Arctic Ice

[douglavers]

ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

If I was a gambler, I would say that this graph has now flattened at comfortably below the medium term average. Shortly, it will start a slow decline towards freezing.

Once it reaches freezing, the rate of decline increases markedly. Presumably the decline towards freezing marks the beginning of a freeze-up in the colder regions of the Arctic.

Lots of nice heat from water solidifying to stop temperatures dropping quickly....

Once the ice cover is established, air temperatures can fall much more quickly.

My point is that it looks to me quite likely that the Arctic Summer will come to an abrupt halt something like two weeks early, and the giant fridge that is the Arctic will really get going.

An amateur's explanation of this is that there doesn't seem to be much warm water streaming out of the GoM towards Europe.

weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom_new.gif

Hundreds of terawatt hours of heat not reaching Europe and the Arctic?

Cold winter coming?

[nautonnier]

Jul 14, 2013 3:32:13 GMT Andrew said:

My interest was in the observation that *no* knowledgeable person is going to dispute the idea of the life giving qualities that water vapour provides because of the way it interacts with infra red to enable a warmer planet, where a colder atmosphere is part of a system that enables a warmer surface. Expanding that basic idea to include complex theories is not what was interesting me.

You are aware that by transporting heat to the tropopause that water vapor cools the planet? It releases latent heat of condensation the droplets aggregate and precipitate to the surface at a cooler temperature taking sensible heat by conduction from the surface to provide latent heat of evaporation so they can convect that heat back up to the tropopause. The absorption of infrared merely ensures that the water does not change state to liquid or ice sooner.

You presumably are also aware (unlike climate scientists) that if you add a radiative gas like CO2 to non-radiative gases like O2 and N2 that the CO2 will start radiating heat obtained by collision with the non-radiative gases slightly more than half that heat will be radiated spaceward. Thus CO2 _cools_ the atmosphere.

The atmosphere is a giant heat pump, and as the input heat increases the speed and capacity of the heat pump increases.

[sigurdur]

Doug: Yep, it does look like a cold winter coming.

[neilhamp]

Doug,
I've been watching this too
link

Normally temperatures stay above freezing for 65/70 days
If this year's trend continues its looking like no more than 40/45 days

Clicking through the charts nothing like this has occurred before (except possibly 2004)
Something odd is going on up there in the Arctic

[sigurdur]

The only hope is that the melt session is extended. That would go against the trend of fewer days above freezing that has been observed. for the past six Years
Might want to buy woolens early this year.

[Andrew]

Jul 15, 2013 0:54:18 GMT nautonnier said:

Jul 14, 2013 3:32:13 GMT Andrew said:

My interest was in the observation that *no* knowledgeable person is going to dispute the idea of the life giving qualities that water vapour provides because of the way it interacts with infra red to enable a warmer planet, where a colder atmosphere is part of a system that enables a warmer surface. Expanding that basic idea to include complex theories is not what was interesting me.

You are aware that by transporting heat to the tropopause that water vapor cools the planet? It releases latent heat of condensation the droplets aggregate and precipitate to the surface at a cooler temperature taking sensible heat by conduction from the surface to provide latent heat of evaporation so they can convect that heat back up to the tropopause. The absorption of infrared merely ensures that the water does not change state to liquid or ice sooner.

You presumably are also aware (unlike climate scientists) that if you add a radiative gas like CO2 to non-radiative gases like O2 and N2 that the CO2 will start radiating heat obtained by collision with the non-radiative gases slightly more than half that heat will be radiated spaceward. Thus CO2 _cools_ the atmosphere.

The atmosphere is a giant heat pump, and as the input heat increases the speed and capacity of the heat pump increases.

I am not wanting to start another war but I am a bit confused as to what you getting at. The Planet can only cool by radiation to space and most of the planets surface is water.

If there was water and no water vapour, water would be still part of the cooling process where water has some very good emission qualities but is far from being as good an emitter as the average surface of the planet as far as I know even though 70%? of the surface is water, and many things on the surface have water on them as a thin film.

