How do you think humanity will be affected by climate in the future?

[dabize]

both of which can dwarf CO2, and whose effects cannot be properly defined at this time. But, let that not stop us from ruining the world economy before we find out.

Deniers talk a lot about ruining the world economy, while sensible people in Europe, South Asia and China are getting in on the ground floor with next generation energy technology.

Who gives a damn whether warming is caused predominantly by humans or not if it is causing the kind of issues we see now in the Arctic?

A case can be made that the industrious defense of Big Oil interests in America by "skeptics" only hurts the US economy going forward.

Some investment in large scale alternatives to business as usual in the US might add a few jobs right here, right now..........

[The_Global_Warmer]

The primary issue is that snow and ice are a small % of the earth, and the gain/loss are a % of that %.

I did find one paper that said the surface albedo RF value from ice age to a pre-industrial climate for snow&ice albedo is 2.4W/m2. That's the albedo RF difference between an ice age and present climate. By comparison, the RF value for doubling of CO2 is 3.7W/m2.

Given the changes in snow and ice you are talking about are much much smaller than the difference between an ice age and the present, I'd guess that the RF value of eliminating most remaining summer sea ice is .2-.5W/m2.

So the answer to your question is ~.2-.5W/m2 of RF if the arctic lost most remaining summer sea ice.

Which of course is a very small radiative forcing.

http://kiwi.atmos.co...r_submitted.pdf

If we have an area of 2,000,000km2 right now that is ice covered during the peak sun. We know the max is 350-400 Watts per Square meter in the Arctic. Lets say that ice is a nice mix of MY ice, FY, and snow for part of the summer as well as melting ice and snow.

that would end up around 75 Watts per meter(nearly all of which would go into melting ice and not warming the ocean).

I don't know all of the formulas and I am to tired today to learn them. I will try to this week.

But 2 mil km2 = 2000000000 meters x 70 watts = 140,000,000,000 billion

the same with open water x lets give it 300 watts of the max = 600,000,000,000 bliion

So the increase there is quite a bit for one summer..on the grand scheme of things may not be a lot. But it's energy in that would have otherwise not been in. It is also going towards warming the water not melting ice which cools the water.

This also eliminates the Ice's effect on surface temps which it can cool upwards of 30C. I am not sure how that all plays out.

That is just one summer...this will happen over and over and over.

If your using a scale that is Earth wide..yes that won't boil the planet. But this is how feedback's intensify and it will intensify others,..including the Co2 feedback.

This will do things like slow sea ice recovery which will allow surface temps to warm and slow the onset of snowfall..which will eliminate even more reflecting of energy when the boundary layers end up to warm in places it otherwise wouldn't.

I know that my local climates coldest winters in the last 100-150 years were partly from patterns..but were greatly enhanced from snow and ice albedo.

That is a major change here is the amount of days with snow cover. fresh or older....we went from upwards of 60+ days to 10-15 if that. Pretty amazing change. And it shows when days where 850s and other factors would produce a bone chilling mid 20s afternoon. Hit 40F.

all of this will add to rapid positive feedback. I read a lot of papers on this this morning that showed a much higher model simulation of solar insolation feedback as the ice vanishes during the summer in the arctic which leads to a larger rise in global temps then a a feedback a fraction of Co2. I guess we will find out soon enough..

hopefully some of these new satellites and such can do a better job measuring this for us.

[Sunny and Warm]

Why is it that net negative feedback hasn't prevented the 0.8C of warming so far if you expect it to do so in the future?

Have you given thought that maybe the natural cycles were supportive of CO2 for the last 50 years, and not countering it?

[Sunny and Warm]

Deniers talk a lot about ruining the world economy, while sensible people in Europe, South Asia and China are getting in on the ground floor with next generation energy technology.

Who gives a damn whether warming is caused predominantly by humans or not if it is causing the kind of issues we see now in the Arctic?

A case can be made that the industrious defense of Big Oil interests in America by "skeptics" only hurts the US economy going forward.

Some investment in large scale alternatives to business as usual in the US might add a few jobs right here, right now..........

I hate to do this, but I'm going to have to give your post a BIG

There's too much WTF in your post to retort, so I'll leave it to others.

