Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Anthony has just posted the results from a “Press Session” at the AGU conference. In it the authors make two claims of interest. The first is that there has been a five percent decrease in the summer Arctic albedo since the year 2000:
A decline in the region’s albedo – its reflectivity, in effect – has been a key concern among scientists since the summer Arctic sea ice cover began shrinking in recent decades. As more of the sun’s energy is absorbed by the climate system, it enhances ongoing warming in the region, which is more pronounced than anywhere else on the planet.
Since the year 2000, the rate of absorbed solar radiation in the Arctic in June, July and August has increased by five percent, said Norman Loeb, of NASA’s Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia. The measurement is made by NASA’s Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) instruments, which fly on multiple satellites.
The second related claim is as follows:
Kay and colleagues have also analyzed satellite observations of Arctic clouds during this same 15-year period. Kay’s research shows summer cloud amounts and vertical structure are not being affected by summer sea ice loss. While surprising, the observations show that the bright sea ice surface is not automatically replaced by bright clouds. Indeed, sea ice loss, not clouds, explain the increases in absorbed solar radiation measured by CERES.
Since I have the latest CERES data on my computer, I figured I’d see what they were talking about.
Now, it’s not entirely clear from the presentation which dataset they’ve used. Bear in mind that there are two CERES datasets: top-of-atmosphere radiation observations, and surface radiation calculations. Albedo is calculated from the observations, it’s reflected sunlight divided by incoming solar.
On the other hand, they also talk about “absorbed solar radiation” which is only available in the calculated datasets.
So let’s start with the claim that the Arctic albedo has decreased since the year 2000. I assume that they are using the normal definition of “Arctic”, which is above the Arctic Circle at about 66.5° north.
There are several difficulties with albedo near the poles. First, when the total solar input is quite small, the numbers get inaccurate, since it is a ratio and the denominator, the solar input, is near zero. In addition, the numbers are also inaccurate because there’s so little reflected sunlight, which makes both the top and bottom of the ratio quite variable. Finally, it’s difficult to convert the changes in albedo into watts per square metre (W/m2), which is a much more meaningful number.
So let me look at a simpler measurement—how much sunlight is reflected, measured in W/m2. We have three top-of-atmosphere (TOA) observational datasets for that, which are the reflection regardless of the state of cloudiness (called “toa_sw_all”), the reflection from the ground when the sky is clear (called “toa_sw_clr”), and the reflection just from the clouds (called “cre_sw”). Figure 1 shows the first of these, the total sunlight reflected in all conditions:
Figure 1. Total reflection from the Arctic. This includes both cloud and ground reflections. The top panel shows the raw data, with a dotted line showing the average value. The middle panel shows the seasonal component, which is also called the “climatology”. The bottom panel shows the “residual”, which is the difference between the top and middle panels.
I note that indeed the reflections have gotten smaller over the period, meaning that the amount absorbed is larger as the press release stated. The next graph, Figure 2, shows the ground reflections only. Note that as you’d expect, these are less than the total reflections:
Figure 2. “Clear sky” (ground only) reflections from the Arctic. This shows only ground reflections. The top panel shows the raw data, with a dotted line showing the average value. The middle panel shows the seasonal component, which is also called the “climatology”. The bottom panel shows the “residual”, which is the difference between the top and middle panels.
Finally, Figure 3 shows the results from just cloud reflections. Note that rather than decreasing, the cloud reflections are increasing. They are also smaller than the ground reflections.
Figure 3. Cloud reflections from the Arctic. This shows only the effect of the clouds. The top panel shows the raw data, with a dotted line showing the average value. The middle panel shows the seasonal component, which is also called the “climatology”. The bottom panel shows the “residual”, which is the difference between the top and middle panels.
So … there are the three graphs: total reflections, ground reflections, and cloud reflections. So how well does this agree with the claims of the press release?
Now, to start with they’ve done something strange. Rather than look at the changes over the whole year, they’ve only looked at three months of the year, June, July, and August. I disagree strongly with this kind of analysis, for a couple of reasons. The first is because it allows for nearly invisible cherry picking, by simply choosing the months with a particular desired effect. The second is that it makes it hard to determine statistical significance, since there are 12 possible 3-month contiguous chunks that they could choose from … which means that you need to find a much greater effect to claim significance.
So I’m not going to follow that plan. I’m looking at what happens over the whole year, since that’s what really matters. The first point of interest is that the total amount reflected from the Arctic (Figure 1) has indeed decreased over the period at a rate of a quarter of a watt per square metre (-0.25 W/m2) per decade … for a total drop in reflected solar of
-0.025 W/m2/year * 14 years = 0.35 W/m2
A third of a watt per square metre? All of this hype in the press release is to announce that there’s been a change in Arctic reflections of a third of a watt per square metre in fourteen years??? Be still, my beating heart … that’s a whacking great 1% change in the already small Arctic solar absorption in fourteen years. This is their big news? Now please note, their claim about the change in June, July, and August of a 5% change may indeed be true … but that just emphasizes why that kind of analysis is just cherry picking.
Not much else to say about it once I’ve said that … well, except to say that their claim that “the bright sea ice surface is not automatically replaced by bright clouds” also doesn’t seem to be true. Note that the blue line in the bottom panel of Figure 3, which shows the smoothed changes of cloud reflections, is pretty much a mirror image of the corresponding line in Figure 2 showing the smoothed changes in ground reflections. In fact, the correlation between the unsmoothed cloud and ground residuals is -0.71, with a p-value less than .001. In other words … they’re wrong. The cloud changes do not entirely offset the ground changes, but the bright clouds assuredly move in total opposition to the bright sea ice surface.
