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.
Yikes! At that rate all himalayan glaciers could disappear by the year 2035 !
Heat is molecular motion. The faster the motion, the greater the heat. Shorter wavelengths are emitted from hotter objects as they have more molecules moving with more violence and speed. Ice, therefore will obviously emit more longer wave infra red than liquid water.
As shown in the Wunsch paper the upper 700 meters of the Arctic Ocean have been cooling. http://landscapesandcycles.net/image/95498319.png
The warming of the Arctic is not due to the “accumulation” of heat, but due to the “ventilation” of heat. But instead of acknowledging the evidence, they create “a previously unknown phenomenon” that the Arctic Ocean traps far-infrared radiation, even though physics suggests oceans are essentially impervious to infrared.
That does not stop them emitting far-IR to the same extent.
Increased radiative and convective losses are why the ice data shows a slowing of the melting , not a death spiral.
http://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/art_nh_ice_area_short_anom_2007_final.png
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/09/16/on-identifying-inter-decadal-variation-in-nh-sea-ice/
It seems that they always forget two things about the Arctic: High Latitude means sharp glancing angle – UV more likely to reflect, and convection is a major driver of open water surface temperature.
I have heard the argument that the glance angle is only for a smooth ocean and that waves would cause more UV absorption, but as those waves are caused mostly by the winds, the convection factor goes up even more as the warmer water below the first couple of microns keeps coming to the surface with the added energy of the churning water and the highest energy molecules jump into the air.
The problem is I haven’t seen the math on these two factors to tell me whether my gut reaction is right.
If I were a climate scientist I would extrapolate (make up) some data and apply them to a model that I wrote just for the occasion that gives the answer I want and presto – press release city.
Solar radiation in the high latitudes, is looking through Air mass 2.0 or greater, so there is not going to be a lot of UV making it to the surface. About 1% of solar spectrum (TSI) should be 250 nm or less anyway, so not a big polar heating source.
Owen, summer melt ponds are now reckoned to be an important factor and these will be a lot smoother than open water. I tried to get access to one of the main ice modelling projects that claims to be open source but they don’t even have the manners to reply with a refusal.
Since none of them are too impressive, they don’t seem to want any “outsiders” poking around and telling where they may be able to fix their inadequate models.
Depending on latitude and time of day, air mass in the Arctic will be as much as 13 to 15 (before 8:00 am, after 4:00 pm) and 4, 5 or 6 near midday. I have a TSI-TOA-air mass-SW atmospheric attenuation calculator available in Excel for any latitude, any day-of-year, and hour-of-day if that will be helpful..
Break that problem into two parts: Reflections from ice, and reflections from open water.
Judith Curry has measured the Arctic ice over the entire April-September melting season, and I have her papers. (See her website for the full links; the ice albedo measurements is Curry, 2001 group.
Basically, albedo of fresh snow-covered sea ice is 0.83 – valid from early October to late March. After early May (Day-of-Year = 133), Arctic sea ice albedo reduces sharply, curving to a low in late July of about 0.46, then rising again as the melt ponds re-freeze when the sun gets lower and lower each day. After day-of-year > 279, Arctic sea ice albedo stays back at 0.83
Antarctic sea ice is replaced every year (there is almost no multi-seasonal sea ice down south), and the Antaractic sea ice is freshly frozen with no dust or pollution either. Thus Antarctic sea ice stays at 0.8228 (0.83) evry day-of-year
A single function curve-fit to her data points is the following in Excel’s language.
=IF(LAT<0,0.8228,(IF(DOY<133,0.8228,(IF(DOY<279,(0.6415+0.1813*COS(0.04321*(DOY)-5.76717)),0.8228)))))
For the summer days, use Arctic sea ice albedo =0.6415+0.1813*COS(0.04321*(DOY)-5.76717))
Note: That is my equation through her data graphs, not Dr Curry's.