[Sunny and Warm]

So, you deny more science if you insist the Sun's forcing dwarfs CO2 forcing.

Who is talking about ruining the world economy? We are hopeful of solving problems, not creating them....what would be the point in that.

I don't deny anything Rusty. I support the evidence from Earth's own history, which shows the sun, and it multi-faceted effects, is the essential energy force which runs our weather engine. Everything else is trivial. And if you are thinking of explaing the minor deviations in TSI output from the sun from cycle to cycle, please don't. We both know that there are many other effects from the sun than a asimple TSI reading.

As for world economy, I speaking about Al Gore, the carbon credits scam, and the like.

[dabize]

I hate to do this, but I'm going to have to give your post a BIG

There's too much WTF in your post to retort, so I'll leave it to others.

That is certainly convenient.......and vague.

Why don't you identify the WTF and respond to it?

Should be easy if its such garbage.

[Sunny and Warm]

That is certainly convenient.......and vague.

Why don't you identify the WTF and respond to it?

Should be easy if its such garbage.

No, I think I'll just leave it as a monument (or pile) of sorts.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I hate to do this, but I'm going to have to give your post a BIG

There's too much WTF in your post to retort, so I'll leave it to others.

Like what? Do not call him out and run away...just tell us why

[WeatherRusty]

I hate to do this, but I'm going to have to give your post a BIG

There's too much WTF in your post to retort, so I'll leave it to others.

Why did you feel the desire to reply in the first place then? You didn't have to say anything.

Don't you encourage others to join in on the conversation? Come on man!

[Sunny and Warm]

Why did you feel the desire to reply in the first place then? You didn't have to say anything.

Don't you encourage others to join in on the conversation? Come on man!

It was a political rant in a climate forum. He needs to take his misguided comments there.

[dabize]

It was a political rant in a climate forum. He needs to take his misguided comments there.

Wait a minute.

Who was it talking about destroying the economy?

If my post was political, you provoked it by gratuitously dragging in politics yourself.

Or maybe you have become so inured to to your own political trolling that you no longer notice it?

[skierinvermont]

I just caught this... How in the hell am I denying the basic physics of CO2 when I clearly stated that CO2 will cause some warming. What I don't buy is that it will be a catastrophe of epic proportions and I also believe a stronger player in climate change is natural cycles, at least for now. I don't believe our CO2 emissions are currently more powerful than decadal oscillations and solar activity. I also believe it will take a long time to have them overpower these natural cycles. It comes down to for me is what percentage of our warming is CO2 increase because of humanity and what percentage is due to natural causes. For now my thoughts are is CO2 is not close to half yet.... I would struggle to put a percentage on it but it does not matter my point is natural cycles are dominating for the time being.

As Rusty said.. if you deny that doubling CO2 produces 1.2C of warming plus feedbacks which are virtually certain to be substantially positive (water vapor primarily), you are denying basic physics.

Everything else constant... physics dictate that the climate sensitivity will be at least at the low end of the range of 1.8-5.5 given by the IPCC, probably 2-4.5C.

So unless you know of some natural factor that is likely to produce substantial enough cooling to override 1.8C of warming... you are denying basic physics to say that natural factors will override CO2 factors.

[Sunny and Warm]

Wait a minute.

Who was it talking about destroying the economy?

If my post was political, you provoked it by gratuitously dragging in politics yourself.

Or maybe you have become so inured to to your own political trolling that you no longer notice it?

My comment was directed at the effects of a poor understanding of climate change and the inherent threat to world economy if the AGW acolytes were incorrect. It was a side comment to illustrate a point, and not a central theme of my post or any of the numerous comments I've made on this thread.

Nice try to absolve yourself of blame though. At no time did I mention anything regarding politics. That was/is your fantasy.

[dabize]

My comment was directed at the effects of a poor understanding of climate change and the inherent threat to world economy if the AGW acolytes were incorrect. It was a side comment to illustrate a point, and not a central theme of my post or any of the numerous comments I've made on this thread.

My turn to use the facepalm thingy......

Wow.

I'm done, this exchange is just me taking troll bait.

My apologies to serious people here.

