G'day all,

Ice Coverage and its Possible Effects on Climate.

I actually went to look at the satellite figures (the raw and adjusted ones that can be found at the Huntsville University site with not much effort at all) as well as some other data sets.

I have been sick for too long. Even I was surprised at the very rapid reduction in world averages. While studies on exactly why the reversal is so great will be probably years away, the reversals seem to be too large for blamed on the Al Nina alone, solid Al Nina that this one is.

There was a theory that has been around for a while about how it would take only two or three years to switch from a full glacial period to an interglacial period or visa versa. I studied it back in the mid 70s although it had not been very refined at that time. I actually did some work on it at the time with a professor that had an interest in this type of thing and even wrote a paper on the rapidity of flips between glacial and interglacial periods. This paper would probably be boring to those on this site because it relates only to how fast a change occurs, not what triggers it. It did, however, try to apply some logic at just why the flip could be so fast, even though most of the paper was on the evidence that supported very rapid change rather than the traditional view of thousands of years of gradual climate shift.

One part of the logic was then called "the snow blitz theory". It might have another name now or might not even be subject to any active study at all at the moment, the study of climate being so focused on current global warming rather than historical issues not necessarily useful in the current global warming argument. The theory goes like this. The albedo levels of snow and ice that is reasonably fresh is around 95%. (Albedo is the amount of solar radiation that is reflected back into space as opposed to being absorbed. The Savannah is the lowest world’s figures at around 30% to 35% reflectivity or 70% odd absorption). Should you have even by random concurrence of many factors a much larger winter snow field in the Northern Hemisphere than is the norm then the amount of total solar radiation available to heat the planet plummets. Thus, the snow and ice remain on the ground much further into the spring and stay at lower latitudes and altitudes for several weeks. This late switch between very high albedo snow and very low albedo exposed tundra and grassland, further reduces the available solar radiation well into the growing season and towards the summer. Thus, the snow and ice in very many areas simply does not retreat to the normal extent. The next year comes around and winter weather starts up much earlier simply because the weather systems are travelling over snow-covered areas rather than is typical. The snow and ice extend much greater distances than is the norm and very much greater than the previous year.

The second year seems to be the "tipping point" to borrow a global warming phrase. It would seem that this type of imbalance happens more than traditional climatologists are ever willing to admit, but generally factors intervene to reduce the effects so that a switch does not occur. It might be that a peak of the sun flare short cycle occurs that year, or that ocean currents clear a lot of the sea covering ice, or there is volcanic activity in the right places or a lack of it in other places.

However, if there are no limiting factors, watch out. The extent of the snow, which only needs to be very thin, stretches so far south and into lower altitudes during the winter that summer just doesn't really turn up. The snow and ice retreat only marginally the next year and the flip becomes complete within the year, with snow coverage extending down most of Europe, most of the US etc, permanently, or at least until the reverse process kicks in and another interglacial period turns up. This theory does not rely on glaciations by the way and thus is very difficult to either prove or disprove, especially by geological analysis.

We are not talking about glacial expansion or creation as this takes many hundreds and even thousands of years to occur, only about as little as a few inches of persistent snow. Since the world currently has the majority of the land mass over the Northern Hemisphere, the albedo readings for the majority of the land mass goes through the roof and the whole world (except the equatorial regions which is never greatly affected in THIS ice age by whether it is a glacial period or an interglacial one) gets a great deal colder.

With absolutely no data or studies to back this up, perhaps those that read these posts would still like to contemplate the following:

According to now a solid group of solar scientists, we are now in a period of particularly low sunspot activity (except 2012, which may actually knock out the world's power grids).

The satellite data for global average temperature actually indicates a cooling especially from 2005 and more so from near the end of 2007.

The total ice coverage of the world is dramatically more than it has been and heading for a record.

Sea surface temperatures seem to be decreasing.

The only thing that seems to be missing is increased volcanic activity. In seven of the last ten switches back to glaciations, the volcanic activity in the low to mid latitudes increased significantly either just before or just at the start of the glaciations. Nevertheless, three times out of ten, the switch has been managed without volcanic assistance.


This post is mainly just something to think about rather than something that is backed by a great deal of data, studies or the like. All that needs to happen to prove the arguments made here is to wait for a switch to the next glaciation, something we are several thousand years overdue from happening, by the way.


Regards


Richard

Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness