This is wayne's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following wayne's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
wayne
Recent Activity
Hi Paul, "Isn't the 0.2 cloud albedo that Wayne is referring to actually a cloud cover? And actual cloud albedo varies massively, see e.g. " 0.2 is an energy reduction standard (averaged over the years) factor part of the formula for SIMP, it represents 80% cloud cover throughout the entire melt season. It means 80% albedo. From day to day albedo varies, but if you look at melt season albedo, it is usually quite low during the dark season, then about mid April to mid October becomes very strong. It is what sea ice does, cooling the lower surface troposphere during summer in effect a cloud catalyst. 2007 had a significant drop in albedo in july for a brief period of time and the thickest ice vanished essentially where the greatest cloud break was.
Toggle Commented 19 minutes ago on PIOMAS February 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
Haa come on Rob! It is not so hard to calculate, and in particular, I always wondered why Hadley model got 2007 wrong by 31 years. hmmmmm , that .5 number looks interesting. Here is the latest state of the art, not complete , very tentative Arctic sea ice melt potential: Time 3600 seconds/hr X 24 hrs/day X 182.5 days per melt season A constant (this needs be corrected with respect to Arctic Ocean duration exposure to solar insolation ) TOA Of Arctic Ocean melt season 250 watts/m2 A constant (needs be corrected or confirmed) Arctic Ocean Area: 14 million km2 Atmospheric Absorption : 23% source NASA (May be lower in the pristine Arctic Air) Arctic Ocean Cloud albedo during the entire melt season : 80% Source NASA Sea ice albedo during entire melt season = 50% Source NSIDC , Norwegian paper (Needs be confirmed, is a mix between thin sea ice albedo 0.2, bare sea ice .5 and sea ice with snow having albedo .9) latent heat of fusion : 3.04E17 w/km3 a nice constant And the result is : 14,038 km3 This number represents the melt potential given the current parameter factors. A Note : if the Maxima reaches this estimate, and if the calculation is correct, it is highly likely that there will be very little sea ice left at minima. If tis summer's cloud Albedo changes to 70%, instead of 80, the minima would be very low ASIMP = 21,058 km3.
Toggle Commented 8 hours ago on PIOMAS February 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
now your cooking Rob! How come you can't define this ratio? For one thing Next, Arctic Sea ice Melt Potential: "Is a Volume in Km3 of potential sea ice calculated with the following geophysical factors: Total insolation of the Arctic Ocean, standard atmospheric absorption, standard (known average) total cloud and sea ice albedo during the entire melt season. Feel free to add something else which may be useful, because there is no such definition that I know of in the literature.
Toggle Commented 9 hours ago on PIOMAS February 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
Hi Rob,' Let's be clear about definitions, "Yet you don't even accept the first factor (0.5) from HadCM3, which is how much insolation makes it to the surface in the Arctic." What is this .5? everything? Atmospheric absorption, Sea ice albedo, clouds etc? How does one come up with 50 % when there is a 23, and 80 % reduction to sea ice. Not counting 50% sea ice albedo, I mayl accept that 50% when I understand what it involves. I am not sure you understood my calculations, I look at everything, and in particular about 9 meters potential melt is more than a bit too large. But correct if it precludes the factors I mentioned. There is a lot of energy not reaching the sea ice , would you agree? :) I think that number is very useful, it gives a nice idea about solar radiation and the potential foer total melts. But please define what it involves.
