Warming from loss of Arctic albedo

[Abraham3]

Pistone, Eisenman, Ramanathan, 2014 PNAS

Abstract

The decline of Arctic sea ice has been documented in over 30 y of satellite passive microwave observations. The resulting darkening of the Arctic and its amplification of global warming was hypothesized almost 50 y ago but has yet to be verified with direct observations. This study uses satellite radiation budget measurements along with satellite microwave sea ice data to document the Arctic-wide decrease in planetary albedo and its amplifying effect on the warming. The analysis reveals a striking relationship between planetary albedo and sea ice cover, quantities inferred from two independent satellite instruments. We find that the Arctic planetary albedo has decreased from 0.52 to 0.48 between 1979 and 2011, corresponding to an additional 6.4 ± 0.9 W/m2 of solar energy input into the Arctic Ocean region since 1979. Averaged over the globe, this albedo decrease corresponds to a forcing that is 25% as large as that due to the change in CO2 during this period, considerably larger than expectations from models and other less direct recent estimates. Changes in cloudiness appear to play a negligible role in observed Arctic darkening, thus reducing the possibility of Arctic cloud albedo feedbacks mitigating future Arctic warming.

Observational determination of albedo decrease caused by vanishing Arctic sea ice

 

[joshuah]

Arctic sea ice has melted dramatically in recent years... ironically though it has NOT amplified global warming which has only been stalling while the Arctic has been melting (and the Antarctic gaining)

 

[Abraham3]

Joshua, did you not read the lead post?

 

[IanC]

Pistone, Eisenman, Ramanathan, 2014 PNAS

Abstract

The decline of Arctic sea ice has been documented in over 30 y of satellite passive microwave observations. The resulting darkening of the Arctic and its amplification of global warming was hypothesized almost 50 y ago but has yet to be verified with direct observations. This study uses satellite radiation budget measurements along with satellite microwave sea ice data to document the Arctic-wide decrease in planetary albedo and its amplifying effect on the warming. The analysis reveals a striking relationship between planetary albedo and sea ice cover, quantities inferred from two independent satellite instruments. We find that the Arctic planetary albedo has decreased from 0.52 to 0.48 between 1979 and 2011, corresponding to an additional 6.4 ± 0.9 W/m2 of solar energy input into the Arctic Ocean region since 1979. Averaged over the globe, this albedo decrease corresponds to a forcing that is 25% as large as that due to the change in CO2 during this period, considerably larger than expectations from models and other less direct recent estimates. Changes in cloudiness appear to play a negligible role in observed Arctic darkening, thus reducing the possibility of Arctic cloud albedo feedbacks mitigating future Arctic warming.

Observational determination of albedo decrease caused by vanishing Arctic sea ice

a few things, a few questions pop out.

they say that arctic albedo is reduced according to CERES data. that is likely to be true. but they fail to inform us whether LW radiation has increased, which is also likely to be true because warm water gives off more radiation than cooler ice. does the increased LW exactly counter the decreased SW? or is there an imbalance one way or the other?

the authors state that the decreased arctic albedo when averaged over the globe is 1/4 of the presumed CO2 effect, indicating a positive feedback. but is the global albedo reduced by exactly the arctic amount, or is it more, or is it less? if global albedo has not changed then there must be different areas of the world that have increased albedo and therefore are negative feedbacks.

the antarctic area would seem to be a good control to study, especially for the LW/SW tradeoff because the incident sunlight is more direct in the area of ice/no ice. I think it would be pretty funny if it turned out that balance of radiation was actually negative feedback for the arctic and positive for antarctica.

overall I am getting pretty tired of these papers coming out with proclamations that are not integrated with the necessary comparative information. it makes me think they are being deceptive, again. or at least misdirecting or distorting.

