Is the high rate of Arctic warming due to decreased albedo, or is that "dumb idiocy"?

You’re absolutely correct in your ascertains, a change in overall albedo is the primary reason why there is a greater degree of warming in the Arctic than is found in other places.

However, whilst this is the main reason there are other less significant contributors. There’s also an element of uncertainty with some aspects so it’s not possible to say quite how much warming is attributable to decreased albedo but it’s likely to be in the range of 60% to 110%.

Other factors include the natural variability of the Arctic temperatures. Even if the rest of the world was more or less in a state of equilibrium there would be greater fluctuations in the Arctic and so it’s possible that these could currently be contributing to a small degree of either warming or cooling.

Similarly, the Arctic is affected by the thermohaline circulation (ocean currents) and there is an element of variability from season to season and year to year. Minor fluctuations can cause small changes in Arctic temperatures for up to a few years. Again, this can lead to small scale warming or cooling.

Another minor player is caused by a combination of factors – solar winds plus earth’s magnetic field and the magnetosphere. Over short periods of time these changes are minor, over thousands of years or following a dramatic shift in polarity then the effects can be significant.

These three factors could each be contributing a small amount of either warming or cooling. If the net effect is one of cooling then the current trend is not only causing significant warming but is also offsetting the cooling (hence the figure of 110% previously). Collectively these factors will account for 0% of temp change ±10%.

There is another significant factor and that is water vapour in the atmosphere. Insolation not only melts the Artic ice but it also causes some of it to evapourated, this coupled with a rising average global temperature means there is more water vapour in the atmosphere.

As much as 30% of the warming over the Arctic could be as a result of this. Not only is there a feedback in relation to the albedo but there’s a lesser, but still significant, feedback loop in relation to atmospheric water vapour.

This is most pronounced from mid September onwards when the amount of sunlight decreases and the heat absorbed by the peripheral seas and oceans cycles back into the atmosphere.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

EDIT: TO JIM

Congratulations on reaching the quarter century. This is now the 25th occasion that you’ve stated my answers have been wrong or have made incorrect assumptions about myself; and it’s also the 25th occasion that you’ve been wrong. The last instance was a couple of weeks back, I was beginning to think that you may have awoken to the realisation that you don’t know as much about the climate as you might think. Alas, no.

I am, as always, willing to learn. I would be fascinated to know the errors I have made in my answer and suspect that the global scientific community would be equally enthusiastic. Unfortunately, as is so often the case, you have made a blind statement with no attempt to corroborate it. It may be difficult for you to break with tradition but on this one occasion please include some links to back up your claims.

For purposes of clarity and to avoid any misunderstanding, I am not an English major and have almost no interest at all in the subject. I have ‘O’ levels in English Language and English Literature but that’s as far as it goes. From the age of 16 every subject I have studied has been science or maths based.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

COMMENTS TO OTTAWA MIKE AND CORRY:

With all due respect, I can appreciate the comments you’re making but would suggest that you look a little further into them.

Mike, you referenced the Spitsbergen Current, this leads me to believe that you understand the concept of possible warming caused by ocean dynamics but haven’t gained a further comprehension. The Spitsbergen Current is a mid layer current that is subducted beneath the halocline and thus has little bearing on upper layer and sea surface temperatures.

Ocean currents, in particular the smaller ones, do change and there are instances when this can lead to accelerated warming in the Arctic. However, such an argument is invalidated many times over.

• Firstly, the rate of Arctic warming far exceeds that which could be attributed to currents alone.

• Second, the net long-term effect of current oscillation is neutral – sometimes warming, sometimes cooling, but balanced overall.

• Thirdly, if ocean currents deliver warmer waters to the Arctic region then the laws of physics demand that there has to be compensatory cooling elsewhere – and this isn’t happening.

• Fourthly, ocean currents are monitored on a global scale using satellite telemetrics and there has been no change that could lead to significant ice loss.

• Fifthly, if the oceans were warming then the ice-sheets would be melting more on the underside than the topside, and this isn’t happening.

• Sixthly, if ocean currents were the cause of warming then there would be more pronounced warming around the peripheral regions. In fact, satellite monitoring shows areas of higher continentality are inconsistent with this theory.

Mike, you asked about the new and multi-year ice (as has Rio in a recent questions of his, but it seems he’s blocked those who are able to answer). New ice is significantly ‘cleaner’ than multiyear ice and has a reflectance of up to 80% of incoming solar radiation whereas the older ‘dirty’ ice has a reflectance of approx 35%.

Due to fluctuations in the North Atlantic Oscillation a few months ago there was a period of very cold Arctic weather that led to the formation of a lot of new ice. As the effect of the NAO declined the ice melted at an unprecedented rate, this was enhanced by something known as the dipole anomaly (unusual wind conditions caused by a significant pressure gradient between Siberia and Canada).

In recent weeks the anomaly has collapsed and been replaced with cyclonic conditions moving up over Europe and settling over the Arctic region. This promotes anticlockwise rotation of the ocean waters that in turn distributes the ice pack over a larger area. These events resulted in the rapid formation of ice early in the year followed by rapid melting and more recently a significant decline in the extent (but not mass) of the Arctic sea-ice.

