From: DOE/Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Scientists have identified a mechanism that could turn out to be a big contributor to warming in the Arctic region and melting sea ice.
The research was led by scientists from the US Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab). They studied a long-wavelength region of the electromagnetic spectrum called far infrared. It’s invisible to our eyes but accounts for about half the energy emitted by the Earth’s surface. This process balances out incoming solar energy.
Despite its importance in the planet’s energy budget, it’s difficult to measure a surface’s effectiveness in emitting far-infrared energy. In addition, its influence on the planet’s climate is not well represented in climate models. The models assume that all surfaces are 100 percent efficient in emitting far-infrared energy.
That’s not the case. The scientists found that open oceans are much less efficient than sea ice when it comes to emitting in the far-infrared region of the spectrum. This means that the Arctic Ocean traps much of the energy in far-infrared radiation, a previously unknown phenomenon that is likely contributing to the warming of the polar climate.
Their research appears this week in the online early edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
“Far-infrared surface emissivity is an unexplored topic, but it deserves more attention. Our research found that non-frozen surfaces are poor emitters compared to frozen surfaces. And this discrepancy has a much bigger impact on the polar climate than today’s models indicate,” says Daniel Feldman, a scientist in Berkeley Lab’s Earth Sciences Division and lead author of the paper.
“Based on our findings, we recommend that more efforts be made to measure far-infrared surface emissivity. These measurements will help climate models better simulate the effects of this phenomenon on the Earth’s climate,” Feldman says.
He conducted the research with Bill Collins, who is head of the Earth Sciences Division’s Climate Sciences Department. Scientists from the University of Colorado, Boulder and the University of Michigan also contributed to the research.
The far-infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum spans wavelengths that are between 15 and 100 microns (a micron is one-millionth of a meter). It’s a subset of infrared radiation, which spans wavelengths between 5 and 100 microns. In comparison, visible light, which is another form of electromagnetic radiation, has a much shorter wavelength of between 390 and 700 nanometers (a nanometer is one billionth of a meter).
Many of today’s spectrometers cannot detect far-infrared wavelengths, which explains the dearth of field measurements. Because of this, scientists have extrapolated the effects of far-infrared surface emissions based on what’s known at the wavelengths measured by today’s spectrometers.
Feldman and colleagues suspected this approach is overly simplistic, so they refined the numbers by reviewing published studies of far-infrared surface properties. They used this information to develop calculations that were run on a global atmosphere climate model called the Community Earth System Model, which is closely tied to the Department of Energy’s Accelerated Climate Model for Energy (ACME).
The simulations revealed that far-infrared surface emissions have the biggest impact on the climates of arid high-latitude and high-altitude regions.
In the Arctic, the simulations found that open oceans hold more far-infrared energy than sea ice, resulting in warmer oceans, melting sea ice, and a 2-degree Celsius increase in the polar climate after only a 25-year run.
This could help explain why polar warming is most pronounced during the three-month winter when there is no sun. It also complements a process in which darker oceans absorb more solar energy than sea ice.
“The Earth continues to emit energy in the far infrared during the polar winter,” Feldman says. “And because ocean surfaces trap this energy, the system is warmer throughout the year as opposed to only when the sun is out.”
The simulations revealed a similar warming affect on the Tibetan plateau, where there was five percent less snowpack after a 25-year run. This means more non-frozen surface area to trap far-infrared energy, which further contributes to warming in the region.
“We found that in very arid areas, the extent to which the surface emits far-infrared energy really matters. It controls the thermal energy budget for the entire region, so we need to measure and model it better,” says Feldman
The research was supported by NASA and the Department of Energy’s Office of Science.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Just when I’m thinking they’ve left no stone unturned, they go and show me that they’ve barely scratched the surface…
If far-IR hasn’t been considered until now, I have to wonder – what’s the absorptivity of atmospheric gases in the far-IR range? It’s all well and good that liquid and solid materials might be absorbing a bigger amount of energy in that range, but if they’re re-emitting through a transparent medium, then it does nothing to affect the atmospheric energy balance.
“If far-IR hasn’t been considered until now”
Are you for real? Is it possible for anyone to know so little about the science behind climate change. Far-IR is the key to the GH effect.
