Wednesday
Oct232013
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Fast freeze
Oct 23, 2013 Climate: Surface Isn't the Arctic refreeze quick this year? The extent figures are rapidly approaching the 2000s average, something that has only happened in the first half of recent years. Yet we're still in autumn.
Interesting times.
Reader Comments (118)
Grumpy
When we lived in the UK I always had at least one Rowan in our garden, always handy for warding off evil spirits :). The berries were always taken by birds as soon as they were ripe, fairly large trees were stripped in a few days. The holly berries didn't last until Christmas most years, So it may well be the birds rather than anything else.
Odd how climate science's 333 watts per square metre back radiation keeps the tropics warm at night yet can't melt ice.
Just sayin.
Doug
"the speed of the refreeze is about the same"
But noticeably earlier.
Yes, Your Grace - I'd spotted the rapid refreeze too..
'Ah,' but the doomsters will argue, 'Its not the AREA but the VOLUME which counts...' (because of course present ice cover is weedy and thin, whereas in the past it was chunky and thick....) Evidence..?
Yeah, right....
PhilipBratby and jones - hate to be picky, but Viner's statement was: 'Our children won't know what SNOW is...'
(I think...)
Either way, his environmental credentials will doubtless be invaluable to Mott Macdonald...
Mott MacDonald is on Twitter: @MottMacDonald
Someone with an account please congratulate them on having David Viner, Nobel Laureate as their principal advisor on climate change :-)
Sherlock1
I understand it is tied up in Murmansk !.
Both my rowan trees have had copious berries which are now being devoured by the birds. Having read the other posts above I think we can safely ignore rowan trees as indicators of future weather.
That Inside Out programme mentioned by Philip Bratby with Paul Hudson looking at the possibility of a forthcoming Little Ice Age is only on BBC1 Yorks & Lincs. You can find it on Channel 957 on Sky but if you're on Freeview anywhere else in the UK you'll only get the local equivalent. Here in the south "Jon Cuthill goes twister chasing following the tornado on Hayling Island and asks what's next for our wild weather". Any bets we'll be told of increasing numbers of extreme weather events?
If anyone with a strong stomach would like to see David Viner in action from last year look here:
"I'm pleased with that"
There's something for everyone in there:
Those who like analysing details can have loads of fun with the outlandish claims he makes.
He actually addresses his famous quote around the 42 minute mark (a badge of honour).
He slags off just about everybody; Lawson, Delingpole, Monbiot, WWF.
A bit of Lew-style analysis of Climate Denial actually mentioning Holocaust denial.
A masterly 10 minute Q&A session. ("Who are you!?")
Oh and marvel at his presentation skills as he spends most of his time casting a shadow over his slides.
And all without a hint of arrogance or coming over as a 3rd rate Poly lecturer (oh hang on...)
What a guy! Great stuff.
(Strangely for such a famous Nobel Laureate it's only had 150 views.)
Your Grace,
Thank you for bringing this year's growth of Arctic Sea Ice Area to the forefront. The handwringing crowd is beginning to run shy of unimportant items such as EVIDENCE and DATA.
Perhaps he's gone off to consult in the southern hemisphere? Maybe to advise that, due to the record high in Antarctic sea ice, "Baby penguins won't know what open seas look like". [credit to someone else, who's name I can't recall].
Whatever. I can't get too alarmed by the growth rate in Arctic sea ice. It doesn't look unprecedented in the short satellite record since 1979.
SandyS - We've a rowan tree in the neigbours garden, right next to our holly hedge. I think the holly must lessen the effect of the rowan on evil spirits, because I've had a few nasty hangovers recently.
Before:
David was a co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for his contributions to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change between 1993-2007. He is also an Honorary Lifetime Friend of the Countryside for his work on climate change and the European countryside. He has published over 100 papers and research reports and has undertaken numerous public lectures around the world.
After:
David contributed to the reports of the IPCC, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. He is also an Honorary Lifetime Friend of the Countryside for his work on climate change and the European countryside. He has published over 100 papers and research reports and has undertaken numerous public lectures around the world.
What I want to know is, what the crap is 'an Honorary Lifetime Friend of the Countryside'?
if we carry on like this he'll be lucky to have GCSEs.
Perhaps it's a wee bit too late in the season to be Rowan to the North Pole.
(I'll get my coat)
Re.: PhilipBratby and jones - hate to be picky, but Viner's statement was: 'Our children won't know what SNOW is...'
He said: "Children just aren't going to know what snow is."
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
Steveta (Oct 23, 2013 at 11:28 AM): I have no idea – perhaps they have better models?
