Which Ice is more important? Arctic or Antarctic?

[IanC]

Arctic ice is at the top of the globe and mostly present at the summer solstice to reflect sunlight. In the fall it does not reflect the low incident light but it also does not insulate heat loss from the ocean.

Antarctic ice is at much lower latitudes and reflects more incident sunlight per unit area. There is also more Antarctic sea ice than Arctic ice.


Which do you think is more important? Do you think media coverage is conveying a comprehensive picture of sea ice affecting radiative effects at the poles?

 

[Abraham3]

There are a few more complexities. The Arctic is surrounded by land masses whose northern latitudes are normally covered by ice and snow most of the year and can sport their own ice shelves. The warming ocean impacts all of that of course.

The Antarctic is surrounded by ocean. That affects it more than the other way round.

Given the larger area of Antarctic sea ice, it is insulating more ocean from radiative and evaporative losses than is the Arctic. And, of course, the Antarctic, particularly the West Antarctic, represents an enormous threat to sea level where the Arctic is irrelevant in that regard. However, fresh meltwater from the Arctic and Greenland could have a much larger affect on the AMOC than would meltwater in the Antarctic because of the different land/sea ratios in the two hemispheres. Fresh water in the south would have a much larger job to affect thermohaline circulation in the Southern Ocean.

I take it you think the Antarctic should get more coverage. I would certainly agree that it ought to get equal coverage and that overall, it does not.

 

[IanC]

I don't think we have anything but WAGs about ocean circulations.

I would like to see more information on the relatively simple calculations about the amounts of energy involved at the two poles.

 

[Abraham3]

The poles are not causing our warming, though the loss of ice cover is certainly accelerating the process. They are symptoms. What's the point?

 

[IanC]

The poles are not causing our warming, though the loss of ice cover is certainly accelerating the process. They are symptoms. What's the point?

The point is that the poles, especially the Arctic, are being used as poster children for CAGW but climate science is wrong in their predictions for both.

I certainly would be much more interested in hearing more about what is happening in the tropics where the energy is absorbed to run all the heat transport systems that affect the temperate and polar regions. Small differences there mean more than large differences elsewhere. We are still waiting for an explaination of the missing hotspot which is integral to CO2 theory.

 

[mamooth]

Climate science has been correct about both poles.

And asking which is more important is like asking whether mom or dad is more important.

 

[Abraham3]

Excuse me for being dumb, but what is CAGW? All I find is Citizens Against Government Waste. Ahh, wait, it was on page two: Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

If you're interested in the tropics, you should enjoy reading Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kallen 2013 or any of the other studies along those lines.

And how has climate science been wrong about their predictions for both poles?

 

[mamooth]

CAGW is a term only denialists use. It's one sure way to ID them, by their cult lingo.

 

[Abraham3]

I was thinking it might represent the next step in their slow backpedal. They will admit to anthropogenic global warming, but not that it will be catastrophic.

 

[IanC]

I was thinking it might represent the next step in their slow backpedal. They will admit to anthropogenic global warming, but not that it will be catastrophic.

I think you only need to look as far as the latest IPCC report to see backpedalling. And desparation.


Climate sensitivity is probably the most important factor in catastrophic predictions. It is still falling like a rock. No large positive feedbacks, no disaster.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Arctic ice is at the top of the globe and mostly present at the summer solstice to reflect sunlight. In the fall it does not reflect the low incident light but it also does not insulate heat loss from the ocean.

Antarctic ice is at much lower latitudes and reflects more incident sunlight per unit area. There is also more Antarctic sea ice than Arctic ice.


Which do you think is more important? Do you think media coverage is conveying a comprehensive picture of sea ice affecting radiative effects at the poles?

Did you fall into a vat of vodka?

Are you aware that, when it is winter here, it is summer in the southern hemisphere? Did you know that the Earth is actually closer to the sun during winter in the northern hemisphere? How the fuck do you even post?

 

[SwimExpert]

Which ice is more important

The ice over which I pour my bourbon.

 

[IanC]

Arctic ice is at the top of the globe and mostly present at the summer solstice to reflect sunlight. In the fall it does not reflect the low incident light but it also does not insulate heat loss from the ocean.

Antarctic ice is at much lower latitudes and reflects more incident sunlight per unit area. There is also more Antarctic sea ice than Arctic ice.


Which do you think is more important? Do you think media coverage is conveying a comprehensive picture of sea ice affecting radiative effects at the poles?

Did you fall into a vat of vodka?

Are you aware that, when it is winter here, it is summer in the southern hemisphere? Did you know that the Earth is actually closer to the sun during winter in the northern hemisphere? How the fuck do you even post?

I posted the comment to try and stimulate thought about the radiative and reflective effects at the different poles. I am sorry if it confused you but I am not here to lay out every detail.

 

[Abraham3]

I was thinking it might represent the next step in their slow backpedal. They will admit to anthropogenic global warming, but not that it will be catastrophic.

I think you only need to look as far as the latest IPCC report to see backpedalling. And desparation.

Climate sensitivity is probably the most important factor in catastrophic predictions. It is still falling like a rock. No large positive feedbacks, no disaster.

Hardly. This study

Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends - Cowtan - Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society - Wiley Online Library

indicates that the actual climate sensitivity is more likely in the upper portion of its frequently cited range. That is, sensitivity is likely to be ABOVE 3C.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Arctic ice is at the top of the globe and mostly present at the summer solstice to reflect sunlight. In the fall it does not reflect the low incident light but it also does not insulate heat loss from the ocean.

Antarctic ice is at much lower latitudes and reflects more incident sunlight per unit area. There is also more Antarctic sea ice than Arctic ice.


Which do you think is more important? Do you think media coverage is conveying a comprehensive picture of sea ice affecting radiative effects at the poles?

Did you fall into a vat of vodka?

Are you aware that, when it is winter here, it is summer in the southern hemisphere? Did you know that the Earth is actually closer to the sun during winter in the northern hemisphere? How the fuck do you even post?

I posted the comment to try and stimulate thought about the radiative and reflective effects at the different poles. I am sorry if it confused you but I am not here to lay out every detail.

The "details" you laid out contradict reality. Can you explain why a summer/winter dichotomy is more important than proximity to the single largest source of infrared radiation in the solar system?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

QM, given that the concept of "albedo" flew way over your head, there's no point in trying. Sure, we could explain. We just can't dumb it down to a point where you could understand it.

I don't know where to begin. It is always easy for the alarmists to assume that anyone that challenges them is an idiot, but until you deal with actual science, and show me that the difference in albedo actually makes a difference, you really aren't going anywhere.

Do you have any idea how much energy it takes to heat a swimming pool? If a decrease in Arctic ice is actually going to cause a catastrophic cascade in the global climate, what they fuck do you think we can do about it? Should we turn off the sun for a few hours a day?

 

[mamooth]

I don't know where to begin. It is always easy for the alarmists to assume that anyone that challenges them is an idiot,

I made no assumptions. I definitely waited for you to demonstrate it.

but until you deal with actual science, and show me that the difference in albedo actually makes a difference, you really aren't going anywhere.

And you demonstrate it again. You're saying the default position is albedo makes no difference? That will be a great surprise to essentially everyone.

Do you have any idea how much energy it takes to heat a swimming pool?

Yes. And I also recognize one of those red herrings that you're so famous for.

But since you asked, there are around 2500 tons of water in an Olympic-sized pool. Heat capacity of water is around 4 J/C KG, so raising pool temp 1 C would take around 10 million joules. Using only a 100 watt bulb and assuming no heat is lost, it would take a little over a day.

If a decrease in Arctic ice is actually going to cause a catastrophic cascade in the global climate, what they fuck do you think we can do about it? Should we turn off the sun for a few hours a day?

And another fine red herring.

 

[IanC]

Did you fall into a vat of vodka?

Are you aware that, when it is winter here, it is summer in the southern hemisphere? Did you know that the Earth is actually closer to the sun during winter in the northern hemisphere? How the fuck do you even post?

I posted the comment to try and stimulate thought about the radiative and reflective effects at the different poles. I am sorry if it confused you but I am not here to lay out every detail.

The "details" you laid out contradict reality. Can you explain why a summer/winter dichotomy is more important than proximity to the single largest source of infrared radiation in the solar system?

Perhaps you should get a globe out and familiarize yourrselff with the diifferent tilts according to seasons. Also the angle of incidence for sunlight at the NP, roughly 85. And the SP, roughly 75. More light is reflected at the SP. There is also more sea ice. If you are still confused come back with a specific question. But try to figure out the logistics for yourself first. It is really the only way to learn..

 

[westwall]

Climate science has been correct about both poles.

And asking which is more important is like asking whether mom or dad is more important.

No it hasn't. Climatologists have been catastrophically wrong on Antarctica, and merely totally wrong on the Arctic.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I posted the comment to try and stimulate thought about the radiative and reflective effects at the different poles. I am sorry if it confused you but I am not here to lay out every detail.

The "details" you laid out contradict reality. Can you explain why a summer/winter dichotomy is more important than proximity to the single largest source of infrared radiation in the solar system?

Perhaps you should get a globe out and familiarize yourrselff with the diifferent tilts according to seasons. Also the angle of incidence for sunlight at the NP, roughly 85. And the SP, roughly 75. More light is reflected at the SP. There is also more sea ice. If you are still confused come back with a specific question. But try to figure out the logistics for yourself first. It is really the only way to learn..

I hate to disappoint you, but the Antarctic is an actual land mass, which means there is less sea ice at the south pole than the north.

Then again, you started the thread to make exactly that point, didn't you?