Those values for open water (across the open ocean, off of Chesapeake Bay light towers, over open lakes, nd in the high arctic ocean, etc) albedo have been measured at all solar elevation angles from 10 degrees through 90 degrees and are available. They have been corrected (re-measured) for wind conditions, and for clouds.
The formula is a bit more complex than a simple curve fit, but it is available. I’ll have to look up the various papers to get you that formula, but the figures and graphs are available. The specific formula for albedo as a function of solar elevation angle and wind speed is a bit complex, but very, very real.
And, in fact, it DOES show a rising albedo strongly up from the vertical (Wikipedia) value of 0.067 to about 0.42 at angles less than 5 degrees above the horizon. (Calm waters). Add wind speeds, and the albedo goes down, but NOT as much as the CAGW catastro-physicists lead you to believe.
Sigh.
The coldest sea surface can get is freezing point of sea water.
Sea ice on the other hand can get a lot colder (on the top side at any rate).
So, even if this article is correct, open water radiates more energy because the ice surface gets a lot colder and Stefan-Boltzmann Law kicks in, and SB Law is no mere “we think there might be this effect” it is an actual law. SB Law would dwarf the putative effects theorized in this article.
This could help explain why polar warming is most pronounced during the three-month winter when there is no sun.
In the winter months (as they are postulating) I would assume that the Arctic ice is covered by layer of frozen snow containing considerable percentage of air, which at the same time is a good insulator and a poor radiator. .
No. Snow emissivity is nearly equal that of ice.
Following from The Engineer’s Toolkit
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-emissivity-d_432.html
Emissivity coefficients – ε – for some common materials are indicated in the table below:
RACookPE1978
[Thanks] for your correction, I know that the deep layer of snow is good insulator, as emitter, after looking at your table, there is little difference between water, ice or snow (snow being the worst of three), I stand to be corrected , on the other hand I’ll stand by my previous opening statement : “The Arctic ocean is warmed by the North Atlantic warm currents inflow. Plain and simple.”, I wrote further up the thread.
Yup. Double sigh. Lets see, infrared wavelength is proportional to emitting temperature… Something about EM wavelength inversly proportional to energy… Or some such physics forgotten here.
Plus, the Arctic is refreezing due to ocean cycles having nothing to do with atmospheric IR of any wavelength. Something like 3 orders of magnitude greater thermal mass per volume…
Correct. The waxing and waning of Arctic sea ice is due to ocean currents, not air temperature.
I’m reminded of the old navy saw re. the relative effectiveness of torpedoes v. anti-ship missiles: “It’s easier to sink a ship by letting water in below than air in above.”
Make that a triple sigh.
If I assume that they are competent, then I must also deduce that they are being duplicitous, to say the least.
A minor change in the calculated emissivity of ice doesn’t change the fact that open water in polar regions will lose far more heat to space. Like a flame projecting from a punctured zeppelin.
David,
I don’t think you understand the process. When it is cloudy over the ocean the NET LW radiation is essentially zero. The only way the ocean loses energy is through evaporation (latent). The S-B equation doesn’t really have much applicability here.
Genghis, their argument isn’t about cloudy days, it is about ALL days, and all surfaces radiate, water is just more complicated because it evaporates also. They are arguing that the ocean radiates less energy than ice of the same temperature, implying that reduced ice cover is a positive feedback. What they chose to ignore is that if this effect exists at all, it is minuscule compared to the effects of ice cover dropping to far lower temperatures than the sea water can reach, and so ice cover at the same temperature as sea water is something that almost never happens. The two simply aren’t comparable, and the drop in radiance from the colder ice surface would dwarf the effect they are talking about.
This is akin to pointing out that mice weight 25% more than previously thought, so getting stepped on by one could be more dangerous as getting stepped on by an elephant.
Did they ever notice that at a mean global Temperature of 288 K, the expected spectral peak, is about 10.1 microns, so the expected significant surface spectrum, would be from 5 microns to 80 microns, and this has been known to everybody but these researchers, for eons. 98% of the surface emissions are in that range.