[skierinvermont]

If we have an area of 2,000,000km2 right now that is ice covered during the peak sun. We know the max is 350-400 Watts per Square meter in the Arctic. Lets say that ice is a nice mix of MY ice, FY, and snow for part of the summer as well as melting ice and snow.

that would end up around 75 Watts per meter(nearly all of which would go into melting ice and not warming the ocean).

I don't know all of the formulas and I am to tired today to learn them. I will try to this week.

But 2 mil km2 = 2000000000 meters x 70 watts = 140,000,000,000 billion

the same with open water x lets give it 300 watts of the max = 600,000,000,000 bliion

So the increase there is quite a bit for one summer..on the grand scheme of things may not be a lot. But it's energy in that would have otherwise not been in. It is also going towards warming the water not melting ice which cools the water.

This also eliminates the Ice's effect on surface temps which it can cool upwards of 30C. I am not sure how that all plays out.

That is just one summer...this will happen over and over and over.

If your using a scale that is Earth wide..yes that won't boil the planet. But this is how feedback's intensify and it will intensify others,..including the Co2 feedback.

This will do things like slow sea ice recovery which will allow surface temps to warm and slow the onset of snowfall..which will eliminate even more reflecting of energy when the boundary layers end up to warm in places it otherwise wouldn't.

I know that my local climates coldest winters in the last 100-150 years were partly from patterns..but were greatly enhanced from snow and ice albedo.

That is a major change here is the amount of days with snow cover. fresh or older....we went from upwards of 60+ days to 10-15 if that. Pretty amazing change. And it shows when days where 850s and other factors would produce a bone chilling mid 20s afternoon. Hit 40F.

all of this will add to rapid positive feedback. I read a lot of papers on this this morning that showed a much higher model simulation of solar insolation feedback as the ice vanishes during the summer in the arctic which leads to a larger rise in global temps then a a feedback a fraction of Co2. I guess we will find out soon enough..

hopefully some of these new satellites and such can do a better job measuring this for us.

Good work.. I see where you are going. To finish off to get the global RF value you would just need to divide by the surface area of the earth in square meters.

But I'd like to make a few corrections first.

First of all, 2 million sq km is actually 2 trillion sq meters, not 2 billion.

Second, the amount of SW radiation reaching the earth's surface is 184W/m2 not 340W/m2 according to Trenberth's energy budget. 340W/m2 is the amount of SW radiation that enters the atmosphere. Because clouds and the atmosphere absorb and reflect a lot of that, only 184W/m2 reaches the surface. So 184W/m2 is the global average incoming SW radiation and is a reasonable starting point.

However, a few factors might alter this 184W/m2. First, the arctic might have more radiation because of the 24-hr daylight, on the other hand the sun angle is still low. And second, the cloud fraction in the arctic is very high in summer, which reflects a lot of SW radiation before reaching the surface.

I did some digging and found a paper which says that the SW radiation reaching the surface in the June, July, August, in the Canadian archipelago is ~15MJ / (day*m2) which converts to 174W/m2.

http://pubs.aina.uca...tic49-2-170.pdf

So now let's redo your calculation using 2 trillion m2 of lost ice, and a 174W/m2 of SW radiation reaching the surface.

For water I'll use an albedo of .05, and for snow/ice I'll use .7.

174 * 2 trillion * .7 = 243.6 trillion watts

174 * 2 trillion * .05 = 17.4 trillion watts

difference: 226.2 trillion watts

So now the arctic would be absorbing SW radiation 226.2 trillion watts faster

now we have to divide by the surface area of the earth which is 5.1X10^14 m2 and we get: .44W/m2

Now because this is only occurring 3 months of the year (June July August) we have to divide by 4 to get the annual change: .44/4 = .11W/m2

Thus a loss of 2 million sq km of ice causes the earth to absorb .11W/m2 more SW radiation.

[Sunny and Warm]

My turn to use the facepalm thingy......

Wow.

I'm done, this exchange is just me taking troll bait.

My apologies to serious people here.

since you didn't once make a comment about climate change in the climate change forum, I'm sure we'll survive without you.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Good work.. I see where you are going. To finish off to get the global RF value you would just need to divide by the surface area of the earth in square meters.