My own rowan is groaning under its berries; perhaps you ought to use yours the help refill Grumpy’s woodshed…
As good sceptics you should of course know that reading much into one year's figures or even a few month's data is a bit stupid. But silly me, you are not sceptics are you? After all, although I have failed to find it, I'm sure I saw something like this here in the summer of 2012:
And on the basis of that one data point and the Bishop's blog post, I am sure all said things on the lines of, "yeah, the games up for the arctic, we can't deny it any more".
May you live in interesting times...
Is the newest pop-up Warmist/Contrary Bugger aka Chandra a real person? To me, it's pronouncements read like a Year 13 Common-room attempt at adult humour in a slow week at school. Whatever the source, 'Chandra's' comments fail as either humour, science or rational comment.
I have not paid much attention to Chandra's comments but just once or twice he/she has posted a comment as a simple question that came across as a comment wittily and tellingly put.
Doug McNeall
Thanks Doug, summary is as always quite correct, although it is intriguing to find you commenting on this particular "poster child"?
Only change I see is in the arc East Siberian, Laptev & Kara and I am intrigued with Dr Curry's "watch the Kara"?
Interesting times?
Re the perennial "ignobel" Dr Viner there is a difference between "working" for the British Council and being employed by Mott!
Welcome, Dr Viner into the real world! Your ability to generate and protect profit will dictate how long you will enjoy life in your new enlightenment.
The Arctic ice minimum and the abnormally fast refreeze would is not significant in terms of climate, as Lapogus pointed out Oct 23, 2013 at 9:54 AM. It is significant in terms of predictions in 2007 and later that the Arctic would be essentially ice-free in September 2013. It is another example of data contradicting policy-justifying prophesies of cataclysm.
I don't normally make predictions, well not about actual data, but do not be surprised if the next Arctic sea ice pronouncement of cataclysm arrives sooner than normal. Beware the Ides of March!
It is quite possible that this year's minimum increase will be deemed irrelevant as it did not result in a significant increase in the winter extent, area, thickness, colour, smell, taste or walrus bearing norms since pontius was a pilate etc..
We meet again in March 2014!
Winter is officially a thing of the past. It has been renamed 'Autumn Change'.
Sherlock1
Not quite yet
But it is getting a bit "stiff" up there. Spent a few of my informative years with a matelot with WWII Murmansk scars, not a place of choice today
Nice to have a quiet year in the Arctic for once.
Odd how climate science's 333 watts per square metre back radiation keeps the tropics warm at night yet can't melt ice.
Just sayin.
Oct 23, 2013 at 1:10 PM | ssat
Remember that back radiation is surface IR radiation absorbed by CO2 and reemitted back towards the surface.
Both the surface radiation intensity and the back radiation intensity dependant on the temperature of the surface.
You may have noticed that the Arctic is much colder than the tropics at this time of year.
"RR, can you suggest any mechanism by which these wee beasties are able to forecast the coming winter more reliably that the Met Office?" --steveta
Higher intelligence?
"Yes, yes but it's ice extent. Everyone knows it's thin as tissue paper. Could easily paddle a canoe through it." --GrantB
Difficult to assess the relevance of ice extent data, because, among others, growth of ice is geographically constrained.
"David brings with him 20 years of experience working in the area of climate change."
David brings with him 20 years of being politically correct in the area of climate change, otherwise, not so much. Properly done science will be "“a very rare and exciting event” and “Children just aren’t going to know what science is.”
If you were looking for previous years showing similar behaviour, the 2013 minimum was closest to that of 2009.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html
A couple of small steps in the right direction from "down under".
The PM of Australia , Tony Abbott publicly pulled up Christiana Figeres , Al Gore and others who are blaming the bush fires in NSW on climate change by saying " they are talking through their hats". ( Translation : It is BS)
The MSM in NZ ,have picked up on the record ice extent in Antarctica ( as reported by NASA) and are openly questioning how this can align with AGW.
EM
Re 2009 v 2013 the recovery isn't quite the same though, different in these areas
Chukchi Sea
Laptev Sea
Kara Sea
Barents Sea
Sea of Okhotsk
and started a couple of weeks early here
Hudson's Bay
Also this year has seen an increase in 4+ year old ice compared with the last couple of years; I thought that the age rather than extent was the new indicator of disaster in the Arctic. Probably down to the quiet year, and the decline will continue when the Deep Heat gets out.
Bugger! There goes that new shipping lane. Where's Mr Gore? Hello... Calling Mr Gore??!!....
