Melting ice is cooking the planet. Shrinking Arctic sea ice means the ocean is absorbing more energy from the sun, and it’s now clear the effect is twice as big as thought – adding significantly to heating from greenhouse gases.
NSIDC just reported a significant increase in Arctic sea ice thickness and volume over the past four years.
Arctic temperatures have risen 2 °C since the 1970s, leading to a 40 per cent dip in the minimum summer ice coverage in the Arctic Ocean. Open water soaks up more sunlight than ice, so as the ice retreats the ocean absorbs more energy, warming it and causing even more melting.
The summer minimum occurs in mid-September, just as the sun sets at the north pole. It has almost no impact on albedo or absorption of sunlight, but open water in September allows heat to escape from the water, cooling the planet.
To measure the effect, Ian Eisenman of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography in La Jolla, California, and colleagues turned to data from NASA’s CERES satellite. They found that the Arctic Ocean’s albedo – the fraction of sunlight it reflects back into space – dropped from 52 per cent in 1979 to 48 per cent in 2011. That may not seem like much, but it means a big rise in energy absorbed – equal to 25 per cent of that trapped by the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the same period.
1979 was the peak year for Arctic sea ice. That is why the climate deceivers always use it as a start date. This graph is from the second IPCC report. Had they started their analysis in 1974, there would be nothing scary to report.
“New” Scientist is an appropriate title for that rag, since they decided against “Leftist Love Letters”. I’ll stick with the old classical scientists.
Do you remember the joy of discovery before science became a tool of government? Do you recall when scientists would have appreciated the simplicity of a universe composed ~98% of two forms of one fundamental particle:
a.) The compact neutron, and
b.) It’s expanded form, the hydrogen atom
And ~2% of two forms of potential energy:
c.) Rest mass from repulsive forces in the compacted universe, and
d.) Gravitational potential of attractive forces in the expanded universe
Chapter 3 of my autobiography (in process) will address the differences between pre- and post-WWII science.
In the early part of the 20th century Einstein, Planck and Aston were able to appreciate god-like qualities in the force that sustains our lives and the vibrant universe.
FEAR of the force in cores of Uranium and Plutonium atoms that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 and 9 August 1945, convinced world leaders to hide the force and blocked post-WWII scientists from . . .
APPRECIATION of creative intelligence in the force in the Sun’s core that made our elements, birthed the Solar System, and sustained the origin and evolution of life.
Thus, post-1945 science became
1. An irrational cult that is
2. Incompatible with reality
3. Incompatible with spirituality
4. Incompatible with democracy
George Orwell saw this coming in 1946 when he moved from London to the Scotish Isle of Jura to start writing “Nineteen Eighty-Four.”
It’s now obvious that “Steve Goddard” didn’t want to use his real sex offender name any more directly so he piggybacked on the now obvious Global Warming scam to “allow” wide exposure of his own crackpot theory of iron suns. Luckily for him, all other skeptical blogs had been successfully bogged down in arcane statistics and cultural pacifism by a successful alarmist PR effort. Then “Steve” also threw in an ancient gods lunatic Harry as a smoke screen, but his lack of resulting tiny commenter pool means his own puppets now dominate the whole blog. Know a man by the message his blog is promoting. It’s O.K. to sodomize your children and fractal similarity of coastlines and constellations of his iron suns makes him a prophet too. “Steve” even appeared recently as coauthor of the main greenhouse effect denying book Slaying The Sky Dragon, which should really be called Paper Tiger Skepticism. It’s all obvious now, isn’t it? Oh, you say it’s no so? It might as well be!
Nik has now completely lost his mind and has become full paranoid, after years of drug abuse.
You failed the sense of humor test, as predicted.
I see what you’re trying to do there, Nik…but don’t give up your day job!
I am by masculine birthright allowed to both experience, outside of some boringly decadent culture war on TV, complex emotions, expressively.
Nik, honestly, as much as I generally like your work as far as comments, I think you go against the grain here. You’ve made your point about omanuel, and it’s Steve’s prerogative, as the blog owner, to take your point as he feels like it. Beyond that, you can’t beat a dead horse over and over again, by making the same point again and again and again, and expect anything different. Point made. Once. End of story.
Thread bomber.
Please stop spamming this comment.
They are primitives. They are emotional liberals without guidance and must have something to revere and fear. 42% of their ilk believe in ghosts.(According to Gallup)
Ghosts very much exist. Lack of belief in reality does not give you intellectual superiority.
Time Ghost approves of your faith.
oh who to believe,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/19/new-paper-arctic-temperatures-peaked-before-1950-declining-since/
What lunacy! No mention of Antarctic ice, or that global sea ice is above average – so global albedo from sea ice is higher, not lower.
No mention of the AMO which has clearly now flipped (eg a pretty good sign is the Brazilian drought now in the news). The AMO and Arctic sea ice extent track each other just about perfectly.
Graph.
And if the UIUC cryodata had included the data between 1973 and 1979 that Steve has in the AR2 graph, it would fit the last bit of the mid ’70’s downward trend of the AMO too. Funny how UIUC doesn’t include those 6 years in their dataset.
Probably used 1979 as a starting point because that’s when satellite mapping of the poles began, I believe.
Landsat started in 1972, & while they weren’t dedicated ice-imaging satellites, I’m sure the data could be useful. Though I suppose it’s not “quality controlled” enough for now-a-days.
& then we have this.
1979 was a very cold year in the arctic. I worked at Prudhoe Bay in the winter of that year and the temperatures stayed around -65F. The people that worked there over the years said it was normally -40.
Keep your eyes peeled, Tony, for the data: http://nsidc.org/monthlyhighlights/2010/02/techno-archaeology-rescues-climate-data-from-early-satellites/
h/t Stark D.