and ass-kissers and sycophants and idolaters did their thing, as usual.
@Dale Rainwater
A lot of what I read there would lead me to believe you’re right. The PR angle is there also. It may eventually earn a new name:
Probably
Not
Actual
Science
just a reader. Sorry to be off topic, but I don’t know where else to put this comment. here goes, Ive been watching the arctic temperature chart every day and something is really bothering me, ahh screw the tip toe talk.! Why is 80 north having the warmest winter sense 1958? ( greenies this question is not for you, I don’t want a lecture on co2.
You know that anything that is supported by the Hansen/Shmidt adjustments has to be suspect.
Jimbo says:
February 17, 2014 at 2:55 pm
Arctic Reflector
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticReflector/arctic_reflector4.php
Thanks for that Jimbo. I had come to the same conclusions as NASA, about clouds, after playing with my IR thermometer. To say they can emit more energy back to the earth than greenhouse gasses is a major understatement. Low clouds can near enough emit 100% energy back.
snow says:
February 17, 2014 at 11:42 pm
just a reader. Sorry to be off topic, but I don’t know where else to put this comment. here goes, Ive been watching the arctic temperature chart every day and something is really bothering me…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Polar vortex and the wandering jet stream.
If cold air is drawn south it gets replaced by warmer air from the lower latitudes moving north. You can sort of see that in this image
If you look at 2013 (click on left listing – link ) you can see the summer temp was quite stable and below average. This is when you have ‘open water’ to help stabilize the temperature and a reasonably zonal jet stream. In the winter the ocean is pretty much iced over and the temperature is dependent on the winds/vortex interaction. Click through other years and you can see how wildly the winter temperatures swing while the summer temperatures remain fairly constant.
A halfway decent description of the polar vortex:
http://climatechange.cornell.edu/what-is-a-polar-vortex/
A decent description of the Jet stream and it’s heat transfer function
http://www.decodedscience.com/zonal-meridional-flow-transfer-energy-atmosphere/41385
You might find these interesting:
Researchers Pinpoint 1,500-Year Cycle in Arctic Atmospheric Pattern (This is evidence of Bond events)
The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change