Finally, I would note that from 2000 to 2010, the total reflection from the Arctic drops by about one W/m2 (blue line, bottom panel, Figure 1). Then in two years it drops another one W/m2 … and in the next two years it rises by one W/m2. As a result, I’d have to conclude that while these changes may have statistical significance, they may not mean a whole lot …
Regards to all,
w.
PS—If you disagree with someone, please have the courtesy to QUOTE THEIR EXACT WORDS so that we can all understand the nature of your objections.
CODE AND DATA: The R code and functions are here in a 14 Kb zipped folder . The CERES TOA data is here and the surface data is here. WARNING: BIG data files, 200 Mb plus.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Is there any way to separate albedo changes from melting ice, vs albedo changes from increased soot deposits?
Mark: Is there any way to separate albedo changes from melting ice, vs albedo changes from increased soot deposits?
Good question. I would attempt to determine if there is a difference in gridcells over “sea ice” where melting is feasible, versus the albedo of ice over landmasses where average temperatures remain above the melting point year ’round. Presumably the former albedo change (more dark) is “water+soot” while the latter is “soot” only.
This is NOT to say that such an attempt would yield any results worth relying on.
oops: temperatures in the air ABOVE Arctic landmasses remain BELOW the melting point of water year ’round. Backwardsly phrased before
The other issue is that the area above the Arctic Circle, above 66.33N, only gets about 2.3% of the total solar energy received by the Earth (after the average Albedo of the region calculated previously).
If the average Albedo in this area declined by 5%, the Earth as a whole, would get about 0.22 W/m2 more solar insolation, which could raise the average Earth temperature by 0.06C. So it would have a non-zero although small impact.
The big impacts from Albedo changes occur when one starts moving away from the poles towards lower latitudes, as in the ice ages, with 1 km thick ice-sheets down to Chicago.
The first question I ask when confronted with a percentage change is:
Percentage of how much?
If they had wanted to avoid cherry-picking criticisms, they could have tried full year calculation (as suggested) or perhaps bracketed the summer solstice equally on either side. Willis’ graphs demonstrate annual peak/minimum arctic insolation at the summer and winter solstices, respectively. Selecting the more arbitrary “summer” months probably opens them to the confounding effects of wind and ocean circulation, particularly as these follow much longer cycles. Of course, picking June, July, August will allow the next researcher to add September and “prove” that the melting is even worse than we thought!
I’m new to this site and discussion. Aren’t we dealing with half of the problem? This whole discussion is about absorbed/reflected energy, what about radiated energy? That component makes the “whole year” issue relevant since radiation goes on all the time and we have to look at the total energy budget to see what’s really going on.
5% reduction with a +/- 5% uncertainty.
“Finally, I would note that from 2000 to 2010, the total reflection from the Arctic drops by about one W/m2 (blue line, bottom panel, Figure 1). Then in two years it drops another one W/m2 … and in the next two years it rises by one W/m2. As a result, I’d have to conclude that while these changes may have statistical significance, they may not mean a whole lot …”
This is probably the major takeaway. Kay et al. probably rushed to get their analysis out before the northern ice cap grows any further.
As always when I read discussions like those above I can’t help reflecting on the best quot I know:
”Die wichtigkeit oder Bedeutung eines Problems haengt immer auch von subjektiven, bewer tendens Elementen ab” Vollmer Gerhard, Wissenschaftstheorie in Einsatz, Stuttgart 1993
Quick English Translation: “The importance or significance of a problem depends on subjective, evaluative elements of tendens”
It’s the polar bears! After they all starved to death, the summer Arctic albedo declined. The solution, as one wag long ago suggested on these pages, is to dress “His Hugeness”, Al Gore, in a white suit and stake him out at the North Pole.
Doing a similar analysis at the south pole was mentioned earlier, but no one seemed interested. As there is a greater sea ice there is it possible that the increase in southern albedo may be larger than the decrease in northern albedo? I say this because I speculate that when the low in arctic sea ice arrives, the sun’s rays are considerably diminished. However, when the high in the Antarctic sea ice is in place, then the sun’s rays are not far off their maximum. If the Arctic decrease is very small, could it be that the total albedo for the polar regions has actually increased over the past 30 years?
I would also like to see Stuart’s question addressed. Sea ice extends farther into lower latitudes in the Antarctic so albedo should have a greater effect. I’m wondering if sea ice continues to increase in the southern hemisphere, could the albedo increase be enough to significantly affect global temperatures?
I agree strongly. Such an analysis would be extremely interesting. However it could not be limited to the area inside the Arctic Circle. It would have to extend to about 55 degrees latitude South, to cover the maximum extent of the Antarctic sea-ice.
Yes, you are right. The Antarctic sea ice extent reaches much farther to the north than the Arctic sea ice extent reaches to the south. I have always wondered whether there is actually a mass gain of global land and sea ice because while mountain glaciers and Arctic ice have diminished, it would appear that the Eastern Antarctica has accumulated substantially more ice. Is the net sum positive or negative?
Actually, I said I was interested in the South Pole as well, and that time was a factor … take a breath, my friend, nothing happens instantly.
In any case, here’s the analysis … no change over the time period.
w.
Fredberple: why choose those months?
Maybe because the effects of insolatioon lag. Just as the hottest days of summer are after the solstice, so the annual retreat of the icecap is at maximum after solstice. Retreating icecap means lower albedo.
We know that arctic ice was reducing over the past few years, so it’s hardly surprising that the albedo decreased.