 

[Abraham3]

Pistone, Eisenman, Ramanathan, 2014 PNAS

Abstract

The decline of Arctic sea ice has been documented in over 30 y of satellite passive microwave observations. The resulting darkening of the Arctic and its amplification of global warming was hypothesized almost 50 y ago but has yet to be verified with direct observations. This study uses satellite radiation budget measurements along with satellite microwave sea ice data to document the Arctic-wide decrease in planetary albedo and its amplifying effect on the warming. The analysis reveals a striking relationship between planetary albedo and sea ice cover, quantities inferred from two independent satellite instruments. We find that the Arctic planetary albedo has decreased from 0.52 to 0.48 between 1979 and 2011, corresponding to an additional 6.4 ± 0.9 W/m2 of solar energy input into the Arctic Ocean region since 1979. Averaged over the globe, this albedo decrease corresponds to a forcing that is 25% as large as that due to the change in CO2 during this period, considerably larger than expectations from models and other less direct recent estimates. Changes in cloudiness appear to play a negligible role in observed Arctic darkening, thus reducing the possibility of Arctic cloud albedo feedbacks mitigating future Arctic warming.

Observational determination of albedo decrease caused by vanishing Arctic sea ice

a few things, a few questions pop out.

they say that arctic albedo is reduced according to CERES data. that is likely to be true. but they fail to inform us whether LW radiation has increased, which is also likely to be true because warm water gives off more radiation than cooler ice. does the increased LW exactly counter the decreased SW? or is there an imbalance one way or the other?

It seems pretty obvious from the abstract that the figures they are talking about are wideband - all frequencies. That would take any compensating LW into account. I do not have a subscription to PNAS and so have not read the article, but re-radiated LW would not technically be included in a measure of albedo. And, due to that pesky CO2, less hot-water-LW would get back out to space than cold-ice-SW, wouldn't it.

the authors state that the decreased arctic albedo when averaged over the globe is 1/4 of the presumed CO2 effect, indicating a positive feedback. but is the global albedo reduced by exactly the arctic amount, or is it more, or is it less? if global albedo has not changed then there must be different areas of the world that have increased albedo and therefore are negative feedbacks.

The Earth has been losing ice and snow since warming began. There has been no increase in albedo.

the antarctic area would seem to be a good control to study, especially for the LW/SW tradeoff because the incident sunlight is more direct in the area of ice/no ice. I think it would be pretty funny if it turned out that balance of radiation was actually negative feedback for the arctic and positive for antarctica.

I think it would be funny if you objectively examined a climate topic before deciding that anyone suggesting warming is taking place and human in origin were wrong.

overall I am getting pretty tired of these papers coming out with proclamations that are not integrated with the necessary comparative information. it makes me think they are being deceptive, again. or at least misdirecting or distorting.

I am getting pretty tired of your prejudice, your bias and your mock ennui.

 

[IanC]

Pistone, Eisenman, Ramanathan, 2014 PNAS

Abstract

The decline of Arctic sea ice has been documented in over 30 y of satellite passive microwave observations. The resulting darkening of the Arctic and its amplification of global warming was hypothesized almost 50 y ago but has yet to be verified with direct observations. This study uses satellite radiation budget measurements along with satellite microwave sea ice data to document the Arctic-wide decrease in planetary albedo and its amplifying effect on the warming. The analysis reveals a striking relationship between planetary albedo and sea ice cover, quantities inferred from two independent satellite instruments. We find that the Arctic planetary albedo has decreased from 0.52 to 0.48 between 1979 and 2011, corresponding to an additional 6.4 ± 0.9 W/m2 of solar energy input into the Arctic Ocean region since 1979. Averaged over the globe, this albedo decrease corresponds to a forcing that is 25% as large as that due to the change in CO2 during this period, considerably larger than expectations from models and other less direct recent estimates. Changes in cloudiness appear to play a negligible role in observed Arctic darkening, thus reducing the possibility of Arctic cloud albedo feedbacks mitigating future Arctic warming.

Observational determination of albedo decrease caused by vanishing Arctic sea ice

a few things, a few questions pop out.

they say that arctic albedo is reduced according to CERES data. that is likely to be true. but they fail to inform us whether LW radiation has increased, which is also likely to be true because warm water gives off more radiation than cooler ice. does the increased LW exactly counter the decreased SW? or is there an imbalance one way or the other?