But I'd like to make a few corrections first.

First of all, 2 million sq km is actually 2 trillion sq meters, not 2 billion.

Second, the amount of SW radiation reaching the earth's surface is 184W/m2 not 340W/m2 according to Trenberth's energy budget. 340W/m2 is the amount of SW radiation that enters the atmosphere. Because clouds and the atmosphere absorb and reflect a lot of that, only 184W/m2 reaches the surface. So 184W/m2 is the global average incoming SW radiation and is a reasonable starting point.

However, a few factors might alter this 184W/m2. First, the arctic might have more radiation because of the 24-hr daylight, on the other hand the sun angle is still low. And second, the cloud fraction in the arctic is very high in summer, which reflects a lot of SW radiation before reaching the surface.

I did some digging and found a paper which says that the SW radiation reaching the surface in the June, July, August, in the Canadian archipelago is ~15MJ / (day*m2) which converts to 174W/m2.

http://pubs.aina.uca...tic49-2-170.pdf

So now let's redo your calculation using 2 trillion m2 of lost ice, and a 174W/m2 of SW radiation reaching the surface.

For water I'll use an albedo of .05, and for snow/ice I'll use .7.

174 * 2 trillion * .7 = 243.6 trillion watts

174 * 2 trillion * .05 = 17.4 trillion watts

difference: 226.2 trillion watts

So now the arctic would be absorbing SW radiation 226.2 trillion watts faster

now we have to divide by the surface area of the earth which is 5.1X10^14 m2 and we get: .44W/m2

Now because this is only occurring 3 months of the year (June July August) we have to divide by 4 to get the annual change: .44/4 = .11W/m2

Thus a loss of 2 million sq km of ice causes the earth to absorb .11W/m2 more SW radiation.

Thanks for helping out there. I agree on a global scale if that was evenly distributed the yearly amount of change isn't extraordinary. Don't forget the places between 70-80N or even further south in the 60sN like the Hudson Bay will also be adding to the energy, and can do so longer. But again on a global scale that is negligible. But there are feedback's that take this much further which is where the biggest fears come in.

For instance. When we get to a ice free arctic. some climate models show 10-20C SSTs within 100 miles of the Russian coast at the end of the melt season. You have to think these place will be ice free from early June on. Some places maybe even slightly earlier.

How much would that warm the coastal regions in September and October.

Lets just go with that. On October 1st whatever year. The ESB, Laptev, Kara all have 8-14C SSTs within 100 miles of shore and 5-8C within 150 miles of that.With 0-5C once you meet the ice in the Arctic Basin more towards the middle of the arctic ocean. Now clearly the deep water probably can't get this warm at the surface, I don't know for sure. At this point the arctic has about 2,000,000km2 and the refreeze is happening but most of the ice on the Greenland side. So there is no ice in any of these seas. If the flow comes off this water..say an HP is sitting over the Western Laptev...wouldn't air moving over this water warm up well above freezing, even if 850s are below freezing?

This is part of the feedback. What will this do snow in Russia at this time? I mean wouldn't this force a warmer boundry layer causing rain maybe? Just one of the changes of an ice free arctic.

[skierinvermont]

Thanks for helping out there. I agree on a global scale if that was evenly distributed the yearly amount of change isn't extraordinary. Don't forget the places between 70-80N or even further south in the 60sN like the Hudson Bay will also be adding to the energy, and can do so longer. But again on a global scale that is negligible. But there are feedback's that take this much further which is where the biggest fears come in.

For instance. When we get to a ice free arctic. some climate models show 10-20C SSTs within 100 miles of the Russian coast at the end of the melt season. You have to think these place will be ice free from early June on. Some places maybe even slightly earlier.

How much would that warm the coastal regions in September and October.

Lets just go with that. On October 1st whatever year. The ESB, Laptev, Kara all have 8-14C SSTs within 100 miles of shore and 5-8C within 150 miles of that.With 0-5C once you meet the ice in the Arctic Basin more towards the middle of the arctic ocean. Now clearly the deep water probably can't get this warm at the surface, I don't know for sure. At this point the arctic has about 2,000,000km2 and the refreeze is happening but most of the ice on the Greenland side. So there is no ice in any of these seas. If the flow comes off this water..say an HP is sitting over the Western Laptev...wouldn't air moving over this water warm up well above freezing, even if 850s are below freezing?

