Sea Ice North: The new field of ice-free Arctic Ocean science

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 10:43 PM GMT on April 28, 2011

Share this Blog
5
+

Sea Ice North: The new field of ice-free Arctic Ocean science

I recently read a paper in Physics Today entitled The Thinning of Arctic Sea Ice by R. Kwok and N. Untersteiner. (Nice essay by Untersteiner) This paper was written for a general scientist audience, and provides a good summary of the state of the science. The primary focus of the article is on understanding the small change to the surface energy balance required to explain the increased rate of sea ice melt in the summer. Some time ago I wrote a few blogs on Arctic sea ice; they can be found here and this one is most relevant: Sea Ice Arctic.

When the IPCC Assessment Report was published in 2007 the Arctic sea ice was in visible decline. In the summer of 2007 there was a record decline that caught the attention of both climate scientists and the broader public. As suggested in Kwok and Untersteiner immediately following the release of the 2007 IPCC report papers started to appear about how the IPCC synthesis had underestimated the melting of both sea ice and ice sheets. Much of this underestimate could be summed up as simplistic representation of the dynamics of ice melting. For example, brine-laden sea ice floating in salty sea water turns over. Snow gets on the top. It melts, then there are puddles and ponds that can flow down into ice. Simplistically, and I am a simpleton, it’s like a pile of ice cubes sitting in a glass versus stirring those ice cubes, or blowing air over the ice, heat gets carried around and ice melts faster.

The presence of large areas of open ocean in the Arctic is new to us. It motivates new research; it motivates claims to newly accessible oil, gas, and minerals; it motivates new shipping routes; it suggests changes in the relationships of nations; it motivates the development of a military presence. (All things Arctic from the Arctic Council) The natural progression of scientific investigation starts to explore, describe, and organize what is to us modern-day humans: a new environment, new ecosystems, and new physical systems. For example, the Mackenzie River now delivers a massive pool of fresh water into the ocean. Fresh and salt – big differences to flow in the ocean because the density is different; big difference to the formation of ice because the freezing temperature is different; and big differences in the plants and animals in the water.

Compared with trying to attribute the contribution of global warming to a particular weather event, it is easier to link the recent, rapid decrease of sea ice to a warming planet. The freezing, melting and accumulation of ice require persistent heating or cooling. It takes a lot of heat for a sustained period to melt continental-size masses of ice. Historically, the sea ice that was formed in the winter did not melt in the summer and there was a buildup of ice over many years – it accumulated; it stored cold. Around the edges of this multi-year ice are areas where the sea froze and melted each year. The melting of multi-year ice, therefore, represents the accumulation of enough heat to counter years of cold. The movement, poleward, of the area where ice freezes and thaws each year is the accumulation of spring coming earlier. The requirement for energy to persist and accumulate to affect changes in sea ice reduces the uncertainty that is inherent in the attribution of how much global warming has impacted a particular event.

Understanding the detailed mechanisms that provided the heat to melt the ice remains a challenge. (This is the real point of in Kwok and Untersteiner) We know it takes about 1 watt per square meter of energy to melt that much ice that fast. This could be delivered by the Sun, transported by the air, by the ocean, by warm water from the rivers of Canada and Siberia, by snow – yes, snow is energy. Once the ice is gone in the summer, then the ocean can absorb heat from the Sun. If there is growth of phytoplankton or zooplankton, then they might enhance the absorption of energy – yes, life is energy. Ocean acidification might change. The natural question that arises – do these processes that are active in this new environment work to accelerate sea ice melting or might they contribute to freezing of water. What are the local feedbacks? (This is above – see below.)

Another study that is of interest is the paper in Geophysical Research Letters, Recovery mechanisms of Arctic summer sea ice, by S. Tietsche and colleagues. This is a model study. With a model the scientist owns the world and can prescribe what it looks like. In these numerical experiments, the Arctic is prescribed with no ice. Then whether or not the ice recovers is explored. In these studies the ice does recover. The ocean does indeed take up extra heat in the summer, but it gives it up quickly in the fall. This is followed by the formation of first year ice in the winter. The ice-albedo feedback that might let the ice melt runaway is limited. Tietsche et al. conclude that it is not likely that Arctic sea ice will reach a tipping point this century.