It seems pretty obvious from the abstract that the figures they are talking about are wideband - all frequencies. That would take any compensating LW into account. I do not have a subscription to PNAS and so have not read the article, but re-radiated LW would not technically be included in a measure of albedo. And, due to that pesky CO2, less hot-water-LW would get back out to space than cold-ice-SW, wouldn't it.

do you understand what albedo is?

http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2014/02/13/1318201111.DCSupplemental/pnas.201318201SI.pdf

I dont see where they are including LW. do you? why would they?

 

[IanC]

Pistone, Eisenman, Ramanathan, 2014 PNAS

Abstract

The decline of Arctic sea ice has been documented in over 30 y of satellite passive microwave observations. The resulting darkening of the Arctic and its amplification of global warming was hypothesized almost 50 y ago but has yet to be verified with direct observations. This study uses satellite radiation budget measurements along with satellite microwave sea ice data to document the Arctic-wide decrease in planetary albedo and its amplifying effect on the warming. The analysis reveals a striking relationship between planetary albedo and sea ice cover, quantities inferred from two independent satellite instruments. We find that the Arctic planetary albedo has decreased from 0.52 to 0.48 between 1979 and 2011, corresponding to an additional 6.4 ± 0.9 W/m2 of solar energy input into the Arctic Ocean region since 1979. Averaged over the globe, this albedo decrease corresponds to a forcing that is 25% as large as that due to the change in CO2 during this period, considerably larger than expectations from models and other less direct recent estimates. Changes in cloudiness appear to play a negligible role in observed Arctic darkening, thus reducing the possibility of Arctic cloud albedo feedbacks mitigating future Arctic warming.

Observational determination of albedo decrease caused by vanishing Arctic sea ice

a few things, a few questions pop out.

they say that arctic albedo is reduced according to CERES data. that is likely to be true. but they fail to inform us whether LW radiation has increased, which is also likely to be true because warm water gives off more radiation than cooler ice. does the increased LW exactly counter the decreased SW? or is there an imbalance one way or the other?

The Earth has been losing ice and snow since warming began. There has been no increase in albedo.

I thought my question was, "has global albedo decreased? by the amount of reduction in the arctic".

if the albedo has neither incresed or decreased then the reduction in the arctic must be offset by an increase somewhere else. doesnt it?

 

[Abraham3]

if the albedo has neither incresed or decreased then the reduction in the arctic must be offset by an increase somewhere else. doesnt it?

Please show us where the article even suggests such is the case.

The abstract is a bit confusing when it uses the term "global Arctic albedo" but I am assuming they are talking about the albedo of all surfaces above the Arctic circle. When they speak about averaging it across the entire planet, I believe they are dividing the total Arctic albedo loss divided by the planet's area. I see no where in that abstract that suggests the Earth's albedo has not changed. Perhaps I missed it. What do YOU see?

 

[IanC]

Pistone, Eisenman, Ramanathan, 2014 PNAS

Abstract

The decline of Arctic sea ice has been documented in over 30 y of satellite passive microwave observations. The resulting darkening of the Arctic and its amplification of global warming was hypothesized almost 50 y ago but has yet to be verified with direct observations. This study uses satellite radiation budget measurements along with satellite microwave sea ice data to document the Arctic-wide decrease in planetary albedo and its amplifying effect on the warming. The analysis reveals a striking relationship between planetary albedo and sea ice cover, quantities inferred from two independent satellite instruments. We find that the Arctic planetary albedo has decreased from 0.52 to 0.48 between 1979 and 2011, corresponding to an additional 6.4 ± 0.9 W/m2 of solar energy input into the Arctic Ocean region since 1979. Averaged over the globe, this albedo decrease corresponds to a forcing that is 25% as large as that due to the change in CO2 during this period, considerably larger than expectations from models and other less direct recent estimates. Changes in cloudiness appear to play a negligible role in observed Arctic darkening, thus reducing the possibility of Arctic cloud albedo feedbacks mitigating future Arctic warming.

Observational determination of albedo decrease caused by vanishing Arctic sea ice

a few things, a few questions pop out.

they say that arctic albedo is reduced according to CERES data. that is likely to be true. but they fail to inform us whether LW radiation has increased, which is also likely to be true because warm water gives off more radiation than cooler ice. does the increased LW exactly counter the decreased SW? or is there an imbalance one way or the other?

the antarctic area would seem to be a good control to study, especially for the LW/SW tradeoff because the incident sunlight is more direct in the area of ice/no ice. I think it would be pretty funny if it turned out that balance of radiation was actually negative feedback for the arctic and positive for antarctica.