“I have to wonder – what’s the absorptivity of atmospheric gases in the far-IR range?”
You dont have to wonder, you can just look it up, even Wiki has managed it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
http://www.junksciencearchive.com/Greenhouse/2-03.jpg
No ‘Scientist’ worth his grant money would go to Wikipedia for information. He would apply for a new grant, develop a new instrument, outfit an expedition to the Arctic for testing, then establish a ten year program to verify his findings. Wikipedia indeed!
Do you always just jump to the comments, without reading the articles?
According to the article, far infra-red is 15 to 100 micrometers. The chart you provided only goes to 30 micrometers. Therefore, the chart you provide does not answer the question asked.
PS, I notice that in the range of 15 to 30 micrometers, the atmosphere is quite transparent.
Did you also notice that CO2 is the main absorber in that range?
They ran it on a model. So that’s all right, then.
I already dreamed this idea up. The only costs associated, were a pair of pajamas and a tablespoon of Nyquil.
But I didn’t mention it because I was told “The science is settled”.
“The models assume that all surfaces are 100 percent efficient in emitting far-infrared energy”.
Big assumption for so called settled science.
WTF are these idiots on ? Crack cocaine on Michigan Pot.
Federal grants. Very addictive.
Crack cocaine is less addictive than AGW mania.
That sounds like a research project that could chew up government grants for years and years. “Global warming/Climate change”… the gift that keeps on giving.
How about just recognizing the reality that Arctic sea ice was at about a century high extent in 1979 & that the PDO had just switched modes in 1977, so greater summer melting was only to be expected for around thirty years?
That’s what happened during the prior warm phase of the PDO, c. 1917-46, before cooling from c. 1947-76.
They ran the numbers on the Department of Energy’s Accelerated Climate Model for Energy (ACME).
Wile E. Coyote, call your office.
Eventually CACA advocates will realize that they’re running place, suspended in mid-air, & come crashing to earth.
…and probably land in deep snow…
The Arctic ocean is warmed by the North Atlantic warm currents inflow. Plain and simple. Puzzle is why the Arctic temperature rise matches fall in the Earth magnetic field
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AT-GMF.gif
Perhaps best to leave for some other time.
the data, for connoisseurs
GMF data:Institute fur Geophysik, Zurich & NOAA
Arctic temperature data : CRUTEM3 HadSST2 0-360 E 66-90N
Good question vukcevic
For the past 2 years now, I’ve observed some strange anomalies near the poles.
During the last 2 Northern Hemisphere Summer’s, the highest latitudes have consistently stayed much colder than average. At the same time, in and around the South Pole, which is their Winter, a large pool of warmer than average temperatures prevails for much of the season.
Then, 6 months later, the seasons flip and so have the anomalies. This brings the Northern Hemisphere’s Winter, along with warm anomalies in the high latitudes, along with cold anomalies in and around the South Pole.
I only first noticed these anomalies in the N.Hemi Summer of 2013, which meant nothing. It repeated but flipped in the N.Hemi WInter(Southern Summer), again in the Summer 2014 at both Hemisphere’s and we are approaching the N.Hemisphere Winter with the same unusual, exact opposite extremes at the 2 poles showing up.
Antarctic cold headed into Summer:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/ens/t850anom_f360_sh.html
High latitudes in Northern Hemi turning warm headed into Winter
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/ens/t850anom_f360_sh.html
Since this pattern would also cause more -AO’s(negative values in Arctic Oscillation) in our Winter, which has occurred at least since the Winter 2009/10 for the Northern Hemisphere(Winter of 2011/12 was the big exception). There is likely something which is causing it………..and the effect “may” flip every 6 months to the opposite hemisphere.
I’m not smart enough to explain the mechanism, at least not in this case but as an operational meteorologist for 33 years, an only report this pattern in recent observations.
Let try the 2nd one again:
High latitudes in Northern Hemi turning warm headed into Winter
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/ens/t850anom_f360_nh.html
Mr. Maguire
Earth’s magnetic field has highest intensity very high latitudes, while the %ual change across the globe may be uniform, in the absolute terms it is greatest near the poles. And as coincidence the greatest temperature anomaly is at polar areas too.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AGT.jpg
There may be some doubt, but it is most likely that both directly or indirectly are linked to the sun, at least as far as I can ascertain , but then I might be in minority of one.
vukcevic,
Yes, that seems to be a viable explanation, so I am in agreement with you.
The apparent flip of the effect in hemisphere’s every 6 months for the past 2 years-that I noticed- is either coincidental or related to the sun. I can’t explain or prove the mechanism.
If it continues to repeat, then coincidence will gradually be ruled out and explanations will come.
Solar direct input via the TSI is at its weakest within the polar regions, in contrast the sun-earth magnetic link is the strongest. To explain how lack of one and the excess of the other could translate into the anomalies as illustrated above is not going to be easy or imminent.
I agree too that changes in TSI would not explain this.
It may be also, that this is not primarily a global warming/global cooling phenomena as much as it is something that greatly effects regional climate and modulates the manner with which our planet redistributes heat/energy.
There are some strong similarities with this pattern to the 1970’s(especially 76/77 and 77/78) that I have noted looking back at weather maps/patterns for something that fits.
I only have Northern Hemisphere weather maps going back 60 years, with have no idea what the Southern Hemisphere was doing then.
Well, the anomalies are calculated from an average. If we have just a lower amplitude now than for the time span the average was calculated this would show such an effect.
vukcevic,
Thanks for sharing your article. Sometimes, the path to learning something new, requires not knowing too much about it to begin with. A prior understanding of the way things should work can cause us to discard key elements because they don’t match up with a preconceived notion(without us even realizing it).
Making observations and allowing the empirical data to speak is what most think is happening. However, our preconceived notions have already done some processing of the information while it was coming in. Humans are subjective by nature.
norah4you,
It appears to me that vukcevic was just sharing his unique observations and not worrying whether the presentation matched up with “almost all that an ordinary student had to learn in “the old days” regarding our Earth natural forces……”
Unique perspective by scientists vs “the old days” perspective is how science discovers new things.
You haven’t taken ALL the needed premises in your algoritm – one of the worst example of non-scientific work I ever seen. Please try to get correct information for all water currents currents in Ocean
You also seem to have lost or never to learnt about Earth rotation, vobbling and almost all that an ordinary student had to learn in “the old days” regarding our Earth natural forces……
norah4you
I don’t know who you are, you might be a Nobel laureate or someone never seen any scientific or non scientific work, but either way thanks for your interest
First of all, I am not a scientist but an engineer, just over 5 years ago I got interested in climate, mainly N. Atlantic and consequently the Arctic, and soon afterwards wrote this article
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00408886v2/document
Occasionally I write about what I find in data, scientific or not that is the least of my concerns.
All the best to you.
Please see my replay above yours.
Mr. Maguire
Thanks for your kind words. On this blog I am more often than not rebuked (to put it mildly) for promoting pseudo-science etc. I look at the data and if I find something with no previous reference through a web search, I write about it (e.g.page 8&9 and 11&12 of the article you mentioned).
Here is another one you will not find elsewhere
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01071375v1/document
To make a point of one kind or another, in order to make it at least comprehendible, it is necessary to ‘dress it up’ with a bit of a background science, which often I may not get entirely correct and sometime not correct at all. I don’t expect congratulations and equally denunciation doesn’t bother me.
Problem is that it takes many more variables as well as basic knowledge of Earth forces, not to mention the complication that gravitation, one of them, is so complex that one need to understand at least some parts of the second string-theory in order to come up with a plausible and sound algoritm……
above link should be for version v2, with the current data link.
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01071375v2/document
(since the oma.be changed link to the data)
norah4you
I would assume you meant to say string-hypothesis, either way, approach you recommend might be more suited for the higher echelons of academia.
Anyway, thanks for the recommendation, I have to profess to a total ignorance of the finer elements of the first let alone the second string-whatever it is.
A key element to accurately forecasting weather and climate and many other things in our world, like commodity prices and crop yields is using pattern recognition. Weather models really are very useful for instance as they take into account all the physical laws of our world and represent them with the best mathematical equations we know of. However, many patterns that are teleconnected with each other or have great similarities with past patterns or are consistently under or over forecasted by models can be spotted by an observer with a keen eye for pattern recognition and awareness of model shortcomings.
In essence, a good meteorologist shows better skill forecasting than a forecast based on model guidance alone.
A good climate scientist also shows better skill forecasting than those that rely on model guidance alone.
Pattern recognition is one of the reasons for this.
You may believe what you want. But bad models have been used for many many years.
Empiri and model-forecasts aren’t one and the same
Something’s misstated or not fully explained here.”It also complements a process in which darker oceans absorb more solar energy than sea ice”. The law of radiation physics is” A poor emitter is a poor absorber (and a good reflector).”. It can’t be both a poor emitter in the far-IR and a good absorber in the far-IR.
Nice observation, Jane H. M..
And, to make it stand out a bit, I’m applauding you here!
Janice A. M.
JaneHM
“The law of radiation physics is…”
Correct. And it has a name: Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation.
Short form: emissivity is equal to absorptivity
CACA has its own physical laws. Those who pay the bills make the laws.
The more correct form: emissivity is equal to absorptivity for a given wavelength.
For the oceans SW absorption is higher than IR emissivity.
Konrad
“… for a given wavelength”
Good point, which resolves the conundrum being discussed.
Konrad:
For the oceans SW absorption is higher than IR emissivity.
And for snow (and ice), SW absorption is much lower than IR emissivity…
The Earth tends to absorb energy around the Visible wavelengths, and then emit energy in the infrared. Something can be a poor emitter in the IR and a good absorber in VNIR. The proverbial (and perhaps legendary) greenhouse effect is an example.
It will “click” when you realise that the atmosphere is a better IR emitter than the oceans 😉
There is a greenhouse effect on earth, but it is in the oceans not atmosphere.
A material can only emit on frequencies it absorbs in. You are confusing radiative heat transfer with conductive/convective heat transfer. A material may be heated by conduction or convection and then emit in it’s characteristic wavelengths (if it has colder space to radiate to) OR it may absorb energy in its characteristic wavelengths and transfer that energy to ANOTHER material via conduction or convection. In that case it is highly unlikely that new material would then radiate energy on its wavelengths since no transfer is loss-less and the environment it’s in is already at the higher temperature of the original incoming radiation. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn’t let you amplify that heat going back.
That’s why you should have used the term “mythical” when describing the “greenhouse effect” as it is a fictional construct and most atmospheric heat transfer (until you get above the stratosphere) is by convection that is more properly explained by Gas Law and gravity.
nielszoo – I don’t think that what you say can be true for the ocean. Visible light penetrates some distance, but at greater depth it’s dark.That seems to imply that visible light’s energy is being absorbed (Leif will explain in scientific detail if asked). But the ocean does emit infrared.
Agreed.
Water is a poor emitter and equally poor absorber of far-IR. They are defining far-IR as 15-100 microns, and the peak absorption/emission of CO2 is at 15 microns in the far-IR.
This should have been known due to the penetration depth in water of IR, which is only a few microns. That means IR from GHGs can’t penetrate the ocean skin surface, and just causes evaporative cooling of the ocean skin surface. On the other hand, solar wavelengths can penetrate up to 100m to heat the bulk of the oceans. This solar heat then gets converted to IR radiation emitted by the water molecules, which gets “trapped” by bumping into another water molecule each time the IR emission travels only a few microns.
For these reasons, ocean warming is only related to solar activity and modulators of sunshine at the surface like clouds, not greenhouse gases.
But at the high latitudes the incidence angle for the UV is so high that most of it reflects. It is the Tropical ocean that drives the Earth’s heat engine.
“But at the high latitudes the incidence angle for the UV is so high that most of it reflects. It is the Tropical ocean that drives the Earth’s heat engine.”
Yes true, by far most of the solar radiation enters the tropical oceans and is transported to the poles, but this has nothing to do with GHGs and that is the point. There are at least 5 physical reasons why IR from GHGs cannot heat the oceans anywhere on the planet, including
1. poor absorption by water of IR from greenhouse gases
2. good reflection by water surfaces of IR from greenhouse gases
3. penetration depth of water by IR from greenhouse gases of only a few microns to cause evaporative cooling of the ocean skin surface
4. cooling of the ocean skin surface by the minority of IR from greenhouse gases that is absorbed rather than reflected
as explained in this new post:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/11/new-paper-finds-huge-false-physical.html
The incoming radiation is the entire spectrum of radiation. The outgoing radiation they are studying is just the longwave IR. Make sense now?