And if you cool it down to Antarctic cold temperatures like -94 deg. C then that peak moves to around 15 microns; right on the CO2 band. But the long end of it all is strongly absorbed by water.
And if as they say, ice has higher long IR emissivity than water, then the LWIR sourced from the atmosphere or clouds, ought to do very little warming of the surface.
And the sun is providing almost no LWIR anyway (at >15 microns).
But LWIR emissions from night time polar regions is 4-6 times less than at 288 K so it isnot doing any cooling to write home about anyhow.
The hot tropical daytime deserts is what is cooling the earth.
A thank you to the commenters here for an informed and nuanced conversation regarding IR. Much learned and greatly appreciated.
Regards, David
We need to actually measure all of this stuff. Every single photon from 5 metres under-ground to 100 kms above the surface across every possible spectrum and across every possible molecular absorption/emission spectrum and molecular collision-energy transfer rate before we will know what is going on and what additional CO2 will do.
In other words, it is a “wicked problem”. It is a completely unsolvable problem that can only be approximated by measuring what the real Earth(tm) actually does. How does the real Earth actually respond.
That is much easier to answer if the climate scientists would just quit adjusting the answers. The real Earth ™ is the answer.
Not some obscure far-infrared emissivity values in the Arctic only. Its like trying to weigh an Elephant by talking about the shape of its ears.
Bill, would you allow me to add to your …”Every single photon from 5 meters under-ground to 100 kms above the surface,” and add to at least 300 meters into the ocean depth…. and yes we need to know the residence time of every single W/L of energy with every single material it encounters, and we need to know all about the causes of cloud formations and jet stream location changes.
Did I miss something here? DOES CO2 ABSORB THIS WAVELENGTH? Or not? or do we know? If half the energy emitted is in the far out IR, it would seem important to know this. I’ve been following climate science and radiative physics on several blogs for ~10yrs and I never heard of this far out IR.
“Far-infrared surface emissivity is an unexplored topic, but it deserves more attention.”
Then how can you blame it if it is unexplored?
Didn’t they just invalidate their work vis-a-vis CAGW? The effect is one of OPEN WATER, but during the dark, winter months, the oceans are covered with ice!
The far infrared is a warming hypothesis only during the open ocean times. Which is, what, August through October/November? But if the Arctic warming is most pronounced during the dark, winter times, then the reduced efficiency of far infrared transmission of open water is a moot point. The winter Arctic is warmer for some other reason.
And that’s why there is no ice at the North pole, son.
Perhaps the lack of correlation with CO2 buildup is why there was much more glacier melt (both in the Arctic and globally) in the 1920s-1940s than there has been in recent decades.
———————-
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00319.1
[T]here was a warm period in the Arctic and Greenland in the 1920s and 1930s (Box 2002; Johannessen et al. 2004; Kobashi et al. 2011) at a time when anthropogenic global warming was relatively small (see, e.g., Fig. 9.5 ofHegerl et al. 2007). This promoted glacier mass loss at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere (e.g., Oerlemans et al. 2011) at a greater rate than the global mean. Although in L the difference is not striking in general (not shown; L includes 79 glaciers north of 60°N and 24 north of 70°N), it is pronounced in Greenland. Length records included in L indicate a greater rate of glacier retreat in the first than in the second half of the twentieth century in Greenland (Leclercq et al. 2012).