Toggle Commented 9 hours ago on PIOMAS February 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
Hi Glenn Please lurk more not less, a combined effort to come up with something pertinent might come about. "perfect blackbody, in a perfectly shielded experiment - melt ~119.565 km3 of ice." Consider that number, with respect to current sea ice maximum Volume 21,000 km3. It is definitely not happening so strong. The net absorbed radiation by NASA's Earth Energy budget is .6 watts from incoming solar 340.3 watts/m2. Back Radiation gets cancelled by outgoing quite a bit. " it's easier to assume very little change in temperature (especially during the summer), and focus on the difference in insolation seen as the ice and snow melt." Very correct. "Playing" with albedo is not at hand, it is finding the correct albedos I think that there are 2 constants to consider, total potential insolation time for entire Arctic Ocean and TOA radiation for same area. These are fixed numbers. Then we are left with atmospheric absorption, a near constant, what is left is cloud and sea ice albedo. There is return of flux energy from cloud reflection as well, I don't think it is impossible to come up with something reasonable. Consider albedo reduction which was the case for summer 2007, then your 110,000 Km3 potential melt number looms heavier. What I am looking for is all known factors giving a standard potential melt of sea ice figure. Once that number is know, then we will estimate melts a bit better. Furthermore , the search for this number always has revealed something else. So it is quite fascinating. The NASA energy budget link is great for the entire planet not the Arctic. The reflected by clouds number is very close to 30%. No way this happens in the Arctic, The absorbed by surface is nowhere near sea ice ratio etc.
Toggle Commented 10 hours ago on PIOMAS February 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
well said Rob I wrote from considering 340 TOA 340 * .77 (atmospheric absorption). 261.8 261.8 * .2 (cloud albedo) = 52.4 Watts/m2 Seems correct except need to polish TOA and other constants
Toggle Commented yesterday on PIOMAS February 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
Rob, I would suggest reading up on Arctic cloud albedo, sorry you had enough, I was just getting started, You have to stretch out possibilities before being absolutely certain about any conclusion. Patience Rob is key. 80% was from NASA http://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticReflector/arctic_reflector4.php I believe it so because I have observed summer Arctic sat pics way before there was an internet. Patience Rob, will amount with something great.
Toggle Commented yesterday on PIOMAS February 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
,2 , 20% gets through? Seems clear to me the albedo factor is not the standard 30 or 40% you have down south. So given a nice sunny day 350 watts, at 30% , 360 *.7 gets through... Absurd? please correct.
Toggle Commented yesterday on PIOMAS February 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
is clear calculations Rob 340 was my original post, but I explain take 340 top of atmosphere, cloud albedo , from massive cloud presence in spring-summer- 340 * .77 (atmospheric absorption). 261.8 261.8 * .2 (cloud albedo) = 52.4 52.4 * .5 (sea ice albedo through all phases) = 26.18 watt/m2 .2 cloud albedo calculation of which 80% is reflected upwards.
Toggle Commented yesterday on PIOMAS February 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
Rob I posted it many times 2 Rob, I dont mind making sure about an important standard interpretations before accepting it. "being 250 w/m2 X .77 atmospheric absorption X .2 cloud albedo X 0.5 sea ice albedo." taking 200 W/m2 TOA does not make 100. from 23% atmospheric absorption , 80 % cloud albedo and a generous 50% sea ice albedo. I think a simple map without inscriptions needs to be proof checked....
Toggle Commented yesterday on PIOMAS February 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
atmospheric absorption not refraction....
Toggle Commented yesterday on PIOMAS February 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
Rob Nice maps with hardly a word explanation to them. Need more solid reference. The other map you gave , the one with the colors, correctly calculated the Poles solar insolation at solstice, pure TOA from TSI. " I think I went on record to suggest that the "melt potential" in the Arctic is some 9.5 meters of ice :" "100x3600x24x365=3.1 GJoule/m^2/year." Is ball park if 100 means everything factored in, including cloud/ice albedo atmospheric refraction. If you take the basic TSI graph presented you should be able to calculate that 100.
Toggle Commented yesterday on PIOMAS February 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
Rob What is your state of the moment potential melt number estimate in Km3?
Toggle Commented yesterday on PIOMAS February 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
180 sounds good Rob I took your 90 directly, it did not have units. But I think we are confusing TOA with surface? 250 * .77 =192.5 Close to 180 considering atmospheric Absorption factored in. With patience and help will get to a good approximate.