The incoming radiation is a (asymmetric) Gaussian curve which peaks at the visible wavelengths and has much smaller emissions in the shorter and longer wavelengths. The outgoing radiation has its peak in the far IR, where halve of the energy is what is studied here. There is hardly any overlap between the incoming and outgoing wavelengths:
http://www.udel.edu/Geography/DeLiberty/Geog474/geog474_energy_interact.html
“Many of today’s spectrometers cannot detect far-infrared wavelengths, which explains the dearth of field measurements. Because of this, scientists have extrapolated the effects of far-infrared surface emissions based on what’s known at the wavelengths measured by today’s spectrometers.
… run on a global atmosphere climate model called the Community Earth System Model, which is closely tied to the Department of Energy’s Accelerated Climate Model for Energy (ACME).
The simulations revealed … .”
***************************************************
In other words:
Simulations of extrapolated information.
****************************************************
Plausible conjecture, yes, but just conjecture, so far.
Nevertheless….
@ur momisugly All Genuine Scientists studying the full spectrum of TSI: HANG IN THERE! YOURS IS WORTHWHILE WORK. Courage!
(and it will take exceptional courage to not give in to the pressure on you from windmill/solar investors/ “science” – funders to l1e)
******************************************
And, thank you, Jane H. M., for the education (at 1244 today)! Now, I see that the conjecture isn’t even plausible!
I TAKE THAT PART BACK and stand CORRECTED!
This appeared to me to be a self fulfilling logical fallacy statement…”In the Arctic, the simulations found that open oceans hold more far-infrared energy than sea ice, resulting in warmer oceans.”
Wow!, really, they discovered that liquid oceans have a warmer surface then ice covered surface. At least a part of their computer models work. I think the point made that a greater percentage of liquid water loses energy through evaporation as opposed to radiation is well known, and may be the reason liquid warmer water appears not to lose as much through radiation as ice.
“Wow!, really, they discovered that liquid oceans have a warmer surface then ice covered surface.”
Indeed, an exhaustive ten-year $100 million study has shown that the temperature of liquid ocean never goes below -3 degrees Celsius, while ice can be as cold much as – 70 degrees Celsius. A pilot study has also found that water ocean temperatures can go as high as +30 degrees. A new research program is now in progress which is trying to find +30 degrees ice covered areas. As yet progress has been limited.
I thought this is what basic climate science is. For advanced climate science you average the averages of the simulations and apply mathmatical filters to get an outcome that only by accident might relate to the physical world.
Yes, lol, Alx. For instance, you may have wondered why your name, Allen, keeps coming out “Alx.” Well! It was first run through the IPCC model. Voila! The average of an extrapolation (Allenaxenderishman … truncated…. then…… heh, heh, heh).
Until I found an an engineer — (Go, Engineers — you make US go! :)) — to modify the model I was issued, mine kept coming out “Jmx.”
“In the Arctic, the simulations found that open oceans hold more far-infrared energy than sea ice, resulting in warmer oceans, melting sea ice, and a 2-degree Celsius increase in the polar climate after only a 25-year run.”
But surely this phenomenon has been occurring forever, and these folk have just discoverd it. Do the simulations give numbers that agree with observation? I don’t see any mention of comparing simulation output robustly to observed reality. By robustly I mean with numbers and error bars.
‘In the Arctic, the simulations found that open oceans hold more far-infrared energy than sea ice, resulting in warmer oceans, melting sea ice, and a 2-degree Celsius increase in the polar climate after only a 25-year run.’
So, they claim it’s a feedback from polar ice melt.
The last year’s large increase in Arctic sea ice, put’s a bit of a dent in their simulation.
But OTOH, it does seem to be a plausible mechanism for the known rapid cooling/warming episodes; Y-D etc.