[Graph from the paper (Figure A) showing much larger glacier melt rate contributions to sea level rise in the 1920s to 1940s compared to the present:]
http://journals.ametsoc.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/ams/journals/content/clim/2013/15200442-26.13/jcli-d-12-00319.1/20130821/images/large/jcli-d-12-00319.1-f2.jpeg
———————-
http://www.the-cryosphere.net/8/659/2014/tc-8-659-2014.pdf
The data set contains the glacier length records for 471 [global] glaciers and it covers the period 1535–2011. There are glacier length records from all continents and at almost all latitudes. For the observed glaciers, the 20th century retreat was strongest in the first half of the 20th century.…. [T]he retreat is strongest in the period 1921–1960 rather than in the last period 1961–2000, with a median retreat rate of 12.5 m yr in 1921–1960 and 7.4 m yr in the period 1961–2000. [Globally, glaciers melted 69% more rapidly from 1921-1960 than from 1961-2000.]
Excellent point and well made, Kenneth Richards (at 1802 today).
And what do the AGW clowns make of Ötzi …
(youtube video “Ötzi — The ice man”)
… who died in the early European Bronze Age (about 2,000 B.C.)….
….. about 10,000 feet above sea level at about latitude 47N…
… when there was no glacier there.
2:15 “At the time, no one realized {the finding’s} significance… .”
Some STILL do not.
*************************************
Caveat:
The following is just sharing my heart…. skip it if you cannot stand to read anything about God on WUWT.
Just now, watching the two videos about “Ötzi,” I was deeply moved. I don’t know why. Would you like to hear my guess? I think it is because “Ötzi’s” death was gift to us, to you, to me. He died where he did, with no one who loved him nearby, likely far from home, to save the world from a l1e. He was almost certainly murdered. That murder was part of the amazing plan of a God Who is in control of — everything. Whether we like what happens or not is irrelevant. That fact remains (given God exists): God is in control. The mountaineers who found “Ötzi” found him on the last day of their climb. They were able to create an authenticating chain of custody for the evidence which is “Ötzi’s” body with the last picture they had in their camera. The discovery of “Ötzi” utterly disproves one of the most f1endish l1es in history (given the misery and death it has caused):
that of human CO2 causing global warming.
In the end, the truth comes out — every time.
Truth will win.
Thus, I say fervently, “Hallelu Yah.”
……………………………………….
And, strangely, yet I feel appropriately, I add in a whisper, “Thank you, ‘Ötzi,’ whatever your real name was.”
And, I like to think that “Ötzi” knows, now. He knows what he was born to do: to die on that lonely mountain — for us.
Sigh. Well, good ol’ BBC would prefer NOT to make “Otzi the Iceman” 1993 Horizon documentary on BBC 2 ( 1 of 4 ) easily available to the public. As you will see upon clicking on the second video control window in my post just above, you must go to YouTube.com to watch it. Enter the above phrase about Ötzi in the youtube search box and you will find the video (and many others).
I apologize for not testing this first.
P.S. And I think, if he had not already written that novel, and if he had been alive and able to write c. 1992, Ernest Hemingway would have been inspired by Ötzi’s story to write The Old Man and the Sea…. for the Man who is a parallel for both Santiago and for Ötzi (and is clearly symbolized in that novel) would have come to mind… . A lonely man…. struggling with harsh elements of nature …. apparently failing in his mission…. but actually, triumphant. Maybe….. Ötzi, too, dreamed of the lions as he fell asleep for the last time… .
Thank you. God, for arranging to have a guy murdered in order to disprove the AGW thesis soem 4000 years later. I’m sure Ötzi was thrilled to know he would be so important. Must have been a great comfort to him while his skull was being bashed in.
But if you are in the business of arranging murders to teach us this, wouldn’t it have been neater, and more appropriate, to send the hit squad in to the people actually responsible for the AGW scam? Poor old Ötzi had nothing to do with it.
[snip – religion -mod]
Cool. That’s a great example of what I call “The Principle of Ultimate Contigencies”, where the best thing that can happen happens at the right time and the right place!
You may call it a “miracle” if you wish. Thanks for being here Janice.
Amen!
Janice Moore
November 3, 2014 at 7:31 pm
Ötzi is not of the Bronze Age. His basically Neolithic technology is from the Chalcolithic or Copper Age, ie using copper but not yet bronze. He lived around the end of the Holocene Climatic Optimum, about 3350-3300 BC, not 2000 BC.