This does not mean that summer ice loss will decrease. This does not mean that there will not be huge changes in the Arctic. This only says that it still gets cold in the winter.

Models: One of the things I like about the Kwok and Untersteiner paper is their brief discussion of models. They point out that none of the models available for the 2007 IPCC assessment were able to predict the rate of sea ice decrease. Looking forward, they state that the model projections for 2060 range from no sea ice in September to more sea ice than is observed today. The Tietsche et al. paper is a focused model experiment – not a climate projection. It is also a model result that, perhaps, helps to understand the differences in the 2060 projections. That is, how is the recovery of sea ice in the autumn represented in the projection models?

A couple of other points: First, the amount of energy needed to cause the observed melting in sea ice is 1 watt per square meter. If you calculate the amount of energy in the different factors at play in melting of sea ice, then the numbers are 10s of watts per square meter. As suggested above, there are many reservoirs of energy – the Sun, rivers, etc. So when we look at the different ways 1 watt per square meter can be delivered to the sea ice, then there are several paths. The existing models tell us that with the increased heat due to greenhouse gases, energy gets delivered to the Arctic and sea ice melts. The existing models say that there might be several different paths; it is likely, that several of them operate at different times. The second point: Of course the Tietsche et al. paper will enter as an isolated contribution to the political argument, Arctic “death spiral” – as will those of accelerated melt, New warning on ice melt.

r






Figure 1: Simplistic summary of Arctic sea ice

Useful links
Recent sea ice trends
Sea ice data
Rood’s Blogs on Ice

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 582 - 532

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12Blog Index

582. Snowlover123
9:55 PM GMT on May 09, 2011
Quoting TomTaylor:

if co2s feedbacks cancel out the ghg warming, why are we still warming? Why has co2 levels correlated so well with temps the last half million years?


When the oceans are warm, they tend to release more co2. When they are cold, they tend to suck in more co2. This is what was being observed during our periods of interglacials and Ice Ages. The oceans are huge sinks of co2, and since there was nothing or no one adding co2 to the atmosphere during the period of Ice Ages, this is what happened all the time.

Obviously, if we are still warming, then a natural cause must be causing it, and the overall Global Warmth correlates with the AMO in quite a lot of places, statistically significant in some spots.




Quoting TomTaylor:

with regards to oscillations more frequently in their positive phase, that is likely an effect of gw. gw isn't caused by natural oscillations, only regional warming is. oscillations affect heat distribution. they can alter the total heat of the system slightly, but the negative phase does the opposite. the only reason an oscillation would be in one phase longer than the other is if some sort of global climate change was occurring.


You are mistaken that the oscillations are an index of GW. They are not driven by GW at all. They are driven by natural changes in the THC which alter oceanic currents, and change the AMO from negative to positive. Overall, the AMO has been trending more and more positive, and as we have discussed earlier, a AMO creates faster ice melt at the Arctic, and since there has been an upward trend in the index of the AMO, the Arctic is gaining OHC.




Quoting TomTaylor:


You're still yet to prove that CO2's feedbacks cancel out the warming created through ghg warming.


If all clouds were to be removed, then energy coming in increases from 239 Watts per Meter squared, or (239 w/m^2) to 288 w/m^2. This difference can be calculated by subtracting the final result from the initial result, which is 49 w/m^2. Cloud Cover also impacts the Infared Light escaping from the Earth. With Cloud Cover the Energy leaving the Earth is 234 w/m^2. This is increased to 266 w/m^2. This difference is 32 w/m^2. When you subtract the Energy Coming in minus the energy leaving, you get an energy imbalance of 17 w/m^2. This is an indicator that since there is more energy coming into the climate system, than there is leaving, the decrease of clouds creates warming of the planet, since there is more heat coming in, than there is coming out (Hartmann, 1994).