Oh dear, yet more on 'back radiation'. isn't real folks. It's the Radiation Field of the Atmosphere in the direction of the Earth's surface. It increases as [CO2] increases but all that does is to annihilate more IR from the Earth's surface.
In the absence of any other factor, that would cause a temperature increase and associated increase of convection and evapo-transpiration. However, there are other factors which cool the lower atmosphere resulting in near zero CO2-AGW.
AlecM, in this instance I am afraid you are wrong, now that EM has fully explained Back Radiation I now know that it is the first cousin of perpetual motion and we are all gonna fry.
Yes Roger: 'back radiation', a mistake of ~70 years from Meteorology, is a Perpetual Motion Machine of the 2nd Kind.
It is an attempt to claim that the heat in the lower atmosphere magically returns thereby causing itself to expand.
Total physics failures 101.
AlecM -
Is there any thread to which you think your back radiation comments aren't germane?
HroldW: I am simply voicing what any professional scientist or engineer will confirm. I have never shirked from that responsibility because this basic scientific failure may soon lead to many deaths from fuel poverty and power cuts.
AlecM: Any news on when you might publish some of your work?
ThinkingScientist: I am working on a short paper setting out the cause of the strong negative feedback observed by Lindzen et. al.. My original paper which also corrects the radiative physics was too long for publication.
The atmosphere is at the null point of a PID control system interacting with the irreversible thermodynamics of OLR. There can be no significant CO2-AGW because it's the working fluid of the heat engine. Hansenkoism is a dead man walking.
AlecM
There is a slight problem with your hypothesis. The back radiation you claim does not exist is detectable by pointing a £10 infra-red thermometer at a clear night sky. It is measurable by intensity and wavelength using an infra-red spectrometer. I've done both and can tell you by direct experience that it exists.
EM
You make a valid point and I don't think it disagrees with AlecM.
To be clear, he IS saying that Co2 emits radiation (you can see his comment earlier about the Radiation field of the Atmosphere). It's just that in an atmosphere system thermodynamics has to be maintained. If Co2 back radiation were producing a temperature change as per Hansen the surface would be being heated by a component that it is connected to, or in simpler terms, a radiation field would be outdoing convection, which is only possible in high temperature gases/plasmas, such as what happens in arc torches, atmospheric reentry or tokamaks.
So even though we may get pure emission, the nature of this would have to change to maintain thermodynamics. As it happens, and as I've read, the 15 micron emssion doesn't always happen. The molecule can thermalise it but then what happens next will be governed by the local environment.
As I understand it, that's the problem. If we assume pure emssioon tt can lead to a perpetual motion machine. To counteract it, Co2 would need to do some work or thermalise, or something else. Something has to give.. I believe that's the idea.
Ah I'm think I'm starting to get what you mean now Alec.
Micky H Corbett
There is no heating effect. What you observe is a decrease in cooling rate as the CO2 acts as an insulator. There is no extra energy generated and no possibility of perpetual motion.
I'm not a mathematician, so I'll try an arithmetical example. Dont take my figures as gospel, I've tried to pick numbers reasonably close to reality, but which are illustrative, rather than accurate.
Start with Condition 1, with no CO2. A typical square metre of Earth, at about our latitude, receives 1500W/m^2 of insolation. The surface radiates outward longwave radiation (OLR) of 1500W/m^2. Because the inward and outward energy flows are equal the surface is at an equilibrium temperature of 300C.
Condition 2 adds 400ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere. This generates a back radiation of 150W/m^2.
The result is a reduction in OLR from 1500W/m^2 to 1350 W/m^2.
There is now an imbalance. Unable to lose energy as fast as it comes in, the surface stores heat and its temperature rises.
OLR increases as the 4th power of temperature. When the surface temperature reaches 307C its emission becomes 1650W/m^2.
Surface emission of 1650W/m^2 less 150W/m^2 produces an OLR from the top of the atmosphere of 1500W/m^2. The system is back in equilibrium.
Note that no energy has appeared from nowhere. Adding the CO2 unbalanced the initial equilibrium by reducing OLR. The imbalance caused energy to accumulate at the surface and its temperature to increase.
After a while the system reached a new equilibrium, at a warmer surface temperature, which generated enough extra radiation to overcome the insulating effect of the back radiation from the CO2.
EM
First of all, I appreciate the example as it demonstrates the dilemma.
In your example:
"There is now an imbalance. Unable to lose energy as fast as it comes in, the surface stores heat and its temperature rises."
For 150W/m2, water, for example, will heat due to IR (if you used an IR lamp). But not all of the IR will get into the water. There will be some loss at the surface, some evaporation and increase in surface convection. There has to be as this is what we see with experiments with milk. Also the IR doesn't penetrate that far (a few mm) which means you see a skin effect. And skin effects are volume sensitive.
But here's the other problem: once the surface has heated up, Co2 can still absorb and reemit, so the process will repeat. In fact it will repeat until the surface gets hot enough so that there is no strong emission at 15 microns (the main Co2 emission line). Theoretically it can happen under your example as there is no way to either remove Co2 or stop the surface temperature heating up. If the radiation is "slowed down" or accumulated at the surface it leads to this runaway heating
Now based on the temperature of the Earth and even with lower levels of Co2 in the past that is absurd, don't you think?
Taking the AGW proposed situation for the Earth, we only get an increase of 4W/m2 per doubling of Co2 for water (70% of the Earth) . That level of power density is very small and as you can imagine the change of surface temperature will be slight and more susceptible to cooling through evaporation or cooling. Again,though it needs characterisation as we just don't know but at a a guess you would think so.
With regards to the perpetual motion machine, the idea is that Co2 cannot continue to reemit at will without some change to the local thermal environment. Otherwise you get the runaway heating. I can see the point of this but I'm wondering at the mechanism.
In general, the assumption you are making is that the surface can only deal with "accumulation" of energy by heating up. The Least Energy Principle would say that the first thing it will do is absolutely nothing if it can.
I've just realised a mistake in my last post. The process will continue indefinitely as each BB curve is greater in total area than one of less temperature. The frequency of max temp may move to higher frequencies but the total curve will always be larger.
So it means that back radiation appears to be a runaway effect. Except it isn't observed to be that way.
Sorry again
I've realised another mistake. One of those days I'm afraid. The co2 could saturate. So no runaway effect. But we still have the issue of assumed surface heating.
Micky H Corbett
I'll try to deal with your point one by one.
1) The heat exchanges across fluid interfaces are complex in the short term, but ocean and atmosphere equilibrate over time. Given time to reach equilibrium your short term complexities damp out.
2) I left the increase in back radiation out of my example for simplicity. In practice this raises the equilibrium temperature slightly. Equilibrium is still reached when surface IR - back radiation =insolation.
I suspect that you are still harbouring the idea that back radiation is extra energy, not a reduction in the rate of loss of energy already accounted for. The second law off thermodynimics would not allow extra energy to appear spontaneously.
Once again, think in terms of insulation. You feel cold when your rate of heat loss exceeds your heat production. If I put a blanket around you you feel warmer. It is not because extra heat is created, but because your rate of heat loss has reduced.
3) 4W/m^2 is actually a lot. It's enough to change Earth's equilibrium temperature by 1C.
You'll remember all the discussion of climate sensitivity. The 4W/m^2 is the direct effect of a CO2 doubling. There are secondary effects on ice cover, albedo, water vapour and clouds which amplify the effect.
Milankovich orbital variations produce a variation of about 4W/m^2. at 65N latitude. This amplifies to 5C between glacial and interglacial, amplifid by a change of CO2 between 200ppm and 280ppm.
4) There is some thermal interaction. Not all the radiation absorbed by atmospheric CO2 is reradiated. If a collision with another gas molecule takes place before reradiation , the energy ends up increasing kinetic energy, warming the atmosphere. Since this almost all takes place below the tropopause, the effect is the same, reducing heat loss from the surface, ocean, atmosphere system. Again, there is no extra energy entering the system, just changes in the way existing energy is flowing. No danger of runaway heating!
5) There are alternatives to "heating up". Latent heat used to melt ice or vapourise water produces a change of state. The energy is stored in the water or water vapour without a change in temperature. Some of the energy which would otherwise be increasing temperature is melting icesheets instead, at the rate of 500 cubic kilometres a year.
Micky H Corbett
CO2 does saturate eventually, but at much higher concentrations than we are ever likely to see. Because the relationship between concentration and back radiation is natural logarithmic each doubling produces a smaller increase in warming than the one before. At current atmospheric concentrations this is almost linear.
The actual formula for calculating the effect of a change in CO2 is
delta F =5.35 ln(C/Co)
delta F is the change in forcing in W/m^2. Co is the initial Co2 concentration and C the final concentration. 5.35 is a constant of proportionality.
Em
That equation comes from model assumptions. It has not been tested or shown to be correct from observations because none have been done.
It's good you stated it because that is one of the issues with AGW. Models built on models
Try and find experimental confirmation of it.
The saturation effect is basically when a molecule just transmits radiation. That's what i meant.