He also might not have died alone. One school of thought interprets his remains as a burial, but that conclusion is still controversial among archaeologists and anthropologists. Someone removed the lethal arrow from his shoulder, while leaving its point inside him.
Dear Sturgis Hooper,
I have no personal knowledge as you do of these facts and am not going to take the time to research them. My source (at about 5:57 in the BBC video above (See youtube for 1993 BBC documentary on Otzi Part 1)) was Professor Konrad Spindler of the Institute of Archaeology of Innsbruck Univ. who declared to the BBC interviewer in 1993 that Otzi was of the Central European Early Bronze age, i.e., lived around 2000, B.C.. Perhaps, the BBC mis-translated Professor Spindler or perhaps, later, Professor Spindler used more precise dating and changed what he claimed about Otzi’s approximate age. The technology Otzi possessed, Professor Spindler said (unless his German was mistranslated to English), was what made him believe Otzi was of the Bronze Age.
It would be helpful, since you are asserting your facts merely on your own authority, if you would provide us with your credentials (just the basics) to establish your credibility for those of us unfamiliar with your expertise on this subject.
Thank you for correcting me (although…. with your unknown expertise… and my failure to verify what you say with my own research, I’m not sure I HAVE been corrected… yet).
Janice
{same post as just above in mod-er-ation — without the word I think made it go there…}
Dear Sturgis Hooper,
I have no personal knowledge as you do of these facts and am not going to take the time to research them. My source (at about 5:57 in the BBC video above (See youtube for 1993 BBC documentary on Otzi Part 1)) was Professor Ko-n-rad Spindler of the Institute of Archaeology of Innsbruck Univ. who declared to the BBC interviewer in 1993 that Otzi was of the Central European Early Bronze age, i.e., lived around 2000, B.C.. Perhaps, the BBC mis-translated Professor Spindler or perhaps, later, Professor Spindler used more precise dating and changed what he claimed about Otzi’s approximate age. The technology Otzi possessed, Professor Spindler said (unless his German was mistranslated to English), was what made him believe Otzi was of the Bronze Age.
It would be helpful, since you are asserting your facts merely on your own authority, if you would provide us with your credentials (just the basics) to establish your credibility for those of us unfamiliar with your expertise on this subject.
Thank you for correcting me (although…. with your unknown expertise… and my failure to verify what you say with my own research, I’m not sure I HAVE been corrected… yet).
Janice
You could easily have verified my statements yourself almost immediately by searching:
http://www.archaeology.org/issues/109-1311/features/1351-oetzi-copper-age-alps-iceman-tattoos
I watched the 1993 BBC segment. The archaeologist gave an approximate date of 2000 BC. Carbon dating showed that he was wrong; Oetzi is over a millennium older than that. Moreover, the ax, although it might resemble an Early Bronze Age design, was copper, not bronze, which fits with the 14C date.
“The simulations revealed…” nothing. The simulations revealed nothing except the biases of the programmers. It doesn’t matter how many papers they reviewed to refine their inputs, it doesn’t matter how refined those inputs were. If I drop a marble through a garden hose, it comes out the other end. An oversimplified analogy, perhaps, but essentially what their expensive computer did.
Let’s ask the question: granted that all surfaces cannot radiate Far-IR at the same rate, how does that explain: 1. The presence of an Arctic Polar Ice cap for approximately 27 million years; 2. The presence of an Antarctic Polar Ice cap for approximately 34 million years (quoted from Plimer, “Heaven and Earth” from memory, please correct me if my memory fails me); 3. The increase in Sea Ice at the Antarctic, the overall increase in sea ice in recent years?