My god,can you give me a break on what’s going on with this non-existent AGW & get to the point! The cellmates are running the looneybin & Al Bore,Mr.O Bama & the the idiots on the left won’t let go even when they’re wrong.If this lie or even a reality equates to some semblance of the truth ,I still want to know how much(of a bad temp.) did man create and the rest will be blamed on what?So just to end All(blame the living planet) since the greenies are that smart.How do you fix what you don’t know.
Trying integrating the Planck curve for earthly temps in the far infrared, then tell me how much flux you get…not much.
You get this:
http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/files/earth_and_sun_emission.jpg
For starters, you can see that virtually none of the long-wave IR (5-100 microns) is received directly from the Sun. It’s all “earth-shine”, coming from the Eath’s surface and atmosphere, which has been heated by the shorter UV, Visible and Near-IR from the Sun.
To see (and understand) that earth-shine is a completely different spectrum than sunshine, look at the GOES satellite imagery animated loops: http://www.goes.noaa.gov/goesfull.html
The visible imagery (reflected sunshine) changes from bright to dark from daytime to nighttime. But the IR and WV (emitted earth-shine) are constant from day to night (making them very useful for 24-hour surveillance of weather!). The Earth shines (in effect) like a very low-wattage star!
Also you can see that earth-shine longer than 50 microns is neglible.
Thanks, interesting graph. Note the 10^-6 on the solar part ! But that must be full sphere, presumably once you account for the solid angle occulted by the Earth, the area under those two should be about equal. (Unless it’s hiding in the deep oceans or something.)
Yes, obviously the longwave IR intensity per m2 at the top of the solar “atmosphere” would greatly outshine our earth-shine, so the solar intensity must be normalized for the solid angle subtended by the Earth’s disk, or, equivalently, normalized by computing the reduction in intensity according to the inverse square law.
Yes, note the 10^-6. That is FLUX, not full sphere. I take it you will need a piece of paper 83 KILOMETRES long to show sun flux on same scale as earth flux.
Greg,
“the area under those two should be about equal”
Yes, it would be, including the factor of 10^6, if the x-axis were linear. But it is logarithmic, and over three orders of magnitude.
The reason the y-values for sun are so high is that it is energy per μm of wavelength, and the Sun’s energy is mostly in the sub μm range
It sure is good to know the science of (C)AGW is firmly settled.
This article raises my fear for colder times. The snow cover has increased and the sea ice has increased, so it might very well be colder in the future. We have been told that less snow and ice can start an evil circle with more warming and so on. More snow and ice would then lead to even more snow and ice and so on until we face a full blown ice age.
I see some problems here. First, the winter sea ice cover is still very large and just slightly reduced. Second, ice and snow may be a good emitter, but it’s also a good isolator.
I see “climate scientists” bound and determined to fit square pegs into round holes.
…and ignore all non-round holes like a triangle, square, rectangle, hexagonal…
And use a bigger hammer!
Nope no way, the science is settled. Berkeley Lab scientists will just have to take back their new driver and stick with the old drivers. Sorry but thats the way the cookie crumbles, or clouds disperse, or whatever in UN sponsered climate science.
Please enter the man made temp here ——-since man causes everything! But wait we can stop<oh wait ,we can stop stupidity by getting the UN out of the way & a lot of paid BS artists out of the way for a real discussion When your called a "denier" it's called an insult & start from a negitive.Call Lord M. or Weatherman(started the weather ch.) to call on al gore for a debate on this mess.O Bama said the discussion is over when it hasn't started.The fool lies!
So what happens between the end of the visible spectrum (red) at 700nm or 0.7um and the begining of infra-red at 5um ?!
Is that bit called the “intra-red” ? LOL
The transition from visible to near IR occurs at ~750 nm, although some people can see into the IR. At 5-100 microns, the authors must be referring to the far IR alone, but that segment of the spectrum is usually given as 14 µm to a mm. For astronomers, however, it’s typically considered 25 µm to 350 µm.
Sure, there’s now exact cut-off like there’s no fixed frequency at which hearing ends. But most people with minimal science knowledge, know that ultrasound starts where audible sound ends.
But hey, this is a press release from an “Earth Science” group. You don’t expect them to know that infra-red starts where red finishes, do you?