This is part of the feedback. What will this do snow in Russia at this time? I mean wouldn't this force a warmer boundry layer causing rain maybe? Just one of the changes of an ice free arctic.

This warming of the water isn't a feedback to the .11W/m2 of RF. The reason the water would warm is because of the radiative forcing. When air blows over this warm water and warms up, this is just how the heat is distributed globally.

The calculation I did was a calculation of how much more radiation would be absorbed by the water than the ice. The temperature of the water is directly proportional to the extra energy absorbed.

[The_Global_Warmer]

This warming of the water isn't a feedback to the .11W/m2 of RF. The reason the water would warm is because of the radiative forcing. When air blows over this warm water and warms up, this is just how the heat is distributed globally.

The calculation I did was a calculation of how much more radiation would be absorbed by the water than the ice. The temperature of the water is directly proportional to the extra energy absorbed.

I understand.

This would cause the snow albedo to lower because there would be less snow cover, this would also increase air temperature so it could help melt the permafrost faster releasing more methane, The methane would help trap the extra heat from the initially ice free arctic. Which would help..and the cycle goes on.

I guess it just is a matter of how fast it all works together.

[skierinvermont]

I understand.

This would cause the snow albedo to lower because there would be less snow cover, this would also increase air temperature so it could help melt the permafrost faster releasing more methane, The methane would help trap the extra heat from the initially ice free arctic. Which would help..and the cycle goes on.

I guess it just is a matter of how fast it all works together.

Yes but an initial RF of .11W/m2 is fairly small and would cause very little warming.. thus the feedbacks would be fairly small too. A tiny little bit of warming isn't going to cause much permafrost to melt or methane to be released.

Again.. surface albedo is a pretty weak RF. CO2 provides much stronger RF.. and thus the feedbacks are much larger.

[LithiaWx]

As Rusty said.. if you deny that doubling CO2 produces 1.2C of warming plus feedbacks which are virtually certain to be substantially positive (water vapor primarily), you are denying basic physics.

Everything else constant... physics dictate that the climate sensitivity will be at least at the low end of the range of 1.8-5.5 given by the IPCC, probably 2-4.5C.

So unless you know of some natural factor that is likely to produce substantial enough cooling to override 1.8C of warming... you are denying basic physics to say that natural factors will override CO2 factors.

I don't know why you guys keep saying I'm denying what CO2 doubling will do, I challenge you to find a post by me where I deny the physics of CO2 warming. In the post you responded to I frequently used the term "currently". CO2 has risen about 20% since 1980? That's not doubling so we are not at that point "currently". You could go back a few more decades and find a higher percentage rise since that time, but it's hard to come up with a fair number because you can put that start date for CO2 levels compared to present day levels anywhere, coming up with any number. Saying natural cycles are more dominant that CO2 emissions by humans currently, does not equate to me denying the physics of CO2 warming.

I have never denied the physics of CO2, I'm disappointed you are trying to portray that falsity.

[skierinvermont]

I don't know why you guys keep saying I'm denying what CO2 doubling will do, I challenge you to find a post by me where I deny the physics of CO2 warming. In the post you responded to I frequently used the term "currently". CO2 has risen about 20% since 1980? That's not doubling so we are not at that point "currently". You could go back a few more decades and find a higher percentage rise since that time, but it's hard to come up with a fair number because you can put that start date for CO2 levels compared to present day levels anywhere, coming up with any number. Saying natural cycles are more dominant that CO2 emissions by humans currently, does not equate to me denying the physics of CO2 warming.

I have never denied the physics of CO2, I'm disappointed you are trying to portray that falsity.

Saying that CO2 emissions will only cause 'slight warming' necessarily is a denial of the basic physics of rising CO2 concentrations.

The rise in CO2 alone this century will be enough to cause 1.2C of warming.. that is just basic physics. And physics also dictates at least moderate positive feedback although it is uncertain exactly how much. The least amount of warming that would be consistent with basic physics is 1.8C of warming. That is not slight warming. That is much much larger than any natural climate variation.

