Scientists have identified a mechanism that could turn out to be a big contributor to warming in the Arctic region and melting sea ice.
The research was led by scientists from the US Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab). They studied a long-wavelength region of the electromagnetic spectrum called far infrared. It's invisible to our eyes but accounts for about half the energy emitted by the Earth's surface. This process balances out incoming solar energy.
Despite its importance in the planet's energy budget, it's difficult to measure a surface's effectiveness in emitting far-infrared energy. In addition, its influence on the planet's climate is not well represented in climate models. The models assume that all surfaces are 100 percent efficient in emitting far-infrared energy.
That's not the case. The scientists found that open oceans are much less efficient than sea ice when it comes to emitting in the far-infrared region of the spectrum. This means that the Arctic Ocean traps much of the energy in far-infrared radiation, a previously unknown phenomenon that is likely contributing to the warming of the polar climate.
Their research appears this week in the online early edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
"Far-infrared surface emissivity is an unexplored topic, but it deserves more attention. Our research found that non-frozen surfaces are poor emitters compared to frozen surfaces. And this discrepancy has a much bigger impact on the polar climate than today's models indicate," says Daniel Feldman, a scientist in Berkeley Lab's Earth Sciences Division and lead author of the paper.
"Based on our findings, we recommend that more efforts be made to measure far-infrared surface emissivity. These measurements will help climate models better simulate the effects of this phenomenon on the Earth's climate," Feldman says.
He conducted the research with Bill Collins, who is head of the Earth Sciences Division's Climate Sciences Department. Scientists from the University of Colorado, Boulder and the University of Michigan also contributed to the research.
The far-infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum spans wavelengths that are between 15 and 100 microns (a micron is one-millionth of a meter). It's a subset of infrared radiation, which spans wavelengths between 5 and 100 microns. In comparison, visible light, which is another form of electromagnetic radiation, has a much shorter wavelength of between 390 and 700 nanometers (a nanometer is one billionth of a meter).
Many of today's spectrometers cannot detect far-infrared wavelengths, which explains the dearth of field measurements. Because of this, scientists have extrapolated the effects of far-infrared surface emissions based on what's known at the wavelengths measured by today's spectrometers.
Feldman and colleagues suspected this approach is overly simplistic, so they refined the numbers by reviewing published studies of far-infrared surface properties. They used this information to develop calculations that were run on a global atmosphere climate model called the Community Earth System Model, which is closely tied to the Department of Energy's Accelerated Climate Model for Energy (ACME).
The simulations revealed that far-infrared surface emissions have the biggest impact on the climates of arid high-latitude and high-altitude regions.
In the Arctic, the simulations found that open oceans hold more far-infrared energy than sea ice, resulting in warmer oceans, melting sea ice, and a 2-degree Celsius increase in the polar climate after only a 25-year run.
This could help explain why polar warming is most pronounced during the three-month winter when there is no sun. It also complements a process in which darker oceans absorb more solar energy than sea ice.
"The Earth continues to emit energy in the far infrared during the polar winter," Feldman says. "And because ocean surfaces trap this energy, the system is warmer throughout the year as opposed to only when the sun is out."
The simulations revealed a similar warming affect on the Tibetan plateau, where there was five percent less snowpack after a 25-year run. This means more non-frozen surface area to trap far-infrared energy, which further contributes to warming in the region.
"We found that in very arid areas, the extent to which the surface emits far-infrared energy really matters. It controls the thermal energy budget for the entire region, so we need to measure and model it better," says Feldman
Explore further:
NASA to investigate climate impacts of Arctic sea ice loss
More information:
Far-infrared surface emissivity and climate, PNAS, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1413640111
Water_Prophet
(Hint, they sink "waste" heat from fossil fuels, and they are where the ice is.)
teslaberry
we are not even precisely certain how much radiation the earth emits into space . it is accepted that radiation is the primary method through which an astromomical body loses energy into space and yet---we don't even have precise knowledge of this primary statistic.
why ? because it's more complex to measure this on a real time 3d basis over a period of time than you think.
to undertand the radiation from any sphere, you have to measure the sphere in many ways at many times.
we can measure the moon easily from earth (not the dark side though , and not the parts of the moons radiation absorbed or otherwise influenced by the earth ) ---the earth radiation is much more difficult to study and is only truly possible by going to space (also methods exist of actually studying earth radiation reflected to us off the moon)
Sean_W
mooster75
Wake
So what is the next reason the earth is dying that will come from the Media?
Sea levels have been monitored in the US since the Civil War and every single year the ocean levels have risen. This implies that the glaciers have been melting since the 1600's when they formed.
Where was all of this warming coming from then?
The fact is that the irregularities in the orbits of the Sun, Earth and Moon and to a far lesser extent (effecting the earth) from the other planets AND the sunspot cycles will coincide and cause another Little Ice Age and while that is occurring the same media reports will be for the death of a planet from man-made global freezing.
Returners
blah, blah...
Critical information here is that you also need to update your models of past climate, seeing as how you guys have been ignorant of these facts.
In particular, you need to use this to properly post-dict the Little Ice Age conditions via computer model. I think you'll find some interesting facts which some of us more moderate on these issues have said all along...much of the melting is the same as it ever has been...a few hiccups here and there, no big deal.
Multi-meter sea level rises have haved just a few thousand years ago without man to blame for mass industry.
There a coral reef on land in florida meers above sea level. Been there since before tool making. Water is probably going back again one day...
paul_cherubini_3
gkam
Lying is de rigeur for business, but fudging is death in science.
dustywells
Maybe he can point to dozens of studies that explain why open water is warmer than ice.
dustywells
nevermark
Exxon and other large oil companies acknowledge climate change is caused by CO2 emissions. If they think its settled, its settled. They also continue to keep civilization supplied with energy while replacement forms of energy are coming on line slowly.
But the intellectually dishonest commenters here don't know how to integrate information even from big oil that doesn't tell them what they want to hear.
DonGateley
I seem to remember that emissivity (what this article is concerned with) and reflectivity are inversely related. I'm sure I'll be corrected if I remember incorrectly. :-)
altizar
zz5555
That, of course, isn't true, although the trend has been up. What's most concerning is that the rise is accelerating.
"This implies that the glaciers have been melting since the 1600's when they formed."
The glaciers formed in the 1600s? That ought to be a surprise to the melting glaciers that are over 100000 (some are over a million) years old ;).
"The fact is that the irregularities in the orbits of the Sun, Earth and Moon and to a far lesser extent (effecting the earth) from the other planets AND the sunspot cycles will coincide and cause another Little Ice Age"
Well, no. The orbits are already working to cool the earth, but we continue to heat up. And the small change in solar output from another Maunder Minimum wouldn't slow down the warming much - so forget about cooling.
Earth Scientist
StrangiatoZ
Gaby_64
the article is talking about thermal emission, a warm body emitting radiation
they are not talking about reflectivity.
nevermark
Nor do they know the difference between their own uneducated opinions and scientific research. The less people know, the less they are aware of how little they know, and the more disrespectful they are of anyone who is actually shedding light on anything important.
runrig
Trolling bollocks ... and demonstrates you're stupid as well.
If GCM's did what you say then their modeled world would be in a permanent IA, in fact would be getting towards the Earth's BB temp of -18C. (as no solar energy would be absorbed by the climate system and re-emitted as IR, to be back-radiated by water vapour and other GHG's ) Only SW warming of the atmosphere.
FFS squared, save us (mankind) from this ignorance.
antigoracle
thermodynamics
Run, it is even worse than you state. If all of the sun's energy was reflected back into space, the earth would move toward 0K, not -18 C. Actually, probably toward the microwave background (around 4K).
zz5555
No. You have to actually read the article. Only a very tiny part of sunlight (far infrared) was taken as emitting (not reflecting) 100%. Globally, I'm not sure how much effect this will have. Hopefully, it will help to improve the modeling of ice melt in the Arctic, since the models always seem to under predict that a lot.
clocker007
dunce
Enviro Equipment Blog
In any event, I just hope that climate change deniers are not empowered by this study as that would be tragic. However, it does go a long way in explaining why polar ice is melting at the North Pole but increasing at the South Pole.
supersoundandvideo
Water absorbs 1000 times the heat energy as air.
Until the Republicans get a spine and admit that AGW is real we are ALL going to make future generations suffer the curse of this ignorant denial. Is it worth destroying your progeny ?
horns4ever
You must be flexible and just adjust to it. Being aware of changing conditions do give you the chance to decide how to adjust and when.
Mother Earth will be fine millions of years after the last human in gone, just ask the dinosaurs.
Oops... they weren't able to adjust as fast as it was necessary.
May-bee being aware of incoming meteors and having a way to prevent them from entering our atmosphere might be the better way to insure our existence. The failure of humans to learn from what we know of the history of the planet and plan for it will be a catastrophic event.
supersoundandvideo
Water's heat capacity vs air vs ice
Water 4.18 Ice 2.03
Air 1.01 (depends on amount of water vapor)
Gold 0.13
Glass 0.84 Concrete 2.90
I just wonder what Republicans think they will lose if they actually admit that this is happening.
supersoundandvideo
The units of thermal capacity are joules per kelvin (J K-1) and those of specific heat capacity joules per kilogram kelvin (Jkg- 1K-1). Therefore:
Heat energy = mass x specific heat capacity x temperature change
Jkg-1K-1
Material Specific heat capacity
Water 4200
Copper 385
Ethanol 2500
Lead 126
Paraffin oil 2130
Aluminium 913
Turpentine 1760
Sodium 1240
Hydrogen 14 300
Iron 106
Air 993
Steel 420
Helium 5240
Concrete 880
Oxygen 913
Polypropylene 1800-2000
Granite 820
Marble 2100
Beryllium 1970
Glass 600
supersoundandvideo
So we are storing huge amounts of heat in our oceans right now and that will continue to increase the chaos of evaporation from the water to the air in forms of hurricanes, typhoons etc.
I got a purple heart for every Republican that turns their back on denial and joins the enlightened believers. Come on, it's not like I am telling you to convert to Islam or die...well
sort of, your great grandchildren will definitely suffer.
mbee1
mbee1
mbee1
tadchem
SEND
+MORE
_____
MONEY
nikkiswims32
We know that climate models overpredict temperature. If the models assume perfect emissivity, but observations determine it is less, then part of the winter atmospheric warming is through the increased ocean temperatures than the models predict, then it means less is due to the greenhouse gas effect of CO2. But because the climate models already overpredict atmospheric temperature, then effect from CO2 is reduced even further.
Slowly pieces are coming together to show that the assumptions and simplifications in the climate models have to be rejected in favor of more comprehensive science if there is any hope of getting accurate predictions.
runrig
Bollocks my friend....
http://nsidc.org/...ure3.png
runrig
Actually we know that GCM's cannot predict the ENSO cyscle and so periods of La Nina (predominant this last 16 yrs) has meant that they have over estimated the atmospheric heat content.
Have you looked at the heat stored in the oceans in that time. Silly question - of course not.....
http://www.skepti..._med.jpg
Water_Prophet
It is amazing what happens without banal disruption.
If you'll humor me, I think I have a few explanations-I can't promise they're right:
1. It was Winter there.
2. The N Hemisphere was colder throughout the year with the "Polar Vortex." (Well this is contentious.)
3. It was wetter/snowier there than normal.
So dynamically, what may have happened is the N Hemisphere drew more heat than normal from the equator, via common weather cells, to make up for it's being cooler.
This made it colder in the Antarctic.
That it snowed more is relevant.
It is really another example of how nature buffers extremes, if so.
Keeping in mind the differences between N. & S. the next season should be interesting.
dobermanmacleod
Water_Prophet
antigoracle
Wow!!
Glad to see you're still a true believer in your AGW Cult's dogma.
Here I was thinking all that evil CO2 hadn't yet reached the south pole.
Mike_Massen
Ice is a reasonable insulator & its often white & being at a lower temperature too radiates less than water...
Couple this with latent heat of fusion, which works both ways, then you might have an understanding dustywells that in an atmosphere, which is chaotic in terms of wind patterns, integration still shows more heat, then you should be able to make a scientific conclusion.