It stands to reason that white snow and ice reflects direct incoming solar radiation so that part is correct. Open water and dark open land absorbs more incoming solar radiation so that's right on the money as well. CO2 from burning fossil fuel has contributed to an ever increasing 'greenhouse effect'...that's 100% proven....more solar radiation is retained. But wait, there's more! While the greenhouse effect hasn't raised overall temperatures to any great degree, it doesn't take much increase to kick off an overall change in climate. A single gallon of extra water entering the hull of the Titanic was the tipping point that caused the ship to lose buoyancy and sink. A single spark brought down the Hindenburg and a single virus can kill a person. At this point the slightly extra retained heat has gone to slightly warm the oceans and to melt a lot of ice. It's also caused the summers to be slightly longer and the winters to be slightly shorter...even if the overall temperature difference between summers and winters years ago and now is slight, the duration of those temperatures is what makes the difference. Also, burning fossil fuels deposits massive amounts of soot and ash on the artic ice. While the amount per square meter is small it's still a lot of dark matter. And as we all agree, the 'dark' matter absorbs more solar radiation than white matter. If that matter is ice, the dark matter causes a degree of melting that doesn't happen on a pure white ice or snow field. It all adds up...except to certain geologists.

Let me ask you a few questions in return.

The sea ice recovered somewhat in 2008 and 2009 and the last I checked, in 2010, the sea ice has still been greater than 2007 for more days than not. Now, you and others have claimed that this recovery ice is "thin" or "dirty" or whatever. Does this recovery ice have the same albedo as thinker multi-year ice?

Have you heard of the Spitsbergen Current? Could the transport of warm ocean water to the Artic Ocean be responsible for melting sea ice and warming the region?

How much of the albedo effect occurs in the Arctic during winter months when northern region of Earth is pointed away in darkness? How much of the albedo effect occurs during the summer months when the Sun does shine on the North but at a fairly shallow angle?

Since you like peer-reviewed studies, let me throw a few at you:

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/Pubs/zhang5_15...

http://www.spaceweather.ac.cn/publication/jgrs/200...

I am totally mystified. I make no bones about not being a scientist but your point about the Albedo Effect is entirely rational and well documented. I never knew of anyone here in the two and a half years I have been here that has dismissed albedo out of hand. For the life of me I can't figure out why people come here and behave like this...I thought the category was improving and the skeptics were making more logical and educated arguments, but this behavior lately really has me wondering what is going on, and it certainly seems to be undermining the more rational arguments of the people whom I would describe as true skeptics...at least in my opinion. I'm actually getting less skeptical as a result-if this is how people are really forming their beliefs about climate change...well.

That's not idiocy.

Albedo is what gives rise to the positive feedback effect that gives rise to the hockey stick result.

Darker Earth = less reflection == more heat absorption == warmer Earth

You can try this with your own wardrobe, just to make sure it's not idiocy. White clothes on Monday, Teus, Wednes, then Black clothes Thurs, Fri, Sat -- sunday stay home naked and f*ck your brains out.

Not all your brains -- save a few.

You need to know that the proof of warming is at least 95% sure (scientific certainty).

The proof that its manmade is only 90% sure (highly probable but not scientific certainty)

To get to scientific certainty on AGW you need to knock out water vapor and solar radiation inconstancy as possible factors.

Obviously they are "possible" factors -- they need to be statistically knocked out as the prime causative factor generating the observed data. Mills Methods could be helpful here.

What kinds of solar radiation convert readily into warmer Earth as an result.

How intensely have those kinds been pouring down on us in the past 50 years?

Is water vapor a greenhouse gas?

How powerful is it gram for gram compared to other greenhouse gasses.

How many grams of it are up there -- records for the past 50 years would be helpful and they do exist, or can be re-constructed from core ice.

The less ice there is in the Arctic, the less easy it is for ice to be there. Albedo plays a major role -- Duh, we knew this at least 80 years ago. I learned it in primary school.

Dolphin3 raises two interesting points.

Yes, water vapour is a major greenhouse gas, and yes, this is built into the models of climate. In fact, water vapour response to the temperature - warmer oceans, more water vapour - and this is one source of the multiplier effect that increases the effect of CO2 as a primary driver. Failure to include water would have been gross incompetence, and it does seem rather unlikely that the entire climate science community is grossly incompetent and that the rest of the scientific community has failed to notice.

Is 90% (now considerably higher) "scientific certainty"? In a sense, there is no certainty in science, and Dolphin seems to be confusing certainty with conventional statistical significance.

Navigator to Titanic captain: There's a 90% chance that there is an iceberg dead ahead

Captain to navigator: That's not "certainty". Hold your course.

Deniers and polluters don't need facts or arguments to win a debate. they merely need ways to buy time.

Even the most basic of science. stuff you learn in 2nd grade, is laughed at as some "liberal political move" to somehow enslave the human race forever

like i've told people in other answers. when all their arguments are debunked and they're backed into a corner they just turn to ranting and raving. "just stfu hippie eco-nut. you're wrong. you just are"

in some desperate last ditch attempt to discredit any right answers lest people actually start to wonder and even show concern for the earth

No the ice melted because of a shift in ocean currents that sent warmer water into the arctic.

Sounds like you are repeating another lie from the AGW crowd.

I asked the original question and I appreciate you intelligent response, the other person who answered was an idiot. I cant believe there are so many people out there that don't "believe" in SCIENCE. Thank you for the wisdom and facts that you bring to yahoo answers.

Yes you're wrong. There is increased evaporation which cools. Ice insulates as well. The angle of the sun doesn't allow much warming. I am sure you are taking it out of context. That isn't idiocy by itself. The albedo effect clearly cools. I suspect you made reference to the accelerating positive feedback from melting arctic or some similar nonsense that is contradicted by geological history not to mention current events.