Toggle Commented yesterday on PIOMAS February 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
Hi Rob How interesting, and a bit exciting since we are calculating something long overdue. That insolation number is key, OK I will factor 90 to surface which is big! 250 X .77 X .2 X .5 =19.25 w/m2 for the entire summer season being 250 w/m2 X .77 atmospheric absorption X .2 cloud albedo X 0.5 sea ice albedo. lets take 90 with .50 sea ice albedo Time : 3600 s/hr X 24 hrs X182.5 days area of arctic ocean 1.41e13 m2 admit 90 W/m2 reaches ice surface simple 90 W/m2 X time X 1.41 E13 m2 = 2 e22 watts for entire Arctic ocean with latent heat of fusion of sea ice = 3.04e17 w/km3 this gives a melt potential of 65,634 km3 of sea ice. factor sea ice albedo spring/summer/fall being 50%' 32,817 km3 is the sea ice melt potential That is not a bad number, not as simple as 14 K, but there are other factors to consider Working on as precise melt potential as possible will help people making very good melt estimates. A few specific numbers need be worked on: 1- total days or seconds of sun insolation for the entire Arctic Ocean, this is a rather big complex calculation since the Arctic Ocean is tot symmetrical with respect to the Pole. 2- surface albedo 0.5 may vary, ie melt ponds, thinner darker sea ice, snow cover, bare sea ice. Once we get a rather closer more precise melt potential number, would like to work on sea water temperature impact.
Toggle Commented yesterday on PIOMAS February 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
oops, I gave 6 times more energy than needed W/m2 X 182.5 X 24 X 3600 This is better Now the number makes better sense: 14,038 km3 is the melt potential with a lowered TOA to 250 W/m2. This is what I was looking for. If you have 14,038 km3 at Maxima all should be gone come minima. Now change the cloud albedo say to 50% , then 35,096 km3 is the melt potential. Let's see if I have someone else who agrees with this math.
Toggle Commented 2 days ago on PIOMAS February 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
Hi Rob, "A good rule of the thumb is that 50% of TOA insolation makes it to the ground. So the insolation value you are looking for is half of the insolation value from this graph : http://2.bp.blogspot.com/k_S7N0VlMRg/UH4RNvJ3cjI/AAAAAAAAFjk/lqjQhGqLWOk/s1600/insolation_latitude.gif" OK then a transect from March to September gives 260 W/m2 TOA. Which is close to my Equinox calculation 282 W/m2. So I take 270 TOA 50% reaching the ground is too generous, summer time Arctic albedo was measured 80% by NASA. there is 23% atmospheric AbsorptionSo 20 % reaching the ground. Now that is not finished, overall sea ice/snow cover/thin sea ice for the entire summer should be 50% (I am ready to change this). This gives melt potential of 90,969 km3 more than 4 times more than current inventory. For entire Arctic Ocean area of 14 million km2 Latent heat of fusion: 3.04 E14 Kj/Km3 If roughly correct, top of ocean temperature plays a major role.
Toggle Commented 2 days ago on PIOMAS February 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
Hi Rob I did read Tamino's work and found it interesting. But it is not what I am looking for. Less sea ice and snow cover does affect global energy input That is nice to know. What I am interested in is an acceptable-consensus w/m2 insolation value, For the entire Arctic Ocean sun year, 100 to 125 for 3 months is not enough because it is for 3 months. The long day is mostly 6 months long. I find this basic knowledge instructive and essential in order to better understand the geophysics at hand. I wonder if any has come up with a basic insolation figure, similar to the US standard atmosphere?. Including 23% atmospheric absorption and 90% cloud + sea ice albedo. Would love to have a standard insolation number per season.
Toggle Commented 4 days ago on PIOMAS February 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
The most revealing calculation made yet indicates solar energy capable of melting the thickest sea ice cover imaginable. This with 90% albedo. I think this leads to top of sea layer minima temperature depth. If for instance there is -1.8 C going down 200 meters instead of 4, the amount of heat required to bring up the sea water column from -1.8 to 0 suggests latent heat may be very important as well. The focus should agree on how many cubic kilometers may theoretically melt first, then we leave to the sea to do the compensation, how much cubic kilometers of sea water is doing the current job of keeping sea ice?
Toggle Commented 6 days ago on PIOMAS February 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
3...... Pathetic.... So far 3 important but short lived anticyclones this Arctic Ocean winter, the latest one a "bridge" of clear air formed between land based Northeast Siberia and NWT Canada, Forecasted to last , alas, less than one week.
Toggle Commented 7 days ago on PIOMAS February 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
Genius correction Robert S! Love it. "a most impressive "crystal ball", I'm sure you agree?" Opaque Bowling ball Jim, With out of control bad reporting spinning towards the dark ages of ignorance, in the right lane for a ' pin head' science correspondent job at FAUX news.
Toggle Commented 7 days ago on PIOMAS February 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
Marcus Rex and Polarstern want to do Nansen with modern equipment: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/20/scientists-to-repeat-19th-century-fram-ships-crossing-of-polar-ice-cap Brilliant! Fantastisch! Except they will need to keep pace with the faster drift, otherwise a shorter journey ahead...
Toggle Commented Feb 20, 2017 on PIOMAS February 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
Hi Jim, It came to my attention that David Rose timing is simply off, https://www.theweathernetwork.com/us/videos/gallery/record-warmth-for-presidents-day-long-weekend/sharevideo/5326923742001 When set hard to mislead, timing is key, 10 days ago NYC got a taste of the NWWO, the New World Weather Order, darn , fake skeptics should at least watch the weather Networks. They predicted this warming days ago. I did write, in this New World of Weather http://eh2r.blogspot.ca/2017/02/new-world-weather-order-nwwo-blankets.html things change fast, ahead of when it indeed changed fast, happened exactly as expected. Unlike Rose who can't know anything about the future since he can't get a solid grasp of the past! Accusing the met office of a cover up is like denouncing Hitler to be a pacifist. Therefore a firm shaky denial of reality is based on wasting time on false flags operations at the met office cafeteria table next to the washroom door. The perspective of a fake skeptic is based on reinforcing to self that science has trouble with 1 week ahead predictions, can't be good for next month or 10 let alone 100 years. That is because as we learn, they can't get their facts strait, yes the strait of reality, a narrow passage of facts enforcing cognition to strive, evolve and make great things, like Leonardo's Mona Lisa, Einstein's greatest equations and brilliant sketches by most 5 year olds you can find at any Kindergarten. But why does anyone must endure, the dizzying backwards cats endlessly chasing their own tails? Is it because it is funny?
Toggle Commented Feb 20, 2017 on PIOMAS February 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
Zebra "So far, I don't know what the death spiral actually means in the shorter term. As I said previously, we have the (real scientific) debate (between actual scientists) about cause and effect:" In this case it literally means a spiral to which an end will eventually arrive. It is calculable as some have done estimates based on available extent numbers, a mathematical result from the actual thermal balance machinations produced by Earth itself is available to all to review. "Are Arctic conditions leading to more intrusion of Tropical systems, or are increasingly energetic Tropical systems overwhelming the protective vortex? (Or, of course, some combination.)" That is correct, the polar vortex, the entire vortex consists of vortices, usually 2, rarely up to 5 or 6 at times, When the 2 main vortices are huge it is because it is a very cold winter. If they are much smaller, in yesterdays case, there was barely one on the extreme Norther Ellesmere edge on the North American side, warm cyclones have an easier ride Northwards.
Toggle Commented Feb 19, 2017 on PIOMAS February 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
The greatest question about 2016 melt season was why it was so strong? It was, as many have written, quite a cloudy summer. There is a very good AGU paper published 2015 which has confirmed many of sea ice horizon refraction observation. They found the intriguing fact that sea ice albedo changes with clouds redirecting thermal rays more vertically, this was actually observed regularly: http://eh2r.blogspot.ca/2017/02/summer-greater-cloudiness-thermal-flux.html Refraction observations, I dare say, are cheaper than the equipment they used, but I can confirm their work as they confirmed mine, fun! But the science conclusions also include thinner sea ice albedo, which was found to be between .17 and .21, remarkably low.
Toggle Commented Feb 19, 2017 on PIOMAS February 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice