Arctic Warming - Is The Science Really Settled?

Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Here's some research which indicates that far infrared may be a major reason why we're seeing so much warming in the arctic. I cringe every time I hear someone say "The Science Is Settled".

http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2014/11/03/far-infrared-arctic/

Berkeley Lab Scientists ID New Driver Behind Arctic Warming
News Release Dan Krotz 510-486-4019 • NOVEMBER 3, 2014

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.

igbp_delta_ts-rev2-628x436.jpg

This simulation, from the Community Earth System Model, shows decadally averaged radiative surface temperature changes during the 2030s after far-infrared surface emissivity properties are taken into account. The right color bar depicts temperature change in Kelvin.

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

The research was supported by NASA and the Department of Energy’s Office of Science.

###

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory addresses the world’s most urgent scientific challenges by advancing sustainable energy, protecting human health, creating new materials, and revealing the origin and fate of the universe. Founded in 1931, Berkeley Lab’s scientific expertise has been recognized with 13 Nobel prizes. The University of California manages Berkeley Lab for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science. For more, visit www.lbl.gov.

DOE’s Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States, and is working to address some of the most pressing challenges of our time. For more information, please visit the Office of Science website at science.energy.gov/.

Additional information:

A paper describing this research, entitled “Far-infrared surface emissivity and climate,” is published the week of Nov. 3, 2014, in the online early edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
What's not clear from that article is whether it's a cause, an effect, or part of a feedback loop.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
Meh

It's additional information, but it doesn't contradict/negate the fact that we need to reduce the carbon levels in the atmosphere for the long-term health of the planet and our ability to maintain living conditions.

The article basically says melting of sea ice is triggering a feedback loop accelerating the problems. It says we must continue to do everything within our power to stop our contributions to the melting ice.

Why is the ice melting? Let's say there are 5 main causes. And say only 1 of them we as humans have control over (carbon emissions). Do we say "We cannot control the other causes, so fuck it, pollute away!" No, you do what you can where you can make a difference.


I cringe every time I hear someone say "The Science Is Settled".
I cringe every time anyone thinks something like this is an excuse to say "fuck you" to the environment.
 
Last edited:

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
Good information. Thanks Doc.

I did have one question though. According to this and what we already know about liquid water, wouldn't more water (due to melting) mean that more energy could be absorbed? Wouldn't that lead to less energy over time and essentially be a natural way of the planet to regulate its temperature?
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,112
1,587
126
Ok, how about we list some things I think we can all agree are settled about warming?

1. Is there warming taking place? -yes
2. Are humans to some degree a contributing factor to said warming? -yes
3. Would too much of said warming have bad effects for humans? -yes
4. Should humans reduce carbon emissions in an attempt to decrease the warming? -yes
4a. Will reducing carbon have a positive effect? -maybe
4b. Will reducing carbon have a negative effect? -highly unlikely
4c. Will reducing carbon have no effect? -possibly
5. Is the environment good or bad? -good
6. Should we shit where we eat? -not recommended

Anyone disagree?
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
2. Are humans to some degree a contributing factor to said warming? -yes
3. Would too much of said warming have bad effects for humans? -yes
4. Should humans reduce carbon emissions in an attempt to decrease the warming? -yes
4b. Will reducing carbon have a negative effect? -highly unlikely

Can't agree.

2. maybe
3. unknown
4. unknown but lean towards maybe
4b. unknown but lean towards maybe
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
3. Would too much of said warming have bad effects for humans? -yes


Anyone disagree?

I would agree that 2000 degrees of said warming would have a bad effect on humans. However 0.02 degrees of said warming would not. Question is too vague to be meaningful.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
Ok, how about we list some things I think we can all agree are settled about warming?

1. Is there warming taking place? -yes
2. Are humans to some degree a contributing factor to said warming? -yes
3. Would too much of said warming have bad effects for humans? -yes
4. Should humans reduce carbon emissions in an attempt to decrease the warming? -yes
4a. Will reducing carbon have a positive effect? -maybe
4b. Will reducing carbon have a negative effect? -highly unlikely
4c. Will reducing carbon have no effect? -possibly
5. Is the environment good or bad? -good
6. Should we shit where we eat? -not recommended

Anyone disagree?


1) Spot warming? Sure, global warming? that hasn't been shown despite models. Climate has been changing though as it has done for countless years on this planet. So if you were to state Climate changing? -yes then everyone would have to agree

2) Do humans contribute to climate change? -yes. How much? unknown

3) Unknown. Potential could be for bad, or null, or even beneficial in net effect.

4) Reducing carbon emissions is just good for other reasons beyond the debate on climate change which includes things like acid rain and changing pH balances in various spot areas.
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,732
199
106
Man made global warming exists, that is settled. No one ever says climate science and how every part is, but you can't help yourself but try and start a flame war. I expect no less... just another science denier who can't figure anything out.
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,732
199
106
I keep on waiting for evidence to disprove man made global warming, and despite all the efforts by those that don't believe they can't provide that evidence.
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,958
3,948
136
Ok, how about we list some things I think we can all agree are settled about warming?

1. Is there warming taking place? -yes
2. Are humans to some degree a contributing factor to said warming? -yes
3. Would too much of said warming have bad effects for humans? -yes
4. Should humans reduce carbon emissions in an attempt to decrease the warming? -yes
4a. Will reducing carbon have a positive effect? -maybe
4b. Will reducing carbon have a negative effect? -highly unlikely
4c. Will reducing carbon have no effect? -possibly
5. Is the environment good or bad? -good
6. Should we shit where we eat? -not recommended

Anyone disagree?

Disagree with three. Throughout human history, cold climate has equaled famine, disease and death. Warm climate equaled higher food production and less disease and death.
 

stormkroe

Golden Member
May 28, 2011
1,550
97
91
Ok, how about we list some things I think we can all agree are settled about warming?

1. Is there warming taking place? -yes
2. Are humans to some degree a contributing factor to said warming? -yes
3. Would too much of said warming have bad effects for humans? -yes
4. Should humans reduce carbon emissions in an attempt to decrease the warming? -yes
4a. Will reducing carbon have a positive effect? -maybe
4b. Will reducing carbon have a negative effect? -highly unlikely
4c. Will reducing carbon have no effect? -possibly
5. Is the environment good or bad? -good
6. Should we shit where we eat? -not recommended

Anyone disagree?

I think 4b is the one we need to iron out. Not that less carbon is necessarily bad, but how we get there could be. Draconian legislation, high energy taxes, basically shooting ourselves in the economic foot while the rest of the world burns as much poison as they can. Honestly, I think we are so close to positive energy management right now that we should hold off for a decade with artificial energy price hikes (or other negative reinforcement) to keep from tripping up innovators (which are sometimes the little guys with limited resources ).
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
36,370
10,679
136
Our research found that non-frozen surfaces are poor emitters compared to frozen surfaces.
Frozen surface emits it best... what about Greenland and Antarctica on that map? Arctic is torch... Greenland is neutral... Antarctic is blue. What meaning can we find in the extreme spread of those frozen surfaces?

Also.. that bit about open ocean. Would that be a positive feedback loop for Summer Sea Ice minimum? More open water, more of this heat absorbed. Less emitted.
 

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,574
7,672
136
The best explanation for all about global warming for me has been episode 12 of Cosmos. Worth watching again if you already have. I honestly think if folks who are opened minded about MMGW that watching this would convince them of our plight. I Just don't know how you could argue against it.

Its a shame Climate Science and the environment has become so political.



Its on Netflix and Hulu atm.

12 "The World Set Free" Brannon Braga Ann Druyan and Steven Soter June 1, 2014 3.52[37]

The increase in surface temperatures on Earth due to global warming
This episode explores the nature of the greenhouse effect (discovered by Joseph Fourier and Svante Arrhenius), and the evidence demonstrating the existence of global warming from humanity's influence. Tyson begins by describing the long-term history of the planet Venus; based on readings from the Venera series of probes to the planet, the planet had once had an ocean and an atmosphere, but due to the release of carbon dioxide from volcanic eruptions, the runaway greenhouse effect on Venus caused the surface temperatures to increase and boiled away the oceans.

Tyson then notes the delicate nature of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can influence Earth's climate due to the greenhouse effect, and that levels of carbon dioxide have been increasing since the start of the 20th century. Evidence has shown this to be from mankind's consumption of oil, coal, and gas instead of from volcanic eruptions due to the isotopic signature of the carbon dioxide. The increase in carbon dioxide has led to an increase in temperatures, in turn leading to positive feedback loops of the melting polar ice caps and dethawing of the permafrost to increase carbon dioxide levels.

Tyson then notes that humans have discovered means of harvesting solar power, such as Augustin Mouchot's solar-driven motor in the 19th century, and Frank Shuman's solar-based steam generator in the 1910s. Tyson points out that in both cases, the economics and ease of using cheap coal and oil caused these inventions to be overlooked at the time. Today, solar and wind-power systems would be able to collect enough solar energy from the sun easily. Tyson then compares the motivation for switching to these cleaner forms of energy to the efforts of the Space race and emphasizes that it is not too late for humanity to correct its course.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,745
16,062
146
Good information. Thanks Doc.

I did have one question though. According to this and what we already know about liquid water, wouldn't more water (due to melting) mean that more energy could be absorbed? Wouldn't that lead to less energy over time and essentially be a natural way of the planet to regulate its temperature?

2 Simple questions xBiffx to hopefully answer yours.

If more energy is stored in the ocean because there is more liquid water from ice melting is their more energy contained in the Earth?

If the Earth contains more energy is it warmer over all?
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,745
16,062
146
Atmospheric pressure is the problem with Venus. That's why Mars can be 96% CO2 and isn't a Greenhouse.

That and it's less sunlight to warm it and lower gravity and no magnetic field to keep the solar wind from stripping its atmopshere.

Plus have you calculated what the temperature of Mars should be without it's atmosphere. I haven't but I bet it should be colder than it is.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,911
6,790
126
Probably the only way to cure the climate denial CBD if for humanity to go extinct and let the bacteria try to evolve intelligence again.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
22,453
6,545
136
Probably the only way to cure the climate denial CBD if for humanity to go extinct and let the bacteria try to evolve intelligence again.

That's not the worst plan I've heard. The only other sure fire fix I've ever seen presented is killing half of humanity, though to be sure I think we'd need to do two thirds.

The problem here is that it's mostly republicans that have firearms, that would leave the dems in a tough spot...
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,983
31,539
146
I love it when you guys get a hold of a science article and start inferring all sorts of shit on what it means.

It's hilarious.
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
2 Simple questions xBiffx to hopefully answer yours.

If more energy is stored in the ocean because there is more liquid water from ice melting is their more energy contained in the Earth?

If the Earth contains more energy is it warmer over all?

According to this research, it's released, but a different rate for liquid water than frozen water or even land mass.

No, energy =/= heat. This is freshmen level shit, man.
 

doubledeluxe

Golden Member
Oct 1, 2014
1,074
1
0
I have never heard anyone, ever, say the science is settled on anything.

You must be hanging our with some real idiots who don't know what science is.