You say 'solar variation is more powerful than CO2.' This is contradicted by basic physics. The sun has caused .12W/m2 of RF. Co2 has caused 1.8W/m2 of RF. CO2's radiative forcing has been over 10X that of the sun's.

You need an option for "I think Natural cycles are the main driver of climate change and human related CO2 emissions will only have slight warming added to the natural cycles, having a minimal impact on humanity over the next 100 years"

None of your options above I can vote for.

I just caught this... How in the hell am I denying the basic physics of CO2 when I clearly stated that CO2 will cause some warming. What I don't buy is that it will be a catastrophe of epic proportions and I also believe a stronger player in climate change is natural cycles, at least for now. I don't believe our CO2 emissions are currently more powerful than decadal oscillations and solar activity. I also believe it will take a long time to have them overpower these natural cycles. It comes down to for me is what percentage of our warming is CO2 increase because of humanity and what percentage is due to natural causes. For now my thoughts are is CO2 is not close to half yet.... I would struggle to put a percentage on it but it does not matter my point is natural cycles are dominating for the time being.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Yes but an initial RF of .11W/m2 is fairly small and would cause very little warming.. thus the feedbacks would be fairly small too. A tiny little bit of warming isn't going to cause much permafrost to melt or methane to be released.

Again.. surface albedo is a pretty weak RF. CO2 provides much stronger RF.. and thus the feedbacks are much larger.

But it would cause warming and it would eliminate cooling as well. Do we factor that in or is that something that is already factored in?

Also they are finding that the warmer it gets the less clouds, even this summer had less clouds than the mean during the sat era by 15% or more( I read it somewhere and can't find it. It may have been 18%, not sure)

2007 was like 35% less. That is less not 35% overall.

so let me ask a few things:

1. Right now anytime ice is there unless it is under .50 meters the studies show nearly all of the RF goes into melting it. If nearly all of the energy in is lost in this process. How do we account for warming on an absolute scale. It's not just an RF increase, it's eliminating the ice all together and having just water. how do we account for that? even if it's small.

2. There are areas in lower latitudes that take in much more solar radiation right? The Great Lakes...The Hudson is a quite a bit more than the arctic. Even the CA islands are still having sun light when just two decades ago they would have been frozen over and snow packed.

That has to play havoc on the cryosphere. it seems these dramatic changes are still very confined to this region. Maybe the ice melting process is inhibiting energy transfers to some degree. The Increased solar radiation is enough to knock out the sea ice but not enough to overwhelm over things like snow cover.

3. Does warmer water absorb more?

[ORH_wxman]

Friv, absorption is based on the spectrum whether its dark or light. It has nothing to do with the temperature of the object. The absorption can only be so much in the arctic because the sun angle is weak there. You cannot have the same forcing that goes on at lower latitudes.

Even in a hypothetical ice free summer...you still are wasting most of that energy in melting the ice. Its not like the arctic would be ice free from 5-6 months in our scenarios. It would only be for a brief time. So the overall effect is fairly minor. Its a big deal in terms of arctic sea ice, but its a minor deal in terms in global temps.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Friv, absorption is based on the spectrum whether its dark or light. It has nothing to do with the temperature of the object. The absorption can only be so much in the arctic because the sun angle is weak there. You cannot have the same forcing that goes on at lower latitudes.

Even in a hypothetical ice free summer...you still are wasting most of that energy in melting the ice. Its not like the arctic would be ice free from 5-6 months in our scenarios. It would only be for a brief time. So the overall effect is fairly minor. Its a big deal in terms of arctic sea ice, but its a minor deal in terms in global temps.

I think that is over simplifying a bit. It might take longer than a decade or two. but the pile up will start getting there. I am to tired to post more on it..I have read a lot about it..but it seems our climate models have been garbage so far for the most part. We are way ahead of schedule on where the ice is supposed to be. I know the physics is pretty sound..but I am not sure I can trust a climate model that missed the mark by 20 years up to 50 in some cases on what other things will happen with an ice free arctic. I think the more important question will be, what will the Hudson, CA Islands, Kara, Laptev, Beaufort, ESB and Barents do with an entire ice free summer during peak sun. how warm can those shallow waters get? Right now we know 3C ssts made it ten meters down.