I think it would be funny if you objectively examined a climate topic before deciding that anyone suggesting warming is taking place and human in origin were wrong.

overall I am getting pretty tired of these papers coming out with proclamations that are not integrated with the necessary comparative information. it makes me think they are being deceptive, again. or at least misdirecting or distorting.

I am getting pretty tired of your prejudice, your bias and your mock ennui.

hmmmmm......

I am old enough to have used slide rules and log tables. that means we needed to know the approx answer before we did the calculations, which means we had to understand the problem. you seem to just believe whatever climate scientists tell you without working out the basic principles behind it for yourself. I am not against science, I am against ignoring and sometimes even hiding evidence that is counter to the conclusion of a paper.

in this case they have not shown how the decrease in arctic albedo fits into the overall global albedo. they also did not show whether reduction in SW was countered by increased LW. until those two areas are addressed then I cannot help but think I am being asked to accept a conclusion without sufficient information. if you think that is wrong then you lack the right attitude towards science.

I am sorry that you do not like my thoughts on SW/LW or Arctic/Antarctic. I cannot stop myself from thinking about alternate ideas, nor do I wish to.

 

[IanC]

if the albedo has neither incresed or decreased then the reduction in the arctic must be offset by an increase somewhere else. doesnt it?

Please show us where the article even suggests such is the case.

The abstract is a bit confusing when it uses the term "global Arctic albedo" but I am assuming they are talking about the albedo of all surfaces above the Arctic circle. When they speak about averaging it across the entire planet, I believe they are dividing the total Arctic albedo loss divided by the planet's area. I see no where in that abstract that suggests the Earth's albedo has not changed. Perhaps I missed it. What do YOU see?

I am not sure whether the global albedo has changed or stayed the same. if I was doing the paper and global albedo had decreased then I would certainly mention it. because it wasnt discussed I am assuming that does not actively buttress their conclusion. cynical, yes, but I have seen enough misdirection in climate science papers to be suspicious.

 

[Abraham3]

Their study was based on DIRECT observations of the Arctic over 30 years. It does NOT depend on what the rest of the world is doing.

 

[PredFan]

Is it just me or are the AGW faithful, not just here but out in the world too, getting more and more desperate? Funny that a "settled" "fact" has to be so adamantly and continuously defended. Methinks the lady dos't protest too much.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AGWCult Theme Song

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bYlxqWRe3M]"Weird Al" Yankovic: Everything You Know Is Wrong Lyrics - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Abraham3]

Is it just me or are the AGW faithful, not just here but out in the world too, getting more and more desperate? Funny that a "settled" "fact" has to be so adamantly and continuously defended. Methinks the lady dos't protest too much.

Mainstream science has a way of getting out in the world. That it has to be defended is because it's being attacked.

Just out of curiosity, what other facets of mainstream science do you (all of you) question?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Is it just me or are the AGW faithful, not just here but out in the world too, getting more and more desperate? Funny that a "settled" "fact" has to be so adamantly and continuously defended. Methinks the lady dos't protest too much.

Mainstream science has a way of getting out in the world. That it has to be defended is because it's being attacked.

Just out of curiosity, what other facets of mainstream science do you (all of you) question?

Probably
1. Is the world flat. He probably thinks so.
2. He believes that the sun goes around the earth.
3. Newton three laws are a crock! he believes that heavier things accerate much faster then objects that are light outside of air friction.
4. The atmosphere is capped by a global floating ocean.
5. There's no such thing as the greenhouse effect. Everything is all pressure and tsi to him
6. There's no evolution as he knows in his heart that god did everything personally.
7. The earth is 6,000 years old
8. Humans hunted all the dinosaurs to extinction.

 

[Abraham3]

Is it just me or are the AGW faithful, not just here but out in the world too, getting more and more desperate? Funny that a "settled" "fact" has to be so adamantly and continuously defended. Methinks the lady dos't protest too much.

Mainstream science has a way of getting out in the world. That it has to be defended is because it's being attacked.

Just out of curiosity, what other facets of mainstream science do you (all of you) question?

MOST of you on the other side of the argument have at least implicitly agreed that the majority of climate scientists are greedy and dishonest and that AGW is a hoax or a scam or a lie. Given that, I have to assume that you hold a very low opinion of scientists in general. After all, there's really no such thing as a climate scientists; they are scientists from a dozen other fields that are studying climate-related topics.

So, what other contention or positions or "widely accepted theories" of mainstream science do you also doubt or disagree with outright? There must be some.

IanC? FlaCalTenn? Swimexpert? SSDD?

 

[ScienceRocks]

We already know by the science forum at this board that they disagree with evolution.

 

[Abraham3]

Really? I haven't been there. I was going to suggest a few theories and see if we had any takers. For instance we know that SSDD rejects quantum mechanics and statistical thermodynamics. SSDD, anything else? Where do you stand on evolution? Cosmology? Inflation? Does anyone here doubt or reject the relatively recent finding that the expansion of the universe is accelerating? How about Dark Matter and Dark Energy? String theory? Quantum Loop Gravity? Life on other planets? How about Clean House Syndrome? How about the likeliest results of keeping a gun in your house? Now I'm wandering. Anyone? Anything?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Really? I haven't been there. I was going to suggest a few theories and see if we had any takers. For instance we know that SSDD rejects quantum mechanics and statistical thermodynamics. SSDD, anything else? Where do you stand on evolution? Cosmology? Inflation? Does anyone here doubt or reject the relatively recent finding that the expansion of the universe is accelerating? How about Dark Matter and Dark Energy? String theory? Quantum Loop Gravity? Life on other planets? How about Clean House Syndrome? How about the likeliest results of keeping a gun in your house? Now I'm wandering. Anyone? Anything?

I'd like to see a thread posted in the science are asking exactly this.

 

[IanC]

Is it just me or are the AGW faithful, not just here but out in the world too, getting more and more desperate? Funny that a "settled" "fact" has to be so adamantly and continuously defended. Methinks the lady dos't protest too much.

Mainstream science has a way of getting out in the world. That it has to be defended is because it's being attacked.

Just out of curiosity, what other facets of mainstream science do you (all of you) question?

you have a warped sense of the scientific method. hypotheses are put forward to make an effort to explain the available data. it is then the job of the scientist to defend his idea against all comers, and test his idea against new evidence. if the idea holds up long enough and the majority of new evidence supports it, it becomes a theory. but it is never exempt from being questioned, never exempt from having to defend itself.

physics has a mechanism whereby increasing CO2 should warm the surface and atmosphere, if all other variables remain the same. temperature increases in the 80's and 90's gave credence to the predictions of global warming. ever more exaggerated predictions came out with the physics calculations for doubled CO2 being multiplied by positive feedbacks. the 00's and 10's have provided evidence that CO2 is not the control knob for climate, and may only be a small factor.

just because CO2 induced global warming became the paradigm by the TAR IPCC report, that doesnt mean that it no longer had to defend itself! since then many legitimate questions have been asked only to be ignored by claiming 'consensus!' or 'denier!'.

this thread is about a paper that documents the albedo decrease in the Arctic over the last few decades but mostly since CERES came on line. I asked a perfectly legitimate question. does Arctic albedo decrease also show up as part of global albedo decrease? I also asked whether decreased albedo shortwave was compensated by increased longwave. both are important questions that go to the heart of the conclusion 'loss of arctic ice is a positive feedback'. if global albedo is not down then the arctic has been compensated for elsewhere. if longwave has gone up more than shortwave has gone down then loss of ice is a negative feedback. I then suggested that the same type of data study be done for Antarctica as a control to see if scientific understanding of the radiative balances for ice loss/gain were supported. I finished by thinking outside the box and wondering if the scientific world might not be backwards in thinking which case was a positive/negative feedback.

I am not a climate scientist but I have seen enough lame ad hoc excuses produced in the last ten years to know that there is a huge pressure in climate science to shore up CAGW, even at the cost of scientific integrity.