If you raise the height of the water far into the atmosphere does that result in a cooler planet? I am not sure. But what seems very very likely is that the cooling emissions are also directly associated with emissions back to the surface as backradiation which causes the planet to be insulated from being totally exposed to only direct emissions to space. The surface therefore has to warm before the insulating effect of the backradiation is overcome.

I think your argument is one where the influence of water vapour tends to dilute the influence of C02 at lower altitudes where above the troposphere the atmosphere is approaching about 25% the density of at the surface. Additionally the C02 absorption has to handle the emission frequencies of water where water is in any case present in the entire atmosphere. Show me for example the absorption characteristics of C02 when dealing with the unique and particular emissions of water? That is not something that can be modelled and has to be verified only by experiments and such experiments are lacking apparently because it is too hard. :-)

Yes the atmospheric emissions cool the atmosphere but they also act to cause the surface to be warmer so that particularly on dry still nights we notice it is much colder at the surface than when the sky is clear but humid even when the air is not particularly cold.

[graywolf]

Well it would appear that 2013 is ahead of 2012 in the Central Arctic Basin and it is areas expected to melt out that currently have us higher than 2012. With the expected high melt rates this coming week the 267km that we trail 2012 by looks a possible esp. when you look at loss rates for this week last year?

As for talk of a cold winter? Well unless we see another 'pattern shift' in the Jet things look like they'll troll along nicely with current Troughs and Ridges staying where they are? This will mean a very warm start to winter for some and some early cold snaps for others?

As for the basin we are realying more and more upon river discharge for our 'fresh skim' to the surface of the basin as ice melt reduces along with volume. this means that any Autumn storms stand a fair chance of mixing out the surface fresh and reintroducing warmer, saltier waters from further down the water column?

Well , let's sit back and see what the week brings us eh?

[cuttydyer]

Jul 15, 2013 8:48:17 GMT graywolf said:

As for talk of a cold winter? Well unless we see another 'pattern shift' in the Jet things look like they'll troll along nicely with current Troughs and Ridges staying where they are? This will mean a very warm start to winter for some and some early cold snaps for others?

Which forecaster is predicting this current pattern is set?

GFS show the UK back to cold & wet by the end of the month:

[nautonnier]

Jul 15, 2013 4:36:55 GMT Andrew said:

Jul 15, 2013 0:54:18 GMT nautonnier said:

You are aware that by transporting heat to the tropopause that water vapor cools the planet? It releases latent heat of condensation the droplets aggregate and precipitate to the surface at a cooler temperature taking sensible heat by conduction from the surface to provide latent heat of evaporation so they can convect that heat back up to the tropopause. The absorption of infrared merely ensures that the water does not change state to liquid or ice sooner.

You presumably are also aware (unlike climate scientists) that if you add a radiative gas like CO2 to non-radiative gases like O2 and N2 that the CO2 will start radiating heat obtained by collision with the non-radiative gases slightly more than half that heat will be radiated spaceward. Thus CO2 _cools_ the atmosphere.

The atmosphere is a giant heat pump, and as the input heat increases the speed and capacity of the heat pump increases.

I am not wanting to start another war but I am a bit confused as to what you getting at. The Planet can only cool by radiation to space and most of the planets surface is water.

If there was water and no water vapour, water would be still part of the cooling process where water has some very good emission qualities but is far from being as good an emitter as the average surface of the planet as far as I know even though 70%? of the surface is water, and many things on the surface have water on them as a thin film.

If you raise the height of the water far into the atmosphere does that result in a cooler planet? I am not sure. But what seems very very likely is that the cooling emissions are also directly associated with emissions back to the surface as backradiation which causes the planet to be insulated from being totally exposed to only direct emissions to space. The surface therefore has to warm before the insulating effect of the backradiation is overcome.

