From DARTMOUTH COLLEGE and the “Reports of the demise of Arctic Sea Ice are greatly exaggerated” department
HANOVER, N.H. – The melting of sea ice will significantly increase Arctic precipitation, creating a climate feedback comparable to doubling global carbon dioxide, a Dartmouth College-led study finds.
“The increases of precipitation and changes in the energy balance may create significant uncertainty in climate predictions,” says lead author Ben Kopec, a PhD candidate in Dartmouth’s Department of Earth Sciences.
The findings appear in the journalProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. A PDF is available on request.
Global climate is influenced by the Arctic water cycle, which is partly regulated by sea ice through its control on evaporation and precipitation. There is a growing consensus among scientists that a decrease in sea ice would increase Arctic precipitation because of increased evaporation. Direct measurement of precipitation is difficult in the Arctic because of its cold, windy environments, so the quantitative link between precipitation and sea ice is poorly understood.
In their study, the Dartmouth-led team quantified that link by measuring the hydrogen and oxygen isotopic compositions of precipitation from 1990 to 2012 at six sites across the Arctic. They then used these empirically established sensitivities of precipitation isotopes to sea ice change to project future precipitation changes and to evaluate impacts of these changes on the energy balance. Their approach is based on the premise that Arctic precipitation is composed mostly of water from two marine evaporation regions, or “moisture sources” – one subtropical and one local – and that the relative contributions of the two sources to the precipitation can be determined from the stable isotopic ratios of the precipitation.
They found that for a sea ice extent decrease of 100,000 km2 – or 38,610 square miles — the percentage of Arctic sourced moisture increases by 18.2 percent and 10.8 percent, respectively, in the Canadian Arctic and Greenland Sea regions. This corresponds to increases of 10.9 percent and 2.7 percent per degree Celsius of Arctic warming, respectively.
The researchers reached no conclusion on whether the increased precipitation will fall as snow or rain. If it falls as snow, it could potentially increase glacial mass and the number of days of high land surface reflectivity, thus having a cooling effect. But if the increased precipitation falls as rain, it would cause earlier spring melt and/or later onset of autumn snow coverage, a longer low reflectivity period and additional warming. In either case, the resulting radiative forcing likely has an order of magnitude similar to that of the forcing from doubling carbon dioxide, thus demonstrating that the sea ice feedback to radiation balance through the Arctic water cycle is potentially a major component of climate change.
“Sea ice is declining at an alarming rate, so it is important to understand the consequences of the climate feedbacks caused by these changes,” Kopec says. “We show that the loss of sea ice will likely increase precipitation, which will impact communities and ecosystems around the Arctic. The change of precipitation, depending on the seasonal distribution, may impact the energy balance on the same order of magnitude as the feedbacks associated with doubling carbon dioxide.”
###
“The researchers reached no conclusion on whether the increased precipitation will fall as snow or rain.”
I will give them a hint:
Southern Greenland has large areas of open water nearby all year and high precipitation.
Northern Greenland has year-round sea ice and very low precipitation.
Question: Which part is more heavily glaciated?
I need a Grant to study 97% of that question.
More settled science.
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/study-predicts-arctic-sea-ice-loss-slow-down.html
They of course con the public into thinking this is something new and the strong/warm phase had no influence on the global warming that caused the AGW scare in the first place. Yet the weak/cool phase can only influence it because CO2 is magic you know. This is of course wrong and why the ignorant alarmists have been useless promoting their science based part of the agenda. I admit they have done a good job in conning so many politicians/greens and some of the public over the years. If anybody had billions of dollars a year to spend on this propaganda, this wouldn’t be too difficult to do.
Here’s another adjustment needed to the lying UK Met Office chapter on ‘climate change’ on their website. See also “accelerating sea level rise”. My taxes.
Don’t they realize that COP21 is over. They can bin all their junk science now until Morocco, 7th Nov 2016 and get back to playing super mario.
Bingo, I’ve been making that case in other posts, especially related to his video regarding the ending of the last ice age. You simply don’t need CO2 to explain the warming. Warming increased H2O, and that impact dwarfs CO2. Just use Modtran to look at the numnbers. This is what I wrote:
So the dastardly weather is complicating the scientists’ predictions.
Couldn’t happen to nicer people.
Climastrology is hard.
“A growing consensus…” I thought you either had a consensus or you didn’t?
It’s up to 97.1% now.
“The increases of precipitation and changes in the energy balance may create significant uncertainty in climate predictions,”
And we were sooooo certain before.
More rains means more clouds. More clouds means less sunlight reaching the surface, so it’s a negative feedback not a positive one.
Not to mention all the heat that will be removed from the planet when all that water evaporates.
(Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on posting 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name is wasted, because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)
Dude, did you take classes in how to embarrass yourself?
When the heat is released, it is miles up in the atmosphere, above the vast majority of green house gases and escapes easily into space.
Why don’t you just give up, find a nice hole to crawl into, and let your mommy tell you over and over again how smart you are.
“and escapes easily into space”
…
(Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on posting 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name is wasted, because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)
Everything that is above absolute zero radiates.
Even you should know that. Sheesh, quite making yourself look dumb.
Whatever, the statement “all the heat removed when all the water evaporates” is wrong. Even if it is removed, it is not when it evaporates. It is also true that the majority of the heat absorbed when the water evaporates is not removed by radiation.
IPCC AR5 credits clouds with an RF of -20 W/m^2, cooling 10 times greater than CO2’s 2 W/m^2 of heating.
What’s with this long-running script nonsense? Your end or mine?
‘The only way the energy escapes into space is via EM radiation. Why don’t you tell us all at what EM frequency H2O condensation produces?’
Do you mean when the vapor condenses and releases heat which is absorbed by the air which was carrying it raising the air temperature?