As the ice recovers, albedo will increase again. Maybe that is why this report came out now.
Did you miss the punch line Willis, or did I just misread it.
Arctic Albedo ( >66.5 N) is what percent of total global albedo, measured in W/m^2 ??
Just asking; not trying to start a royal rumble.
You are probably right about the quantity, but the question is; is a third of a watt per square meter in fourteen year a big number or a small number?
Well, the radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2 is estimated to 3.7 W/m2. By the current growth rate of a doubling will take approximately 190 years. A growth of 0.35 watt per 14 years gives by comparison 4.75 W/m2 after 190 years.
If your numbers are right the albedo effect is therefore larger than the CO2 effect.
/Jan
Thanks for that, Jan. There are a couple problems with your calculation. First, you assume that the change in arctic reflections could continue for 190 years … seems extremely doubtful.
The more important part that you are missing is that while CO2 changes affect the entire planet, only 1.3% of the total global absorbed solar radiation is absorbed in the Arctic. As a result, we’re talking about a 1% change in fourteen years in 1.3% of the absorbed solar radiation … I’m sorry, but that is a very small number.
w.
Thanks for the comment Willis.
As I see it, it is probably equally doubtful that the CO2 increase will go on for 190 years. The technologies will have developed beyond our imagination in less than half that time.
So my calculation was not meant as a forecast of what I think will happen 190 years from now. I just compared the effect on climate forcing from CO2 to the forcing from the albedo and the latter seems to be stronger in the arctic on the current rate of change.
Concerning what you call the more important part; that we are only talking of the arctic and not the entire planet, I totally agree. I am not missing it as you say; I am just sticking to the scope of discussion, which I thought was the arctic.
However, I do not understand why you mention the fraction of solar radiation absorbed in the arctic. You have already calculated the effect of forcing, which is 0.35 W/m2 in fourteen years. That is the number of importance for calculating the effect of changed albedo. The fraction of solar radiation is then irrelevant because you have already used it to calculate the 0.35W/m2.
/Jan
Thanks, Jan. I fear that you’re missing the larger context. For decades the argument has been that there is a large effect on GLOBAL warming because of the positive feedback from the loss of the sea ice. It’s a point that the alarmists have hammered over and over, that the purportedly large positive feedback of warmer –> less ice –> less albedo is part of the runaway feedback meme. It is that claim that I was addressing.
w.
I agree to that Willis.
But the argument of runaway feedback theory is not pushed by IPCC and the majority of scientists. The runaway meme is pushed by the real alarmists whom you find among quite many journalists and a few odd scientists.
/Jan
Jan, you’ve got to start doing some research before making claims. From the IPCC, another typical alarmist claim:
Note that they say the ice-albedo feedback “significantly contributes to the global climate sensitivity”.
Which has been my point, and the reason I called it a tempest in a teapot.
w.
But they do not mention any “runaway process” do they?
One can always discuss how much contribution one need to justify calling it significant.
/Jan
Jan Kjetil Andersen December 18, 2014 at 2:01 pm
It’s funny, Jan. After I wrote that about “runaway” I drove to San Francisco and while driving, I thought “I bet Jan focuses on the ‘runaway’ part and ignores the ‘global’ part”, and I immediately regretted saying “runaway”.
I was trying to discuss your argument that we should just focus on the Arctic by saying:
In response to that, you said:
But in fact, while the IPCC didn’t mention “runaway”, my point still stands—many, many scientists and organizations, INCLUDING THE IPCC, expect exactly that. They think that a small change in the albedo on 4% of the surface will have a large affect on the entire planet …. viz:
The IPCC is clearly stating what you just said nobody expects—that the ice-albedo feedback “significantly contributes to the global climate sensitivity” …
Now you are right that in a rational world nobody would “expect that”, it would be a “crazy system” in your words … but this is not rationality. This is alarmism and the IPCC, who clearly do “expect that” …
Thanks,
w.
@ur momisugly Willis Eschenbach: December 18, 2014 at 11:43 pm
“But in fact, while the IPCC didn’t mention “runaway”, my point still ……….”
—————-
The IPCC didn’t specifically state a “runaway” scenario, …. but, it is quite obvious to me that the IPCC specifically implied such a scenario via their claim of ….. “A robust feature”, … to wit:
———
Willis Eschenbach: December 18, 2014 at 2:21 pm
[quoting the IPCC] “A robust feature of the response of climate models to increases in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases is the poleward retreat of terrestrial snow and sea ice, and the polar amplification of increases in lower-tropospheric temperature”
——————
A robust feature of “increases causing increases” is in fact a “runaway” scenario.
Samuel says:
Thanks for the comment Samuel, but this is only a claim that there is a positive feedback which is quite uncontroversial.
By runaway scenario it is usually meant that a tipping point can be reached and after that the feedback is not only positive, but that the loop gain is above 1. This gives an unstable system with exponential growth in temperatures.
There will always be some “The end is nigh” people around, and the runaway climate scenario seems to be a favorite theme for those.
/Jan
Willis says:
Thank you Willis, but I think you now overstate their meaning a little. The IPCC do not specifically limit their discussion to the 4% area above the Arctic Circle. You have calculated the average effect north of the Arctic Circle to 0.35W/m2 in 14 years, but it does not shrink to zero one step south of the circle. I would guess that there will be a change in albedo in all areas which experience fewer days with snow cower.
In a heating world I would expect that only the areas which have year-round snow or ice anyway, i.e. the glaciers, and the areas which never receive snow will have an unchanged albedo. This is a big fraction of the world, and I would not be surprised if this significantly contributes to the global climate sensitivity.