I think your argument is one where the influence of water vapour tends to dilute the influence of C02 at lower altitudes where above the troposphere the atmosphere is approaching about 25% the density of at the surface. Additionally the C02 absorption has to handle the emission frequencies of water where water is in any case present in the entire atmosphere. Show me for example the absorption characteristics of C02 when dealing with the unique and particular emissions of water? That is not something that can be modelled and has to be verified only by experiments and such experiments are lacking apparently because it is too hard. :-)

Yes the atmospheric emissions cool the atmosphere but they also act to cause the surface to be warmer so that particularly on dry still nights we notice it is much colder at the surface than when the sky is clear but humid even when the air is not particularly cold.

You are confusing two things. The way the heat leaves the Earth and the way the heat gets to the stratosphere. The ultimate way for heat to leave the planet is by radiation to space. However, the transport of heat through the troposphere to the stratosphere is mainly by convection and water state changes and NOT by radiation. You can see the infra-red radiation from water vapor in this satellite loop from GOES East. It shows the infrared from the surface upward and you can see the weather systems radiating to space (the satellite). Note that the radiation of latent heat from changes of state of water do not follow Stefan Boltzmann as the amount of energy on change of state is a constant regardless of temperature.

CO2 in the atmosphere reradiates the infrared that hits it almost immediately (some sources call it scattering) it will only pass on the heat to the atmosphere if it has a collision with an N2 or O2 molecule before reradiating. However, water in the atmosphere as clouds of droplets or ice crystals will absorb infra-red and not reradiate if it absorbs enough energy then it can change state.

CO2 in the atmosphere will be heated by collision with N2 and O2 and will radiate that heat even if above a dense cloud layer that is not allowing surface infra-red to reach it. This cools the Earth by as much as the downward radiation is meant to warm it - but it is not shown in any of the mickey mouse diagrams that CAGW people like to show.

[Andrew]

Jul 15, 2013 11:49:45 GMT nautonnier said:

Jul 15, 2013 4:36:55 GMT Andrew said:

I am not wanting to start another war but I am a bit confused as to what you getting at. The Planet can only cool by radiation to space and most of the planets surface is water.

If there was water and no water vapour, water would be still part of the cooling process where water has some very good emission qualities but is far from being as good an emitter as the average surface of the planet as far as I know even though 70%? of the surface is water, and many things on the surface have water on them as a thin film.

If you raise the height of the water far into the atmosphere does that result in a cooler planet? I am not sure. But what seems very very likely is that the cooling emissions are also directly associated with emissions back to the surface as backradiation which causes the planet to be insulated from being totally exposed to only direct emissions to space. The surface therefore has to warm before the insulating effect of the backradiation is overcome.

I think your argument is one where the influence of water vapour tends to dilute the influence of C02 at lower altitudes where above the troposphere the atmosphere is approaching about 25% the density of at the surface. Additionally the C02 absorption has to handle the emission frequencies of water where water is in any case present in the entire atmosphere. Show me for example the absorption characteristics of C02 when dealing with the unique and particular emissions of water? That is not something that can be modelled and has to be verified only by experiments and such experiments are lacking apparently because it is too hard. :-)

Yes the atmospheric emissions cool the atmosphere but they also act to cause the surface to be warmer so that particularly on dry still nights we notice it is much colder at the surface than when the sky is clear but humid even when the air is not particularly cold.

You are confusing two things. The way the heat leaves the Earth and the way the heat gets to the stratosphere. The ultimate way for heat to leave the planet is by radiation to space. However, the transport of heat through the troposphere to the stratosphere is mainly by convection and water state changes and NOT by radiation. You can see the infra-red radiation from water vapor in this satellite loop from GOES East. It shows the infrared from the surface upward and you can see the weather systems radiating to space (the satellite). Note that the radiation of latent heat from changes of state of water do not follow Stefan Boltzmann as the amount of energy on change of state is a constant regardless of temperature.