They haven’t discovered a “mechanism” but yet one more way that they don’t understand the environment in which natural processes take place. Natural process which created the polar caps in the first place. If their new hypothesis can’t help explain how that came about, can’t explain why the amount of ice waxes and wanes or why it does as much or as little as observed, or how this newly “discovered” fact interacts with other natural processes, then they haven’t got anything yet to speak of (It has been very well understood since before 1859 when Kirchhoff formally posed the question in relation to frequency for the first time, that not all surfaces are perfect emitters of electromagnetic radiation across the entire spectrum… It would appear that Lawrence-Berkeley Lab is only what, 160 years or so behind the curve? But hey, maybe computer models aren’t completely useless: they made the heroic contribution of bringing the esteemed folks at Berkeley Lab up to speed from a century-and-a-half lag—).
Not that the attention on a previously ignored variable isn’t a good thing, in that it may lead to a better understanding of why there is a polar ice cap and why it behaves the way it does; but an explanation for global warming? An example of global warming in action? Another reason why we must deconstruct the modern world in order to prevent a few thousandths of a degree C increase in a metric, Global Mean Temperature, upon which—settled or not—science has yet to define adequately?
I think not. Not that the article makes those claims. It does say, however:
“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.”
Possibly. But just as possibly, it may not, since it doesn’t explain why sea ice had to have increased during those same seasons at some point in the past. If it cannot explain why ice grew as well as why ice shrank, or if it doesn’t have a place in a theory which explains both waxing and waning polar caps, it’s a red herring. They aren’t quoted as saying they’re trying to discover why the ice behaves the way it does—just “we think we know why ice melts.” Revealing a bias, perhaps?
“ ‘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.’ ”
A conclusion not justified by what is presented here.
“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.”
Again, simulations do not reveal actual events. They reveal that the program is biased that way. If the biases are all properly controlled for, the best a simulation may do is suggest. I mean, did actual measurements over a 25 year span on the Tibetan Plateau confirm this?
This article paints the researchers out to be another bunch of kids infatuated with “The Sims” who don’t realize that the “people” aren’t real. As if they’re the kind of people who try to name the ants in their terrarium, and think they have a deep relationship with them. I’ve no doubt they believe they’re on to something, and perhaps they are. But whatever it is, this article doesn’t reveal it, or do them justice; the “conclusions” appear to be a bit of nothing, and if they did only just “discover” via a computer game that not all surfaces and materials radiate all frequencies at the same rate… Well, someone should suggest they shouldn’t be so enthusiastic about advertising that they were nearly 160 years behind established science…
Please excuse me, when I say, ” They aren’t quoted as saying they’re trying to discover why the ice behaves the way it does—just ‘we think we know why ice melts.’ Revealing a bias, perhaps?” I’m putting words in their mouth, and unintentionally, in a way that would make them sound like fools. That was not my intention. In a less supercilious way, I mean that they appear to be drawing conclusions not justified by what is revealed here, and the only thing actually revealed that I can see is a bias towards global warming—and not a dedication towards discovering the mechanisms that make the polar caps behave they way they do.
I mean them no disrespect.
p@ur momisugly
Hi, P@ur momisugly!
I responded to your “hello” the other evening… . AHEM!
#(:)) … hope all is well (with you and with Einstein, Jack Russell, Cassie, and….. the cat).
Janice
No. There are no unknown unknowns. The models account for EVERYTHING. And this would be perfectly clear if only we could find the right corrections to apply to the raw data.
lol, good one, Brock Way.
using your sarcasm for a semi-serious point: “The models account for EVERYTHING.” — NOT.
Guess we need a Sarbanes-Oxley Act for Climate “Science”….. seriously….
The incoming solar spectrum is intense, narrow and focused, the outgoing earth spectrum is fat, lazy and dissipated, yet they are equal in total energy. It has been well known since the 1950’s that, ironically, snow is one of the most efficient BLACKbodies known.