I also have to say that I have a quite positive impression if the IPCC. One can disagree with them, but they produce reports with high scientific quality and they never say that the science is settled.
/Jan
Jan Kjetil Andersen
Please. Show us the actual calculations for this supposed Arctic amplification (positive feedback) for the Arctic Ocean sea ice. For 24 hours on September 22 at its lowest extent, show us how much energy is absorbed by the assumed sea ice, how much is reflected by sea ice, how much energy would be absorbed by open water and how much is reflected by open water each hour.
False. There is NO part of the Arctic Ocean south of 69-70 north. There is a very small area of the Bering Sea and the Hudson Bay that is south of the Arctic Circle – These areas melt every spring and freeze again every fall. There is NO evidence at all that either area is contributing to the earth’s albedo: There are no measured freeze/melt dates affecting anything more than these two. If they did melt a few days earlier, then that “heat” cannot heat anyother regioins because their size and location is too little to matter.
Oh. Today’s “excess” Antarctic sea ice of 1.3 million square kilometers has lasted more than 2 years now, and is at the same location as the ENTIRE area of Hudson’s Bay. What is a greater impact? Two years of an area the size of Hudson Bay lasting the entire time in a band that encircles the entire globe at 60 south? Or one region that melts “early” for two days – heating up for a period of three hours each day?
Land glaciers and permanent mountain top ice outside of Antarctic and Greenland – compromise less than 1/4 of 1 percent of the world’s surface. Show the math that difference between 1970 extents and today’s extents of these areas matter. By the way, land-based snow cover has set new record high recently. Your claim is false. Dead wrong.
So, there is no ocean sea ice south of the Arctic Circle, and I would defy you to actually show very much of it is south of 70 north latitude even at maximum extents ANY DAY of the year.
In contrast, ALL of the Antarctic sea ice is NORTH of the Antarctic Circle EVERY day of the day. ALL of the “excess” Antarctic sea ice that you are trying desperately to ignore DOES reflect ever higher and higher amounts of radiation back into space.
RACookPE1978 says:
Thank you RAC,
I have not calculated the arctic amplification, but Willis has in the original article.
Please read that.
/Jan
@ur momisugly Jan Kjetil Andersen: December 19, 2014 at 11:38 am
“Thanks for the comment Samuel, but this is only a claim that there is a positive feedback which is quite uncontroversial.”
————-
HA, it is quite apparent to me that you didn’t/don’t have a “clue” as to what my comment was in reference too …… or you do know and your above cited post was just a CYA.
In other words, Jan, a 0.025 W/m2/year change in 4% of the surface area is equivalent to a global change of 0.001 W/m2/year ….
w.
It would be a crazy system if a change in the albedo on 4% of the surface had a huge effect on the entire planet. I don’t think anyone expect that.
This is the effect per square meter in the arctic and it seems to be larger than the CO2 effect.
There may be changes in the albedo other places on the planet too, but that is another discussion.
/Jan
Please, show your math (day of year, latitude, and hour of day) to justify that claim.
Jan Kjetil Andersen December 18, 2014 at 1:08 pm
Sadly, Jan, you misunderestimate the foolishness of modern alarmists. there are heaps of alarmists out there making that very claim. Here’s one from the American Meteorological Society:
A google search of “runaway ice-albedo feedback” yields over a million hits … take a look at some of them for a good laugh.
w.
The arctic and near-arctic has a tremendous amount of twilight year around. It certainly is not pitch black everywhere in the arctic even in winter. Any light is energy and needs to be accounted for. Another point is winter shadows are very long even in direct light including at the macro level. Grains of sand throw shadows, too, and certainly irregular frozen surfaces throw long shadows, so the entire square meter is not converting light to heat in these conditions. Finally, reflected light is predominantly sent right back to the source with a small percentage backlighting objects closer to the light source.
I apologize for entering the conversation a few hours after the first comments and replies, but there are several technical “issues” that must be addressed, and, in several cases, corrected. It’s going to be easiest to use a different section for each item.
MEASURED ARCTIC SEA ICE ALBEDO THROUGH THE SUMMER.
Judith Curry measured Arctic sea ice albedo several different ways (from long-term ice camps, from aircraft, from her ship floating through the sea ice, and locally by hand): Arctic sea ice albedo drops significantly during the arctic summer, then only slowly recovers as the freezing season starts up again in September – October.
The Arctic sea ice albedo is NOT the “one-number-fits-all” implied single point implied by this press release from the CAGW disciples above. It is NOT the simplified value from Wikipedia either.
Rather, Curry’s measured value of Arctic sea ice albedo (Curry, 2001 and others) begins at 0.8228 on DOY 279 (6 Oct), and remains right at 0.823 through DOY =1 on January 1.
It stays constant at 0.823 through the spring until day-of-year 133 (13 May).
From DOY 13 May through Oct 6 (days 133 through 279) Arctic sea ice albedo drops to 0.46 in July due to dust, pollen, debris and soot and particles, second and third and fourth year “dirty” ice, and (most important) shallow surface melt water ponds, then rises in August, September and October back to its winter normal of 0.823
This measured EXISTING and WELL-KNOWN drop in Arctic sea ice albedo in June, July, and August each year follows a close cosine curve down, to its minimum, then back up.
Arctic sea ice albedo may “average” 0.6415 in the summer, but it is NOT constant through the summer. Arctic sea ice may “get as low as” 0.46 in July, but it does NOT “stay” that low during the summer either!
The best curve fit through the entire May to September summer melt season is
= 0.6415 + 0.1813 * cos (0.04321 * DOY – 5.76717)
In Excel’s language using radians, if DOY is a declared variable for day-of-year
=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)))))
So, what values did the Arctic “sea ice experts” use for their press release claims? We do not know.
Note!
For ALL days-of-year in the Antarctic, Antarctic sea ice albedo stays at its winter high of 0.823!
This is because very, very little Antarctic sea ice remains solid from year-to-year, and all of that sea ice that does remain frozen stays in small coves and inlets very near the Antarctic coast. Unlike the multi-year Arctic sea ice, Antarctic's sea ice re-freezes every year as extends far from the Antarctic coast line. There is very, very little dust, no pollen, no pollution from ANY nearby countries or industries or deserts or forests, no soot, and no particles in the air: The Antarctic sea ice remains very, very clean through the entire year from freezing though final melting.
I apologize for entering the conversation a few hours after the first comments and replies, but there are several technical “issues” that must be addressed, and, in several cases, corrected. It’s going to be easiest to use a different section for each item.
MEASURED TOP-OF-ATMOSPHERE SOLAR RADIATION CHANGES THROUGH THE SUMMER MELT PERIOD.
The actual TOA solar radiation is substantially LESS through the mid-summer melt season than it is when the Arctic sea ice lays shadowed hidden in near-total darkness during October, November, December, January, and February.
TOA solar radiation peaks January 5 at 1408 Watts/m^2.
TOA solar radiation hits its yearly minimum July 5 at 1316 Watts/m^2
Because the earth’s orbit is elliptical, it is again easiest to approximate the TOA solar radiation with a curve fit cosine function. This will be within 1/2 watt/m^2 of Leif’s 2000 – 2013 measured solar data for every day-of-year (DOY).
TOA Radiation =1362.36+46.142*(COS(0.0167299*(DOY)+0.03150896))
Note 1.
Again, remember that while the north pole (Arctic ocean around the north pole) is exposed to many hours of sunshine during June, July, and August each year, those long hours of sunshine are at the earth’s LOWEST part of its annual energy budget by 90 watts/m^2.
Note 2.
While the two equinox days are near” the “average” days of the sun’s yearly cycle, they are NOT actually “equal” to the sun’s yearly cycle days. This is because the sun’s solar budget cycle depends ONLY on the average value of radiation (TSI is now declared to be 1362 watts/m^2 by Leif and company) and the obliquity of the earth’s orbit.
The equinox point of the year depends instead on the earth’s current tilt (now 23.5 degrees) and that value changes very slowly due to precession about the earth’s axis of rotation. See Milanovich cycles for the very, very slow changes in each of these.
Thus, on March 22, the TOA radiation = 1371 when the average TOA radiation is 1362.
On Sept 22, the TOA radiation = 1351 when the average TOA radiation is 1362 watts/m^2
On the other had, the TOA radiation follows a cosine wave, and thus changes onlty very gradually at its peaks and troughs:
Dec 22 solstice TOA = 1406.
15 days later on Jan 05 the solar radiation reaches it yearly peak at 1408 -only 2 watts more radiation/m^2.
June 22 solstice, TOA = 1317.
13 days later on July 05 the solar radiation reaches its yearly low at 1318 watts/m^2.
Does it?
Or is that just curve fitting. You can fit anything to anything if you allow any amplitude and frequency.
Is it a cosine wave?
It’s not a perfect cosine wave, as the earth’s orbit is elliptical, so the waveform is slightly distorted due to the difference in orbial velocities at perihelion and aphelion. However it does vary as the distance from sun to earth changes.
OK. That makes sense.
It’s cyclical as it’s related to the Earth’s orbit. OK.
I just wondered why anyone made a statement about the climate’s continuous behaviour without explaining it.
Yeah, I know.
But the better-fitting 8th order polynomial equation that really does beautifully squeeze right through the middle of all of Leif’s data points for evry day of his 10 years of measured TOA and TSI values just isn’t worth the effort for 1 watt difference in only a few days of the year.
The cosine curve above fits through all of the measured TOA and TSI data available.
For the Arctic above 70N, TOA insolation peaks at the summer solstice, but the maximum surface albedo from ice peaks about a month earlier (May) and the maximum surface albedo from open water peaks about a month later (July), assuming cloud albedo remains constant. This occurs because the Arctic Ocean transitions from ice to open water, with an albedo cross-over in June. Thus using data from the months of June-August biases the results toward open water albedo, and a lower albedo would be obtained by choosing, e.g., May-July, which incorporate maximum irradiation, but is a time of greater ice.
No.
I think you have started towards the right value – the changing total radiation received, absorbed, and reflected from the Arctic Ocean and Antarctic Ocean over time each year. But you are not incomplete in both detail and in the broad picture. Also, your description begins the right way, but it combined specific terms (values correct for a single square meter basis at a single day-of-year at a single latitude and a single hour-of-day) with the total energy over the broad area of many latitudes and many days of year.
For example, TOA radiation is at its maximum Jan 05 at 1408 watts/m^2, and at its minimum on July 05 at 1315 watts/m^2.
Ice albedo is at its minimum in July at only 0.46, and at its maximum during the fall, winter and spring season at 0.823.
However, Arctic sea ice area is at its maximum down to latitude 70 – 71 in late March, and is at its minimum area in mid-September at around 3-4 Million sq kilometers up around latitude 79-80.
Solar radiation each hour of each day varies on a completely different calendar: Each hour’s solar radiation on to a flat surface depends on day of year (which defines the polar axial tilt angle: 0.0 on March 22 and September 22 each year, maximum sun solar elevation angle difference on June 22, minimum solar elevation angle difference on Dec 22.
Solar elevation angle and latitude defines air mass -> how much of the sun’s energy is lost in the atmosphere before reaching the surface.
Air mass depends on hour of day: Minimum (least energy loss at noon, maximum energy lost at sunrise and sunset each day.
From solar elevation angle and wind speed you calculate actual water albedo for every solar elevation angle for every hour of the day.
Heat loss with and without sea ice can be calculated from 2 meter air temperature, wind speed, air pressure, and relative humidity -> which can be calculated if wet air temperature is known at each hour of the day.
From wind speed and air temperature you can get the Reynolds number, Prandlt number, Nusselt number -> from those you calculate the convection heat loss and conductive heat transfer through the sea ice up to the air and then to the sky.
From water temperature and ice temperature and air temperature and relative humidity you calculate LW radiation heat losses from each surface into the sky.
From actual surface albedo for water at each hour-of-day and each solar elevation angle at that hour and the “surviving” solar radiation to a flat surface ot sea level you calculate actual SW heat absorbed into open water, refelcted from open water, absorbed into sea ice, and reflected from sea ice.
THEN – after you know the heat gains and losses from every latitude band on every day-of-year for every hour-of-day, only THEN you can start multiplying heat gains and losses by area of sea ice and area of open water.
Area of the sea ice each day-of-year is known from the satellite plots.
Willis writes “The cloud changes do not entirely offset the ground changes, but the bright clouds assuredly move in total opposition to the bright sea ice surface.”
Someone else has probably already noticed this but if cloud cover is increasing then its not surprising ice creation is decreasing. One has to wonder how much impact that has when compared to the supposed CO2 forcing doing the “warming” instead…
Jan Kjetil Andersen December 19, 2014 at 12:21 pm Edit
True … but they do limit it to “ice-albedo feedback”.
1) There is very little ice south of the Arctic circle.
2) They speak only of ice-albedo feedback, and say nothing about snow.
3) AFAIK, there’s been no decrease in snow coverage in any case …
You go on to say:
Huh? I don’t understand that. How do unchanging glaciers and areas that never receive snow “significantly contribute” to climate sensitivity?
I have to say that my respect for your judgement just went way down. The IPCC has been secretive, and refused to reveal its inner workings. It was up to its ears in the Jesus paper, and was the main force behind the acceptance of the “Hockeystick”. Remember Michael Mann advising his unindicted co-conspirators to illegally destroy their emails? They showed the inner workings of the IPCC.
How you interpret the Hockeystick as being of “high scientific quality” is a mystery. Heck, the AR4 report famously passed off puff pieces from Greenpeace and from newspapers as high quality science … most of us saw through that, but it looks like they fooled at least one person. High quality? Don’t make me laugh.
As to whether the IPCC say the science is settled, here’s the head of the organization himself, Railroad Engineer Pachauri, on the subject:
and
“No room for doubt”??? … Jan, is this truly your idea of “high quality science”? Really?
Pachauri’s the fool who famously claimed that anyone who doubted the IPCC’s bogus claims about Himalayan glaciers was “voodoo science” … just before he had to eat his words when it was pointed out that the “voodoo science” was what the IPCC was pushing. See here and here for details … spoiler alert! It’s not “high quality science”.
In other words, your claims about the IPCC are a joke. As I said above … please do your homework before uncapping your electronic pen, my friend. You are embarrassing yourself.
w.
Willis says:
Sorry, a typo there. What I meant to say was that the areas outside those areas would contribute. I would expect that in a warming world all areas which have snow cover or ice cover parts of the year will have a change in the albedo which will contribute to a positive feedback.
I said the reports they produce are of high quality. I think the fact that the error in the AR4 about the Himalayan glaciers has been such a big issue prove that the overall report is of good quality.
The claim in AR4 about the Himalayan glaciers is not highlighted or mentioned in any summary. You need to really read the fine text in this huge report to spot the error that the Himalayan glaciers could disappear already in 2035, which is not the case. This error was not good, they cited a report that was not peer reviewed, and that is a bad practice, but it is by far not enough to discredit the whole IPCC report.
There are a lot of “flat Earthers” around in the climate debate, Pachauri is right about that. He is also right that there is no room for doubting the fundamentals in climate science; that the Earth is warming, that there is a greenhouse effect, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that the increase in the CO2 level is caused by human activity. Slayers disagree, but they are very far from science.
I think the climate debate would gain a lot if each party could listen to each other and respect each other a bit more than today.
/Jan
Jan,
I think you have an inaccurate impression of ‘skeptics’. While there are people who do not understand basic science and who refuse to accept that increasing GHG’s will cause some warming, those are not the people offering serious critiques of the IPCC and the climate science it summaries in its AR’s. It is people like Willis (and many others) who follow up on the claims made by climate science and find that the effects of increases in GHG are consistently exaggerated, just as Willis has shown here. Please ask yourself if the measured net decrease in reflection (0.35 watt/M^2 in 14 years) over the Arctic (a tiny fraction of Earth’s surface) could plausibly change Earth’s average temperature very much, even if that trend were to continue for a century. It seems to me most implausible. If you want to focus on local (Arctic) impacts, which may be significant over a very long time, that is fine. But very few people live in the Arctic, and whatever modest local warming there may be due to lower albedo will, I suspect improve their existance, not make it worse. You are of course free to try to convince people that warming in the Arctic is an important issue, but absent exaggeration (like claims of large global impacts that the IPCC makes) I think you will find that is a difficult task.
Skeptics mostly object to the exaggerated claims that are routinely used to promote costly public actions on energy production and use, actions which will likely be rejected by the public if future effects of GHG’s are not exaggerated. Argue for the policies you want without stooping to the dishonesty of the late Stephen (‘scary scenarios’) Schneider, and you will disarm the skeptics. But if you argue with scary stories and exaggeration (and this is very common!), you will ensure your desired policies will never be adopted.
Steve, of course it is a lot of very knowledgeable people on the skeptics side, Anthony’s blog is a proof of that. Others are Mosher and Curry’s blogs to just mention two I value high.
But the problem in the climate debate is the deep mistrust between the parties. The skeptics think that the pro-AGW camp is just stupid, corrupt or both, and vice versa.
I think Willy’s reaction to my statement that I have a positive view of the IPCC as a typical example of this. He seems to think that the IPCC is such a bad gang that I am embarrassing myself in respecting them.
Well, the IPCC gather hundreds of experts with PhD’s in various fields to produce assessments of the status in the climate science.
Do you really think that these people are so incredibly stupid or corrupt that it is an embarrassment to have a positive view of them?
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/authors.php?q=1&p=TS
/Jan
Those “hundreds of experts” are self-declared, and self-promoting, and self-exclusionary only. They do not tolerate dissent, disagreement, nor even open discussion of ANY scientific points nor contradictory evidence and facts. They – and the politicians and governments and government-paid “non-government-agencies” that pay their current and their salaries and pre-filter their desired research money. Yes, there are PhD’s in this international government-funded program . If 25,000.00 in “oil-money” is going to so thoroughly an entire Washington think tank for all future research for all time, how corrupt is a government-funded PhD being paid to generate 1.3 trillion dollars a year in tax revenue for her government?
Tell me why I should respect ANY of them.
RAC, click on the link please. You can then see that these people are university professors or researchers at scientific institutes. You don’t get a position there as self-declared expert.
/Jan
No.
Look at Cook. At Lewendowsky. At Mann. At Hansen. At Gore. At Holdren. Look at Orestes’ results, her prejudices, her – frankly speaking – nonsense. But BECAUSE she follows the CAGW line, BECAUSE she is as Stalin put it a “useful idiot” and “fellow traveler” on the CAGW propaganda train, her research is QUOTED and used and repeated by her “peers” in the CAGW community. She is honored and quoted and cited, not condemned and fired. As are the others.
Who are the government-paid “peers” who promote and approve the false and exaggerated government-paid papers that promote these government agencies you admire and trust so greatly?
@ur momisugly Jan Kjetil Andersen: December 20, 2014 at 10:44 am
“Well, the IPCC gather hundreds of experts with PhD’s in various fields to produce assessments of the status in the climate science.
Do you really think that these people are so incredibly stupid or corrupt that it is an embarrassment to have a positive view of them? ”
————-
Iffen you had included “or with a funded interest” along with “incredibly stupid or corrupt” …. then most every learned skeptic and/or denier of CAGW would surely answer “YES” to your question.
Jan,
“Do you really think that these people are so incredibly stupid or corrupt that it is an embarrassment to have a positive view of them?”
There are for certain some perfectly honest and reasonable people involved in creating the ARs. And there are for certain others who are very much the opposite. I note that several well known ‘skeptics’ like Richard Lindzen were initially IPCC authors, but distanced themselves from the IPCC when they found that the IPCC’s AR efforts were more about politics and advancing a specific policy agenda, and less about science.
My personal view is that climate science as a whole is practiced mainly by people who sincerely hold strong green/left personal views, and that the field is unfriendly to those who do not share those views. People who hold strong green views are (of course!) attracted to climate science; how could it be otherwise? This leads to an overall bias in world view that pervades the field and restrains technical progress. Worse, most people who work as climate scientists are unwilling to condemn others in the field who say and do perfectly horrible things (for examples, see the Peter Gleick/Heartland fiasco and the UEA emails). Those few in the field who have been willing to speak out against plainly terrible (and even illegal) behavior, like Judith Curry, are broadly attacked and ostracized. IOW, climate scientists are either unwilling to insist on good behavior within the field, or think that perfectly horrible behavior is OK. whichever it is, it speaks poorly of those in the field.
The field is not well. It needs to reform itself, eliminate the clear bias toward projecting extreme warming, and stop the strident policy advocacy. I don’t think those things will ever happen unless the field is broadly defunded by the public, which is the only means the public has to ‘focus minds’ in the field on what they should actually be doing…. which is science, not policy advocacy. In the mean time, lots of people will continue to point out the obvious problems in climate science and criticize the worst offenders in the field. As well they should.
“Antarctic photo science archive unlocked”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30471542
Ariel photos from the 1940’s/50s
“There are tens of thousands of these historical images, held by the British Antarctic Survey and the US Geological Survey.”
Jan Kjetil Andersen December 20, 2014 at 11:20 am Edit
Jan, if you think that simply because someone is a university professor that their opinion represents what you call “high quality” climate science, I fear you haven’t been following the story.
Michael Mann is a perfect example. He is a university professor, who used his position as IPCC Lead Author to promote and hype his laughable “Hockeystick” … and that was not only bogus, shabby science, it was deliberately deceptive.
So I’m afraid that your plaint that “these people are university professors” means nothing. Zero. Zip. Nada. Nicht. Rien.
All of the Climategate unindicted co-conspirators “are university professors or researchers at scientific institutes” … and they are also lying, cheating, rule-subverting, and in some cases lawbreaking miscreants. And you call their work high quality science?