With this newly found positive feedback it’s rather surprising that Arctic ice gained 50% in volume last year. You’d expect it to be locked into a death spiral by now.
I did not find the article at the given link. I would be interested to see if the decreased emissivity is enough to offset the increased Black Body amplitude that comes with a warmer surface. Remember that the emissivity is only a multiplier on the Planck spectrum.
So, no actual – like – measurements then?
“This means that the Arctic Ocean traps much of the energy in far-infrared radiation, a previously unknown phenomenon …..”
Have they notified Trenbreth?
The result has been stated in terms of the current meme of warming, probably to make it easier to publish. But that isn’t where the real import is. Once you get rid of all the PC packaging what they are really saying is that ice and snow radiate less heat than we had previously thought compared to non-frozen surfaces, and therefore have a significantly lower propensity to melt via thermal emission than we had previously calculated.
This observation has only very limited implications in terms of warming. The real implication of this result is that the tipping point into ice age is considerably more dangerous than we had previously thought. Get enough ice on a big enough fraction of the Northern Hemisphere for long enough, and it will all be over rover. This helps explain why the onset of ice age can be so sudden.
Aagh – I obviously meant to say “ice and snow radiate MORE heat than we had previously thought”. Brain needs coffee.
Exactly what I thought. The tipping point works also for SW (reflection). How got we ever back into the holocene?
Oooh hello….
After 30 years of doom-shrieking, climastrology finally works out that the oceans are not a “near blackbody” after all?
Well they haven’t identified a new driver behind Arctic warming. They have just collided with the reason that AGW is physically impossible. The oceans are not a near blackbody they are a SW selective surface.
There are two main factors behind this.
The first is that SW absorptivity for the oceans is higher than IR emissivity. However to get an accurate figure for IR emissivity, more field measurements are not what is required at all. IR measurement in the lab is what is required with background IR eliminated by an artificial 3K “sky”. (you may find it incredible, but this simple experiment has not been done, climastrologists just assumed.) Instead of the old 0.96 figure, IR emissivity for water should be down near 0.7 for the 5 to 100 micron range. This alone would mean the “surface without atmosphere” figure for a SW and IR opaque surface constantly illuminated with 240 w/m2 would be raised from 255K to 273K.
And the second SW selective surface factor? The oceans are not SW opaque, they are SW translucent. They are liquid and convect and illumination is not constant but intermittent. There a five simple physical rules for materials with these properties –
For SW translucent / IR opaque (material A) compared to SW opaque / IR opaque (material B) with both materials having equal IR emissivity and total watts for both constant or intermittent SW illumination being equal, the results of empirical experiment are clear –
1. If materials are solid, constant SW illumination will result in close surface temps for A & B with average temp of A higher than B
2. If materials are solid, intermittent SW illumination will result in surface temps for A higher than B, with average temp of A also higher than B.
3. If materials are liquid and convect, constant SW illumination will result in surface temps for A higher than B, with average temp of A higher than B.
4. If materials are liquid and convect, intermittent SW illumination will result in higher temperature differential (both surface and average) between A & B than condition 3.
5. If materials are liquid and convect, intermittently SW illuminated and deeper than condition 4, temperature differential between A & B will be greater again than condition 4.
The combination of these two factors means a conservative “surface without atmosphere” figure for the oceans should be 335K, but probably higher. Even if the figure for land is kept at 255K, that still results in a global figure of 312K. Current surface average is around 288K, which means the net effect of our radiativly cooled atmosphere on surface temps is….?
It isn’t the atmosphere that determines the oceans 295 K (22˚ C) surface temperature. It is the oceans radiative and evaporation rates that do that.
Hey, you mean extrapolation way beyond the end the data is not reliable. You mean that if you take the time research REAL data you get better results? Wow.
This is a landmark paper in “earth sciences”. I don’t know how they managed to get this published, I only hope that the IPCC’s political correction department does not get to hear about it, they will be ostracised.
Just imagine what could happen if someone pointed out that extrapolating 100 [years] hence based on the temperature changes from 1960 to 1998 was not valid. The whole pack of cards could come tumbling down around their ears.
More nonsense.