Here is what I noted from an earlier post:
-------------

From Climate4you.com

Higher up, part of the lifted water vapour will condensate to form small water droplets and clouds, whereby latent heat is released, causing warming and additional convection and cloud formation.

When Water Vapour condenses to form clouds, it is NOT there anymore! This explains the "flat" trend observed in NOAA satellite data. Again, one miscalculation in the co2 feedback system could spell doom for the CAGW hypothesis.

Deductable Reasoning is how you get to this conclusion that co2 makes more clouds.

co2 warming makes increased evaporation due to warmer waters---->This creates increased Water Vapour-------->And Increased Water Vapour means higher amounts of clouds, if there were no other factors involved in GCC formation.
------------

In a perfect world, if there were no GCRs or Oceanic Oscillations impacting GCC, then you would notice a clear correlation between GCC (which I have already shown has the same amount of cooling as co2 does warming) and co2 concentrations.




Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
581. Snowlover123
6:58 PM GMT on May 09, 2011
Quoting HaloReachFan:


I took a screen capture of it just incase it got deleted or nobody could of quoted it.


Thank you. FYI his other handle got banned as well.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/TheGh0st/show.ht ml
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
580. HaloReachFan
2:01 PM GMT on May 09, 2011
Quoting Snowlover123:


Reported.... try to be civil, as hard as that may be, Mike.

I'm saving this quote...


I took a screen capture of it just incase it got deleted or nobody could of quoted it.
Member Since: September 15, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 563
579. HaloReachFan
2:00 PM GMT on May 09, 2011
Quoting TomTaylor:
this is pathetic. insult on top of ad homs. mix in the occasional ban and you'll send the blog into a frenzy.

idk who's more to blame here, the blog members or the admins, but either way debates on this blog and most blogs on wunderground are awful. I suppose its that way on most internet forums and boards, but it seems especially bad on here.


When you have over half of the people who post on this blog ignored then you shouldn't get close to getting yourself banned. I ignore the people who just want to argue and attack and look I'm not banned. You really want to know when the arguing went this way you can look at SSI and Jflorida for that one.
Member Since: September 15, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 563
578. Snowlover123
11:00 AM GMT on May 09, 2011
Quoting TomTaylor:

That's unfortunate, because there are some other non-banned blog members on here who literally contrite nothing to the blog. Michael was certainly not one of those members.


I disagree. I actually thought that he had interesting stuff to post, but whatever respect I had for him was lost in the quoted section above....
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
577. Snowlover123
10:47 AM GMT on May 09, 2011
Quoting TheGh0st:


LOL

You and Admin are so full of SHIT; it is very obvious that Admin is the biggest denier of them all; I wonder what he thinks of Dr. Masters, who is one of those global warming will destroy us fanatics; I bet Admin wishes that he could ban Dr. Masters!

I'll also be telling everybody how perverted Weather Underground is from now on - maybe the site will become so unpopular that it will die. Not that it hasn't already lost at least a few members - or that I ever paid (at least after the first time, because I would never give money to such an assholic site), that's for sure! LOL!

Of course, I will be banned from this account too - WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK? LOL! Even if I change my mind; well, some people have literally created dozens of handles - LOL!

Much better to post at Climate Progress and other sites anyway, or where JFLORIDA and SSIG now post, especially since not many people here other than them were interesting.

LOL!

PS: I flagged EVERY single comment here made by deniers!


Reported.... try to be civil, as hard as that may be, Mike.

I'm saving this quote...
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
576. TomTaylor
5:32 AM GMT on May 09, 2011
this is pathetic. insult on top of ad homs. mix in the occasional ban and you'll send the blog into a frenzy.

idk who's more to blame here, the blog members or the admins, but either way debates on this blog and most blogs on wunderground are awful. I suppose its that way on most internet forums and boards, but it seems especially bad on here.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4358
574. HaloReachFan
3:16 AM GMT on May 09, 2011
Funny he finally lost it. Now go and play with your other crazed minded friends and leave us alone. Nobody wanted you here anyways.
Member Since: September 15, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 563
573. Neapolitan
3:15 AM GMT on May 09, 2011
Well, if Michael was banned, I doubt it was for any "death threat"; after all, posting a link to a video is certainly far less directly threatening than RMullet's spoken desire of a few days back to shoot me in the head--yet she's still around. Nah, it would have to be something else...

Anyway, back to the matter at hand: I see that even the Catholic Church is coming around to the undeniable truth of GW:

"A report commissioned by the Vatican's Scientific Panel, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences doesn't mince words: it urges the world to act quickly and strongly to address climate change."

"It says: 'humans must act decisively now to avert a coming crisis.'

"'We have entered a new geologic epoch that began when the impacts of mankind on the planet became a major factor in environmental and climate changes.'

"'We call on all people and nations to recognize the serious and potentially reversible impacts of global warming caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants,' it says. 'If we want justice and peace, we must protect the habitat that sustains us.'"

A little late, but good: every voice helps. Too, the Vatican has a lot of pull, so who knows?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13613
572. HaloReachFan
3:14 AM GMT on May 09, 2011
Quoting TomTaylor:

That's unfortunate, because there are some other non-banned blog members on here who literally contrite nothing to the blog. Michael was certainly not one of those members.


The difference is some people who don't "contrite" to the blog don't attack others and belittle them. It is in the rules.

TheGh0st Is michaelSTL people. He used that name when his other one was banned a while ago.
Member Since: September 15, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 563
570. TomTaylor
2:52 AM GMT on May 09, 2011
Quoting Snowlover123:


http://www.wunderground.com/blog/MichaelSTL/show. html

Looks like Mike has been banned, after the death threat he gave me...

I can remember him with this quote.




That's unfortunate, because there are some other non-banned blog members on here who literally contrite nothing to the blog. Michael was certainly not one of those members.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4358
566. TomTaylor
2:14 AM GMT on May 09, 2011
Quoting Snowlover123:


If the feedbacks do not cancel out co2 warming, then Carbon Dioxide Warming has an even weaker impact on temperature than we thought. If the feedbacks are what did not first nullify co2 warming 450 million years ago, then the natural cycle was clearly more powerful 450 million years ago than co2. co2 levels were 10X as high than they are now, which means that co2 would have had a greater warming impact than now. How is this different than what skeptics are currently saying that Natural Cycles can overpower co2 warming?






You are actually wrong about the oceanic cycles being flat. For example, with the AMO, it has been trending more and more positive since 1850- which is when Global Warming began.


lol. this is what I mean by you believing only natural oscillations and co2 dictate global temps.

There's other factors, so please quit acting like these are the only two. CO2 feedbacks were also likely different than they are today.

if co2s feedbacks cancel out the ghg warming, why are we still warming? Why has co2 levels correlated so well with temps the last half million years?



You're still yet to prove that CO2's feedbacks cancel out the warming created through ghg warming.


with regards to oscillations more frequently in their positive phase, that is likely an effect of gw. gw isn't caused by natural oscillations, only regional warming is. oscillations affect heat distribution. they can alter the total heat of the system slightly, but the negative phase does the opposite. the only reason an oscillation would be in one phase longer than the other is if some sort of global climate change was occurring.

and by galie there is
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4358
565. atmoaggie
2:05 AM GMT on May 09, 2011
Quoting McBill:

Wait, I thought we we're talking about Texas A&M, you know, rated #63 in the country. Hey, if you're happy with #63, good on you. I opted for something a little further up the scale, myself.

I'm wondering, how do you measure the significance of a person relative to an entire university? I think that you might want to rethink that one.

I could have had disparaging words for all of Wisconsin based on one soul in return...but Door county is too nice, and I know good people from Wisconsin. Besides, generalizations like that are in exceedingly poor taste and will eventually get one into trouble.

And A%M is a good school. The opportunity for a great education is presented, though not all choose to take full advantage of it.
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12463
564. Snowlover123
1:58 AM GMT on May 09, 2011
Well Good Night everybody.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
562. Snowlover123
1:55 AM GMT on May 09, 2011
Quoting cyclonebuster:


I don't see where it increased in extent slightly yesterday then decreased slightly in extent today.Show me where that is?




Cyclone,

This graph uses a 5 day running mean, wheras IJIS-JAXA uses a one day running mean. You can note the flattening off of sea ice even in that graph.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
560. cyclonebuster
1:53 AM GMT on May 09, 2011
Quoting Snowlover123:


The ice increased in extent slightly yesterday then decreased slightly in extent today, making a flat line.


I don't see where it increased in extent slightly yesterday then decreased slightly in extent today.Show me where that is?


Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20427
559. Snowlover123
1:43 AM GMT on May 09, 2011
Quoting Snowlover123:
Weird. All of Mike's posts have disappeared.


http://www.wunderground.com/blog/MichaelSTL/show. html

Looks like Mike has been banned, after the death threat he gave me...

I can remember him with this quote.

Quoting MichaelSTL:

PPS: you clearly can't read at all and flunk at reading comprehension even if you can


Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
558. Snowlover123
1:43 AM GMT on May 09, 2011
Quoting cyclonebuster:


How do you figure that a downward slope of about 45 degrees is a flat line?


The ice increased in extent slightly yesterday then decreased slightly in extent today, making a flat line.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
557. cyclonebuster
1:40 AM GMT on May 09, 2011
Quoting Snowlover123:
And the flat line continues in the Sea Ice Extent.



How do you figure that a downward slope of about 45 degrees is a flat line?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20427
556. Snowlover123
1:39 AM GMT on May 09, 2011
Weird. All of Mike's posts have disappeared.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
555. Snowlover123
1:35 AM GMT on May 09, 2011
Quoting atmoaggie:
There's no call to be such a-hole about it...


atmoaggie- note that in Mike's post, he posted blogs to refute peer reviewed papers, once again.

If blogs are considered "real science" then a children's picture book must be considered to be advanced reading.

Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
553. atmoaggie
1:04 AM GMT on May 09, 2011
Quoting McBill:

Much better than being an arrogant a-hole. I've heard, however, that Aggies really can't help themselves.

Exactly as imagined.
I'm sorry for your feelings of insignificance relative to an entire university. Wish there was something I could do to help.
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12463
551. Neapolitan
12:24 AM GMT on May 09, 2011
Quoting MichaelSTL:
Gee, I really wish sometimes that I could just do this


:-) I wouldn't go quite that far--denialists are hurting themselves along with everyone else, after all--though I completely understand your frustration. But don't be too hard on yourself; it's not that you haven't done a fantastic job of patiently and thoroughly explaining the overwhelming science backing up AGWT. It's just that some people long ago convinced themselves that the planet isn't warming, so absolutely no amount of science--no matter how patiently and thoroughly it's explained to them--will ever sway them from their sad concrete shoes of denial.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13613
550. HaloReachFan
12:15 AM GMT on May 09, 2011
well this seems unnecessary now
Member Since: September 15, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 563
549. atmoaggie
12:12 AM GMT on May 09, 2011
Quoting MichaelSTL:
Hmmm....

Climate cherry pickers: Falling humidity



So why does Paltridge 2009 show decreasing humidity? The authors of Paltridge 2009 themselves point out the well-documented problems with radiosonde humidity observations in the upper troposphere. Comparisons of Paltridge 2009 with satellite measurements (NASA’s Atmospheric Infrared Sounder - AIRS) find the Paltridge 2009 reanalysis has large biases in specific humidity in the tropical upper troposphere. Additionally, Paltridge 2009 doesn't show any large increase in specific humidity during the 1998 El Niño. Direct measurements indicate the tropical atmosphere does indeed moisten during El Niño events and such moistening is seen in the other reanalyses.

Two of the newer reanalyses shown in the figures above, MERRA and ECMWF-Interim, correct for well documented biases introduced by changes in the observing system. These newer reanalyses are in better agreement with theory, other reanalyses and independent observations.

To claim that humidity is decreasing requires you ignore a multitude of independent reanalyses, including newer ones with improved algorithms, that all show increasing humidity. It requires you accept a flawed reanalysis that even its own authors express caution about. It fails to explain how we can have short-term positive feedback and long-term negative feedback (indeed there is no known mechanism that can explain it). In short, to insist that humidity is decreasing is to neglect the full body of evidence.
See, now that's a much better way to contest what snowlover was saying.
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12463
543. Snowlover123
11:39 PM GMT on May 08, 2011
Quoting TomTaylor:
Snowlover, the total affect of co2's feedbacks is not cooling.


If the feedbacks do not cancel out co2 warming, then Carbon Dioxide Warming has an even weaker impact on temperature than we thought. If the feedbacks are what did not first nullify co2 warming 450 million years ago, then the natural cycle was clearly more powerful 450 million years ago than co2. co2 levels were 10X as high than they are now, which means that co2 would have had a greater warming impact than now. How is this different than what skeptics are currently saying that Natural Cycles can overpower co2 warming?


Quoting TomTaylor:

Natural oscillations affect the distribution of heat in earth's system. Although they may have a minor affect on the total heat within earth's system, we must remember its an oscillation...after a positive phase and a negative phase, the earth's total heat content is returned to original. Causing NO long term warming NOR cooling.




You are actually wrong about the oceanic cycles being flat. For example, with the AMO, it has been trending more and more positive since 1850- which is when Global Warming began.

Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
542. Snowlover123
11:25 PM GMT on May 08, 2011
And the flat line continues in the Sea Ice Extent.

Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
541. Snowlover123
11:23 PM GMT on May 08, 2011
Quoting cyclonebuster:

OUCH ALREADY!



SE Ridge amplified from La Nina.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
540. Snowlover123
11:22 PM GMT on May 08, 2011



Quoting TomTaylor:

That's fine, but I'm sure you can agree we can't accurately measure temperate or co2 measures beyond a million years ago. Ice cores don't go back that far.

 


You are correct that the concentrations of co2 have greater and greater error margins as time goes back. However, the error margins are anywhere from 4500ppm-6000ppm.



The bubbles that were trapped in the ice, made it clear that around this time, there was a period of higher glaciation than there is today (otherwise known as an Ice Age).
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
539. Snowlover123
11:10 PM GMT on May 08, 2011
Quoting McBill:

OK, now you've lost me. I thought that your working hypothesis was increased CO2 leads to increased temp leads to increased evaporation leads to increased cloud cover leads to decreased temp. In the end, you claim was the negative feedback from clouds exactly offset the forcing from CO2.


Correct- this is what would happen in a "perfect world"- ie with no cosmic rays or oceanic oscillations also impacting cloud cover.

Suppose that Decreasing Cosmic Rays Plus the impact that increased water vapour has on the clouds equals Global Cloud Cover, or GCC. If the Cosmic Rays created a 6% decrease in clouds, and the Increased Water Vapour from increased co2 concentrations increased GCC by 1%, the net cloud cover would be 5% down. The Cosmic Rays are a huge factor of cloud formation. However, when there is little solar wind, when the sun goes into a Solar Minimum, then the Cosmic Rays can start making clouds, (as well as the increased Water Vapour that co2 causes, but is lost to cloud formation).



Not only do More Sunspots mean that more energy from the sun is radiated at the Earth, but it also diverts Cosmic Rays due to increased solar wind.

Climate4you.com has a better explaination of how water vapour is lost in cloud formations.

Higher up, part of the lifted water vapour will condensate to form small water droplets and clouds, whereby latent heat is released, causing warming and additional convection and cloud formation.

When Water Vapour condenses to form clouds, it is NOT there anymore! This explains the "flat" trend observed in NOAA satellite data. Again, one miscalculation in the co2 feedback system could spell doom for the CAGW hypothesis.

Deductable Reasoning is how you get to this conclusion that co2 makes more clouds.

co2 warming makes increased evaporation due to warmer waters---->This creates increased Water Vapour-------->And Increased Water Vapour means higher amounts of clouds, if there were no other factors involved in GCC formation.

So therefore, using the transitive property, you could say that co2 warming creates increased cloud cover.

Quoting McBill:

What you've shown us is that there is only a very weak correlation between clouds and temperature,


Here, read this section again from Climate4you.com...

If all clouds were removed, the global albedo would decrease to about 15 percent, and the amount of shortwave energy available for warming the planet surface would increase from 239 W/m2 to 288 W/m2 (Hartmann 1994). However, the longwave radiation would also be affected, with 266 W/m2 being emitted to space, compared to the present 234 W/m2 (Hartmann 1994). The net effect of removing all clouds would therefore still be an increase in net radiation of about 17 W/m2. So the global cloud cover has a clear overall cooling effect on the planet, even though the net effect of high and low clouds are opposite (see figure above).

So the energy coming in increases from 239 Watts per Meter squared, or (239 w/m^2) to 288 w/m^2. This difference can be calculated by subtracting the final result from the initial result, which is 49 w/m^2. Cloud Cover also impacts the Infared Light escaping from the Earth. With Cloud Cover the Energy leaving the Earth is 266 w/m^2. This is reduced to 234 w/m^2. This difference is 32 w/m^2. When you subtract the Energy Coming in minus the energy leaving, you get an energy imbalance of 17 w/m^2. This is an indicator that since there is more energy coming into the climate system, than there is leaving, the decrease of clouds creates warming of the planet, since there is more heat coming in, than there is coming out.

Quoting McBill:

, that there has not been an increase in atmospheric water vaper


Correct- as I have already shown, the Water Vapour is lost when it condenses to form clouds- it is not there anymore- which indicates that there is more GCC now than if co2 did not create an increase in GCC.


Quoting McBill:


cloud cover has actually decreased while CO2 and temperature were increasing.



Which is due to a larger forcing known as GCR, or Galactic Cosmic Rays.

From climate4you.com

--------
The flux of galactic cosmic rays varies inversely with the solar cycle. Svensmark and Friis-Christensen (1997) suggested that galactic cosmic rays enhance low cloud formation, explaining variations on the order of 3 percent global total cloud cover over a solar cycle.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
537. Snowlover123
6:07 PM GMT on May 08, 2011
Quoting McBill:

Sounds like a hypothesis, but where is your evidence that there actually has been an increase in cloud cover as you say there should be?




In physics, a "perfect" world is when there is nothing else acting on something. In a perfect world, yes, Cloud Cover would go up with increased amounts of Water Vapour. But curiously, it has gone down. Now, why could it possibly have gone down? (But then rise?)



It is because something else clearly is controlling GCC other than the Increased Water Vapour. This forcing has a much more potent effect on the clouds than the increased Water Vapour. It is the Cosmic Rays.



The Cosmic Rays have a remarkable correlation with Global Cloud Cover, and this has a significant impact on the Climate System.

From Climate4u.com...

The overall reflectance (albedo) of planet Earth is about 30 percent, meaning that about 30 percent of the incoming shortwave solar radiation is radiated back to space. If all clouds were removed, the global albedo would decrease to about 15 percent, and the amount of shortwave energy available for warming the planet surface would increase from 239 W/m2 to 288 W/m2 (Hartmann 1994). However, the longwave radiation would also be affected, with 266 W/m2 being emitted to space, compared to the present 234 W/m2 (Hartmann 1994). The net effect of removing all clouds would therefore still be an increase in net radiation of about 17 W/m2. So the global cloud cover has a clear overall cooling effect on the planet, even though the net effect of high and low clouds are opposite (see figure above). This is not a pure theoretical consideration, but is demonstrated by observations (see diagram below).




So clearly, when Cosmic Rays, (which as demonstrated, have a near-perfect correlation with Cloud Formations) are in lower amounts, lower amounts of clouds form. When there are higher amounts of Cosmic Rays, then the number of clouds go up. Note that Cloud Cover in Fig. 1 has started to increase. Why is that? The Solar Minimum that started to occur may be to blame, as when the sun is quiet, the Solar Wind can not push any of the Cosmic Rays away from Earth. I suspect that the co2 increasing cloud formation is partially causing the increase in Cloud Cover, observed in later years, but it is the Cosmic Rays that dominate GCC.

Quoting McBill:

Also, the cloud feedback is dependent on the type of clouds - I believe that high clouds provide a positive feedback, while low clouds more of a negative feedback.


Correct, but the cooling effect of GCC is stronger than the warming effect of GCC.

From my link above....

...If all clouds were removed, the global albedo would decrease to about 15 percent, and the amount of shortwave energy available for warming the planet surface would increase from 239 W/m2 to 288 W/m2 (Hartmann 1994). However, the longwave radiation would also be affected, with 266 W/m2 being emitted to space, compared to the present 234 W/m2 (Hartmann 1994). The net effect of removing all clouds would therefore still be an increase in net radiation of about 17 W/m2. So the global cloud cover has a clear overall cooling effect on the planet, even though the net effect of high and low clouds are opposite (see figure above). This is not a pure theoretical consideration, but is demonstrated by observations (see diagram below)



---------


Quoting McBill:

Finally, you keep saying increased water vapor while showing graphs that indicate no increase in water vapor in the atmosphere.


Correct! The Water Vapour is being lost due to Cloud Formations, which is why there is no increase in the SH or RH at Sea Level. If the Cosmic Rays had remained at stable levels, the effect on GCC would be seen. However, it is not.
-------

From Climate4you.com

Variations in solar irradiance are recognized as a fundamental forcing factor in the climate system and may directly or indirectly influence the amount of clouds. For instance it is generally believed that the main cause of the cold intervals during the Little Ice Age 1300-1900 was reduced solar irradiance (Lean and Rind 1998; Shindell et al. 2001).

The solar irradiance varies by about 0.1 percent over the approximate 11-year solar cycle, which would appear to be too small to have an impact on climate. Nevertheless, many observations suggest the presence of 11-year signals in various meteorological time series, e.g., sea surface temperature (White et al. 1997) and cloudiness over North America (Udelhofen and Cess 2001).

The flux of galactic cosmic rays (GCR) varies inversely with the solar cycle. Svensmark and Friis-Christensen (1997) suggested that GCR enhance low cloud formation, explaining variations on the order of 3 percent global total cloud cover over a solar cycle...

Later, however, new experiments demonstrated that cosmic rays may indeed produce cloud condensation nuclei (CCN's). By way of the SKY experiment in Copenhagen was demonstrated how electrons set free in the air by passing cosmic rays help to assemble building blocks for CCN's (Svensmark et al. 2006, Svensmark 2007).

I have to go to my grandmother's house for mother's day so I will respond to the rest of all of your replies later.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
536. cyclonebuster
5:55 PM GMT on May 08, 2011

I don't speak in code. When I tell you Gulfstream Kinetic Energy Reverses this I mean it. I built the model to prove it. Any Questions? Ya'll with me yet? How may I assist you?



Climate scientists told to 'stop speaking in code'


An authoritative report released at the meeting of nearly 400 scientists in Copenhagen showed melting ice in the Arctic could help raise global sea levels by as much as 5 feet this century, much higher than earlier projections.


Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20427
535. cyclonebuster
4:38 PM GMT on May 08, 2011
OUCH ALREADY!






Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20427
534. cyclonebuster
4:31 PM GMT on May 08, 2011

OUCH ALREADY!

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20427
533. cyclonebuster
4:30 PM GMT on May 08, 2011
OUCH ALREADY!


Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20427

Viewing: 582 - 532

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.