What happens when 3C makes it 30 meters and 10 meters is 8C and surface is 15C 250 miles from shore? is that possible? How much will it take to cool that off for ice production, how much will salinity increase? How much water vapor will come from it? How much will local surface temps be affected? how far upwards does this reach in the atmosphere? What affect will this water have on the Atlantic and pacific? So many questions...

[ORH_wxman]

I think that is over simplifying a bit. It might take longer than a decade or two. but the pile up will start getting there. I am to tired to post more on it..I have read a lot about it..but it seems our climate models have been garbage so far for the most part. We are way ahead of schedule on where the ice is supposed to be. I know the physics is pretty sound..but I am not sure I can trust a climate model that missed the mark by 20 years up to 50 in some cases on what other things will happen with an ice free arctic. I think the more important question will be, what will the Hudson, CA Islands, Kara, Laptev, Beaufort, ESB and Barents do with an entire ice free summer during peak sun. how warm can those shallow waters get? Right now we know 3C ssts made it ten meters down.

What happens when 3C makes it 30 meters and 10 meters is 8C and surface is 15C 250 miles from shore? is that possible? How much will it take to cool that off for ice production, how much will salinity increase? How much water vapor will come from it? How much will local surface temps be affected? how far upwards does this reach in the atmosphere? What affect will this water have on the Atlantic and pacific? So many questions...

Yet we are behind on global temp rise. Again, the arctic albedo effect has only a relatively small impact on global temps.

[skierinvermont]

But it would cause warming and it would eliminate cooling as well. Do we factor that in or is that something that is already factored in?

The .11W/m2 we calculated is a measure of how much more energy would be absorbed... temperature is just a measure of how much kinetic energy exists. The warming you're talking about is a direct product of this .11W/m2 of RF. So yes this warming is already' factored into' the global RF value we calculated (if I understand your question).

Now of course this global RF value is coming solely from the arctic.. so the warming will be concentrated there and then the extra energy will be dispersed by the atmosphere and ocean. Locally where there is water instead of ice the RF is much much much higher (like 130W/m2 in summer). So these areas warm incredibly.. and then the heat is dispersed globally. The thing is this local RF is occurring on only .4% of the earth's surface area (2 million sq km is .4% of earth's area) and only 3 months of the year. 130*.004*.25 = .11W/m2. So it is a local forcing of 130W/m2 in summer, but globally annually it is a forcing of .11W/m2.

Also they are finding that the warmer it gets the less clouds, even this summer had less clouds than the mean during the sat era by 15% or more( I read it somewhere and can't find it. It may have been 18%, not sure)

2007 was like 35% less. That is less not 35% overall.

I think you have cause and effect reversed. The reason that 2011 and 2007 had less ice is because of the less clouds. Not the other way around. I don't think less ice causes less clouds. It might even cause more clouds because there is more evaporation. I think we would need a climate model to tell us how cloud cover would change.

so let me ask a few things:

1. Right now anytime ice is there unless it is under .50 meters the studies show nearly all of the RF goes into melting it. If nearly all of the energy in is lost in this process. How do we account for warming on an absolute scale. It's not just an RF increase, it's eliminating the ice all together and having just water. how do we account for that? even if it's small.

I'm not quite sure what you're asking here but I'll take a stab... there is less ice because there is more downwards LW radiation due to the increased GH effect and because there is greater conduction by warmer air. Also natural factors. And when there is less ice the positive feedback from decreased albedo helps reinforce this. Remember though, even though there is a local forcing of 130W/m2 for water vs ice, this extra energy is quickly re-emitted to the atmosphere and transported out of the arctic. This is because 5C water emits much much more LW radiation than ice.

2. There are areas in lower latitudes that take in much more solar radiation right? The Great Lakes...The Hudson is a quite a bit more than the arctic. Even the CA islands are still having sun light when just two decades ago they would have been frozen over and snow packed.