Kevin Trenberth is a major force at the IPCC. He’s a Contributing Author, a Review Editor, and a Coordinating Lead Author ….and he’s famous for trying to reverse the null hypothesis, as unscientific and underhanded an act as I can imagine. High quality science? Don’t make me laugh.
Then I looked at the site you mentioned, and on the first page I selected at random, WGI, Chapter 9, the very first person I find is:
A government pet science bureaucrat … color me unimpressed. And we have
As I said above, the IPCC uncritically swallows the puff pieces from the pseudo-green organizations like Greenpeace and the WWF, and Teske is one of the reasons why. See Donna Laframboise on the subject.
Your faith in credentials is … well … let me call it “touchingly naive”. Wake up and smell the coffee, my friend. Around here we judge people by their actions and the quality of their science, not by their jobs or the parchments on their walls … and the IPCC simply doesn’t pass that test.
w.
Ok, thanks for the clarification. Then we know that most of the climate scientists in the world, who happen to be for the most part university professors or scientific researches, are either incredibly stupid, corrupt or both.
On the other hand, most, if not all of the skeptics in the world, who happen to be for the most part self-taught laymen, are geniuses.
No nuances or middle way exists
/Jan
Oh, please, Jan. I never said one word about “most of the climate scientists in the world”. That’s your bizarre fantasy. We were discussing the quality of the IPCC science, which is highly politicized.
And I didn’t say a damn thing about skeptics, again that’s your fantasy. You are just making things up, and trying to pretend that I either said or implied them. I said nothing of the sort and I strongly protest your unpleasant attempt to stuff words in my mouth. You are losing my respect at a rate of knots here, I actually had thought you were interested in discussing facts … foolish me. You prefer your fantasies.
Here’s a fact. The people making up the IPCC are appointed by governments, not picked for their scientific ability. They are also expected to toe the party line. As a result, many ethical scientists, even those who were a part of the early IPCC reports, have either bailed out or been forced out. Why?
Because the IPCC was formed with an agenda far in advance of the science. It was tasked, not with finding out what rules the climate, but with determining how much CO2 was dangerous. When you start with that host of preconceptions, what do you expect to happen? High quality science? Don’t make me laugh.
The IPCC is NOT a panel of scientists, Jan. It is an inter-GOVERNMENTAL panel, that is to say, the participants are hand-picked by the governments. And every government gets to send some … do you truly believe that there are top-quality climate scientists in e.g. the DRC? It’s a panel of folks with a pre-determined conclusion, and not a scientific body in any sense of the word.
Perhaps the IPCC reports impress you, Jan, but if so you should get out more. Did you read about the Jesus paper? Are you aware of how the IPCC squelches any contrary views? Have you done any research on this at all?
w.
Jan take a look at their process… “He seems to think that the IPCC is such a bad gang that I am embarrassing myself in respecting them.”
The IPCC “experts” take papers that display varying degrees of uncertainty, some having a great deal of uncertainty and summarise those results up to conclusions that are increasingly certain. The IPCC experts ignore papers that support opposing theories and hence further increase that uncertainty.
The IPCC has an agenda. And it shows.
Oh, come on Willis, I just helped you to go all the way.
I mean, from my first simple statement that I have a positive view of the IPCC, you declared that Pachauri is a fool, my claim was a joke and that I was embarrassing myself just for saying that I respected IPCC.
When I, as a response to RAC who claimed that the people in IPCC are self-declared experts, said that the people are university professors or scientists with Phd, you take it to that I have “touchingly naive” faith in credentials.
Very few informed people think that Pachauri is a fool, and very few informed people think that IPCC make such bad reports that they think they are a joke. If those people think I embarrass myself I can live with that.
I do not have any extended faith in credentials; that is your bizarre fantasy. So since you have gone so far from my modest praise to IPCC; calling IPCC a joke, Pachauri a fool, me touchingly naïve, I just helped you going all the way.
/Jan
Jan Kjetil Andersen December 20, 2014 at 3:30 pm
No, you didn’t. You tried to put words in my mouth. I won’t put up with that. If you want to “go all the way”, that’s your business.
But pretending that I said it, or claiming that you are helping me, is just your failed attempt at nasty innuendo.
I’m sorry, but the fact that people are “university professors or scientists” means nothing. I gave you a host of examples, including Michael Mann and Kevin Trenberth. I see you don’t like dealing with facts so you are back to accusations.
Perhaps on your planet very few informed people think that Pachauri is a fool. On my planet, someone who calls what his opponents do “voodoo science” one week, and then has to eat his words a week or so later, is indeed a fool.
Dude, you’re the one who claimed that people can’t be “self-declared experts” because they are university professors. How is that not a touching faith in credentials? That’s not my fantasy, those are your words.
Your so-called “help” is nothing but unpleasant, underhanded, unwanted, and untrue passive-aggressive nastiness. It has absolutely nothing to do with me or what I said. Perhaps your friends put up with that kind of venom. I say what I want to say, and I don’t allow anyone to put words in my mouth. You can eat them yourself.
Finally I stand by my claims that the IPCC is a joke and Pachauri is a fool. I’ve provided a host of evidence and links for both of those claims, from the Jesus paper to Pachauri’s statements that the climate is settled to the Hockeystick to Kevin Trenberth to the defections of experts to the revelations about the IPCC in the Climategate emails to the use of Greenpeace puff pieces to Pachauri’s claim that what his opponents do is “voodoo science”.
You’ve provided little more than your big mouth and your charming naivete.
Easy choice …
w.