The intensity of solar input at the peak of summer in the Arctic is 17% of 17% of normal solar vertical input. Solar energy comes it at a low angle, spreading the energy to 17% and, also, there is intensity losses by traveling through so much more atmosphere getting there, an 83% loss. So at the peak of summer solar input is only 3% of normal input and any heat realized by open water would be countered almost immediately by evaporative cooling. And, remember, on both sides of the summer peak radiation is about 3 months of this input going to or from zero and then 6 months of darkness. For anybody to think that this energy input has any measurable effect in the Arctic is deluded. It is warm water pumped into the Arctic basin by the NAO and warm air from the south that melts the ice. The Sun is just a source of light but not much more, and the albedo of the ice makes this even more meaningless.
They are talking about outgoing.
Of course, this would be cooling the planet and not melting the ice, but hey, they might be confused yet on to something.
Dear Anthony,
I realize, now, that I made a mistake in talking about God, here. I thought that by telling the reader that I was “sharing my heart” (which I most fervently was) it would dispel potential animosity and bitter controversy. I see now, that I was mistaken. I won’t do it again (unless I forget myself — at least it will be not for a long time).
Sorry for the non-science, heartfelt, writing above. I am so grateful for all you do and do not want to disrupt your fine site.
Since only you will see this, please know that I am praying for your recent health concern (I’ve prayed about your hearing issues for a long time, now) — have been since you mentioned going to see a health professional about 10 days ago. I hope all is well. Do let us know. In any event, I’ll keep praying.
Take care,
Janice
Well obviously the less ice causes warming isn’t a runaway/overriding effect otherwise we wouldn’t have any polar ice nor a recovery from the 2007 minimum.
Similarly the CO2 drives climate theory is untenable because we would have a runaway greenhouse by now. The more CO2, the more warming, the more warming the more CO2 is released from the oceans etc.
Silly layman observation… low humidity over sea water increases evaporation? Evaporation is energy loss? Far IR in the 15 micron band from CO2 in the atmosphere might be helping the rate of evaporation? It is certainly cold in the Arctic region. Now at about -20C.
Take a look at “The pineapple express” an atmospheric river from the Pacific that has a warming effect and is known to cause melt in the Arctic.
Can someone explain this to me. I am a little confused.
To my knowledge the North Pole isn’t particularly arid. The Arctic Ocean isn’t very dry at all.
So what relevance does this finding have in the Arctic?
Actually most Arctic areas are quite dry. The amount of precipitation is mostly in the desert range and and the amount of moisture in the air is low, particularly in winter. Inland East Antarctica is the most extreme desert in the World.
Or, of course, the atmospheric warming over the Arctic could be due to oceans releasing heat that they could not do under the insulation of the ice.
Problem with your assumption that the atmospher over the Artic should be warmer. That’s not the case unless if you only go for temperatures from reflexion-reading….. Actually the big problem with all so called readings in Arctic is that they in most cases aren’t taken on SAME Latitude and Longitude more than for a few days if ever. That’s due to icedrift in Arctic. Read about Nansen’s ships drifting and you might understand.
One other thing. If you only take figures taken at exactly the same spot Latitude and Longitude there aren’t any significant differences over the last 30 years!
I’ve always wondered why it feels so hot walking on ice. All that heat blasting up at me like I’m on a burning hot asphalt surface in summer. Now I know. That’s why the emperor penguins congregate in inland Antarctica over winter – all that heat coming from the ice. I guess they have to dance about to keep their feet from burning.
The albedo feedback (and oceanic heat absorption) certainly combines with positive AMO anomalies to explain the Laptev and Georges Bank methane clathrate release sites…
“…In the Arctic, the simulations found that open oceans hold more far-infrared energy than sea ice, …”
The oceans do not hold far-infrared energy. They hold internal energy, characterized by a temperature of some value, and far-infrared emission from the surface as a result.”
I wonder, if one were to place a source of shortwave energy at the low angles typical of the Sun in polar regions, what does one find for uncertainty of absorption. Indeed, oceans appear black when viewed from above, but not necessarily so at low angles.