That has to play havoc on the cryosphere. it seems these dramatic changes are still very confined to this region. Maybe the ice melting process is inhibiting energy transfers to some degree. The Increased solar radiation is enough to knock out the sea ice but not enough to overwhelm over things like snow cover.

Well even in the 1980s Hudson bay had no ice until November.. when there is very little sunlight. So that is not much of a global RF. You'd get some RF from the later melt date because there is more sunlight in May.

The original question you asked was how much RF would be caused by 2 million sq km less ice in summer in the arctic.. the answer to that is .11W/m2. But there is also less ice year round in places like Hudson Bay. And less snowcover globally. So all of that provides more radiative forcing. I didn't mean to say surface albedo is an insignificant forcing.. it is just a fairly small one.

3. Does warmer water absorb more?

By absorb more I assume you're talking about SW radiation, because in terms of LW radiation warmer water emits more (the LW radiation emitted is proportional to the temperature of the water).

So in terms of SW radiation from the sun, warmer water doesn't absorb more. The albedo of water is the same regardless of temperature. (This isn't 100% true actually there are some very very tiny differences in albedo at different temperature but it's too tiny to be of any significance. Also the texture of the water [smooth, ripples, waves?] effects albedo as well).

[The_Global_Warmer]

Yet we are behind on global temp rise. Again, the arctic albedo effect has only a relatively small impact on global temps.

I think that is because the arctic is not ice free. JJA averaged something like 7-8 mil km2 of extent this year. when that gets down to 3-4km2 then Ice free could be. like 8 in June, 4 in July, 1 in August. that is around 3.3mil km2.

Your right about that. I don't deny the obvious...but try to put together pretty clear casualties.

1. Methane release from heating the ocean floor and the permafrost. We already know the permafrost is warming and melting and releasing methane. But this process will get faster and faster in both Alaska and Russia. When the Russian Seas are ice free in Mid June hopefully not before that. Areas shallower than 100 meters can receive light energy. closer to 70N further down. The warmer it gets, the faster ice and snow is gone over land and ocean. the faster the sun can warm the ocean and land areas. the Permafrost will melt much faster. The models say SSTs will rise from 7-20C as the arctic goes ice free. If we have 20C ssts around the shores of Russia in late August. I can only imagine how that will change the local environment and allow more GHGs into the atmosphere.

2. water vapor. Shallow seas like the Hudson(which is already accelerating in giving off water vapor with raised salinity). the Arctic ocean has a wide shelf of shallow seas that will be ripe for water vapor to be pulled out of the ocean that otherwise would not have when there was ice there all year or SSTS were near 0C.

3. eliminating snow albedo during fall. Clearly lack of ice will allow the warmer ssts to warm surface air...when this air gets pushed over land it will move the boundry layer. So possible snow could fall as rain. I am not privy to how far up 10-20sst water will warm the atmosphere in September and October but it will be enough to stop snow in cases and cause rain, take a 8 inch snow to a 2-4 inch snow which will melt faster, or just melt it faster after a winter storm dumps snow. Maybe this is not a big one. But again all of these will add up as time goes on. These are things the old thick ice sheet prevented.

[WeatherRusty]

I have to agree with Frivolous as to the impact of arctic sea ice albedo reduction. The local environment is strongly impacted, if not the globe as a whole. I believe about one half of the sea ice loss over the past several decades has been the direct result of previous sea ice loss. This means a tipping point has been crossed and the situation is self perpetuating. The ice will continue it's decline, albeit more slowly if "natural cycles" tend to favor stabilization.

[WeatherRusty]

This warming of the water isn't a feedback to the .11W/m2 of RF. The reason the water would warm is because of the radiative forcing. When air blows over this warm water and warms up, this is just how the heat is distributed globally.

The calculation I did was a calculation of how much more radiation would be absorbed by the water than the ice. The temperature of the water is directly proportional to the extra energy absorbed.

The temperature (expressed as Kelvins) of the water is inversely proportional to the 4th power of extra energy absorbed. Stephan-Boltzmann. Me thinks.

The Stefan–Boltzmann law, also known as Stefan's law, states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body per unit time (also known as the black-body irradiance or emissive power), j^*, is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature T (also called absolute temperature):