CO2 in the atmosphere reradiates the infrared that hits it almost immediately (some sources call it scattering) it will only pass on the heat to the atmosphere if it has a collision with an N2 or O2 molecule before reradiating. However, water in the atmosphere as clouds of droplets or ice crystals will absorb infra-red and not reradiate if it absorbs enough energy then it can change state.

CO2 in the atmosphere will be heated by collision with N2 and O2 and will radiate that heat even if above a dense cloud layer that is not allowing surface infra-red to reach it. This cools the Earth by as much as the downward radiation is meant to warm it - but it is not shown in any of the mickey mouse diagrams that CAGW people like to show.

You are wanting to bend reality to fit your idea

1. Rising water vapour strongly absorbs energy from the surface and becomes warmer than otherwise and emits more energy that otherwise towards the surface

2. Co2 Heated by conduction with N2 that heats water by radiation causes water to emit more radiation to the surface

3. Water heated by C02 to change state is likely to revert to water and have a zero sum impact and not enable a loss of the heating influence of C02

4. You begin by saying i am confusing two things where it is fairly clear that water has a big role to play in transporting heat to higher in the atmosphere were C02 has less concentration and where heated water is intensely radiating the emissions of water vapour to space that might be particularly difficult for C02 to absorb even in those areas that C02 is known to have lines of absroption. The presence of water vapour near the ground and the radiation it absorbs near the ground level has a big role to play in causing water vapour to rise strongly to a higher altitude

In your idea you want the physical transport of heat via water to have the greatest role rather than considering that radiation has a role in heating the water that gets transported

On a humid day the emissions from the surface simply cannot get very high into the atmosphere before they begin warming water and water vapour causing the surface to become warmer

[sigurdur]

That is sure what it looks like codehacker. My feeling is it is going to be a tad on the cool side of the "new normal" tho.

[thermostat]

Following the 2013 Arctic Sea Ice melt, recent obsevations show a sharp drop in sea ice extent www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

While this observed melting is consistent with the measured thinness of the ice sheet, the weather in 2013 has clearly been, 'none of the above' in comparison with recent years. One conspicuous difference has been the almost complete abscence of export of sea ice via the Fram Strait this year. If ice is going to melt up there, it will have to melt in situ this year.

Realistically, here in mid-July, it looks like an ice recovery year at this mid point. The melt should be less than last year, maybe close to 2007.

[cuttydyer]

Looks as though the cold Arctic Summer is proving a tad embarrassing for the gallant eco warriors attempting to row traverse (a lot of dragging required) the Northwest Passage.



"The temperature in Tuk is -1C and there’s a strong Northeasterly wind blowing in the morning. Locals tell us it should be 15-20C at this time of year. “The bugs should be bouncing off your head” explained Eilleen who came down to the beach to visit with us. Strange weather has defined the year we are told. It’s been colder than usual and the ice has been very slow in going out. Climate change critics may quickly point this out as a damning argument but the reality of climate change is not reflected in specific anomaly but rather in overall trend."

Link: mainstreamlastfirst.com/?slide=home

"Climate change critics may quickly point this out as a damning argument but the reality of climate change is not reflected in specific anomaly but rather in overall trend."

And what is the overall NH trend over the last decade?

Northern Hemisphere HADCRUT3 unadjusted:


Northern Hemisphere HADSST2 sea surface temp. anom.:

[cuttydyer]

Beaufort sea ice area currently looking very healthy:




Link: sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/r01_Beaufort_Sea_ts.png

[mkelter]

Jul 16, 2013 16:27:05 GMT @codewhacker said:

www.chasingice.com/

www.businessinsider.com/chasing-ice-climate-change-is-real-2013-7#nature-photographer-james-balog-used-to-be-a-climate-change-skeptic-he-is-now-convinced-that-global-warming-is-a-true-crisis-1

For the Record:



I used to be a skeptic, but now I'm a dyed-in-the-wool apostle. Having said that, when are they mailing me MY quid pro quo?