The heat then gets radiated by the atmosphere to space the same way it did before the added heat, only faster because it is now warmer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychrometrics
Also, open dark water at the poles releases heat much faster than when ice- covered and is one of the planets well- known cooling mechanisms.
PNAS has discovered a new branch of science, called “Sustainability Science”. In an article titled “What kind of a science is sustainability science”? they attempt to explain what it is:
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/49/19449.full
A lot of hooey describing pseudoscience. Note the pretense at being concerned about reducing poverty.
being concerned about reducing poverty
===========================
in general poverty is greatest where corruption is greatest. there is little incentive to produce if the powerful can simply take whatever they want, aided by corrupt officials, willing to turn a blind eye in return for fame and fortune.
Corruption, not climate change, remains the greatest threat facing the world. In the developed world, the marriage of Science and State is driving this corruption. Science has become the new religion, and corruption has taken hold as surely as the marriage of Church and State did in the past.
As a corollary, increasing govt control ALWAYS results in greater corruption. Hence greater poverty, except for those that run the govt.
The models are based on our best understanding of what drives climate. And the models are not predicting future climate with any reasonable accuracy. Therefore, we obviously don’t know as much about what drives climate as some of us think we do.
Does anybody disagree with my logic?
(Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on posting 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name is wasted, because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)
Weather is not climate. Unless you’re a Warmist, of course.
(Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on posting 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name is wasted, because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)
“Models are models no matter what you are.”
Wrong. Climate models are based on pseudoscience and therefore are GIGO, and have proven to be total failures which is why they have to keep making up “the science” as they go.
Please show where he’s wrong, unless you want to admit that you can’t.
Models are models, but that does nothing to prove that the models reflect reality.
Sheesh, the is grade school stuff.
I agree with this proviso:
Because of problems with modeling chaotic non-linear problems, not to mention the accumulated errors that are inherent in any recursive calculations; Even if we had a perfect understanding of the climate, we still couldn’t model it.
According to IPCC AR5 and WMO climate is weather averaged over thirty years.
Although it should be no shorter than the smallest sine-wave observed in climate over around ~60 years. Global temperatures have generally always warmed around 30 years and then cooled around 35 years confirming it’s validity. The current thirty years is like claiming the 12.00 pm – 12.00 am (afternoon) average temperature represents the averaged 12.00 am – 12.00 pm (morning) temperature. The AGW scare has all been about ignoring the morning temperature and running straight lines off the afternoon temperature for bogus predictions.
That would be the convenient definition, for those of the Warmunist persuasion.
Future climate is the same only more, lol
so is this like “lake effect”… if Lake Erie freezes, there is less snow in Buffalo. As had happened 2 years ago when all the Great Lakes froze.
Two observations:
First, per the paper, the authors estimate that the observed losses of sea ice of 150,000km^2 in the Greenland Sea and 300,000km^2 in Baffin Bay should lead, per their model, to 30% – 60% increases in precipitation. Surely these are such large increases that they could hardly be missed in weather records. In fact, the various weather records from the area exhibit an increasing trend only in one case. Not a very auspicious launch, is it?
Second, I noted in the dialog between MarkW and BusterBrown an assertion by BB that the increased energy transported through evaporation would end up in the atmosphere once the vapor condensed as rain, and an implication that this will act to warm the region. It seems to me, however, that despite this increased energy transport, one cannot evaporate a larger fraction of water from the colder of two competing sources, and simultaneously increase the temperature of the place where the resulting precipitation ends up. To do so would be transporting heat spontaneously against the temperature gradient. My gut feeling is that increasing the proportion of arctic sources of precipitation must lead to a cooler arctic all other factors remaining the same. I think this is why the authors used the rather weak conclusion that the changes to energy balance leads to impacts as large as CO2 doubling–They are not readily able to figure out what the changes will be. In fact, entropy balance is every bit as important as energy balance, but is nearly always left out of the argument.
(Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on posting 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name is wasted, because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)
so we change the polarity of the flux capcitor. go back into time, drop barry obama on his head. he dies or at least brain damaged. Hilary Poopie Pant-Suit is a one term president. She and her husband Bill leave the country. their plan crashes into the ocean and sinks into an underwater volcano. they assume lava temperature. Chelsey will search for the next 45 years and spend $57 million from the Clinton “Payoff” Foundation looking for her mother and non-biological father. Wes Hubble, Chelsey’s biological father, will be all tightly tucked in bed for Christmas
Too much eggnog?
If declining Arctic Sea Ice will amplify warming, what would they predict for rising Antarctic Sea Ice? And for overall stable Global Sea Ice over the last 4 decades, if such trend continues?
Is there a kind of climate narcissism in claiming that sea ice changes at the north pole are important and those at the south pole safely ignored?
More water, less ice – the continental glaciers form
Anyone here remember a theory from the 60’s or 70’s or maybe before that which hypothesized that with a relatively ice-free Arctic, more snow would fall on Canada and then the upper U.S.? Tink I read it in un-Scientific American.
So the snow would reflect more sun, the Earth would cool very slightly and the snow would soon stay on the ground longer. Then glaciers would form. Big suckers. And then the positive feedback kicked in and more snow fell further south, but the Arctic was relatively ice free. How could you get all that snow if the Arctic was completely frozen over, huh?
Eventually, the Arctic would accumulate ice and less moisture would be available for the huge amount of snow to build those continental galciers. After all, those things dwarfed almost all we see today outside of the South Pole and maybe Greenland.
The theory actually made sense.
Anyone else remember that?
Gums inquires…
Give the author a break – he’s trying to get his doctorate in the religious department of earth sciences. How is he going to get a passing grade if he doesn’t conform to the beliefs of his assessors?
Marcel Marceau had this observation, ” , !”
Hard to dispute that, Marcel.