A Note: Global Warming Threads

[Trippy]

A simple example is the oft seen example of claiming that GW has stopped by showing a negative slope of temperatures when using 1998 as the starting point.

The negative slope is highly dependent on use of the very hot El Nino year of 1998 as the endpoint.
Simply move the starting point back just a year and the negative slope disappears.
Move it back around 2 years and the slope is once again positive.

Arthur

There is a relatively trivial counter to this, and demonstrating it is the point of some of the other graphs that are in the same folder.

It's pretty trivially demonstrable that you can't get meaningful trends on anything less than 15 years data, anything less than this and you wind up with zero in the confidence interval when you look at the whole data set.

 

[adoucette]

???

When you say there is "a relatively trivial counter to this", what is "this" that you are countering?

I thought that the frequently seen use of '98 as a starting year to show lack of a warming trend was an excellent example of climatic cherry picking to make a point.

And one that when one simply moves the starting endpoint a few years further back in time the point being made not only disappears but the opposite trend is revealed.

The other issue you raise, that typically periods of less than several decades aren't much use when trying to understand climate, I also agree with.

 

[Trippy]

???

When you say there is "a relatively trivial counter to this", what is "this" that you are countering?

I thought that the frequently seen use of '98 as a starting year to show lack of a warming trend was an excellent example of climatic cherry picking to make a point.

And one that when one simply moves the starting endpoint a few years further back in time the point being made not only disappears but the opposite trend is revealed.

The other issue you raise, that typically periods of less than several decades aren't much use when trying to understand climate, I also agree with.

The 'this' that I was referring to was the argument regarding the cooling over the period of a decade.

That argument also ignores a couple of other salient points.
1998-now is not the only example of a cooling trend in the data.
It's possible to extend bounds based on the historical data that demonstrate that that particular cooling trend is nothing unusual.

Addendum:

In other words, I was agreeing with you, and making the point that as well as being an example of cherry picking, it's quite simply a wrong argument.

 

[RenaissanceMan]

Almost to a person, those Republicans who were the victors, taking over leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives, are global climate change / global warming deniers. "bugeye"

///

IF global warming were as "factual" and as "dangerous" as the fear-mongering leftists pretend, then why do fear-mongering leftists decree that carbon dioxide emissions must be reduced 80% while they:

1. Continue to fly around from one environmental conference to the next, oblivious to their own fear-mongering decrees, when they could videoconference, and

2. Continue to take vacations, and drive cars, and go out to dinner, and

3. Flock to every imaginable activity put on by every liberal on earth, most particularly America's two biggest environmental hypocrites, Al Gore and Barack Obama.

Note also the list of advertisers in every left-leaning magazine in America, from Smithsonian to Sierra to National Geographic to Newsweek to Time.

Advertisement after advertisement for Travelocity, tours the world over, you name it. If there's a wonderful way to burn fossil fuels, it is advertised in a wacko liberal magazine.

I particularly enjoy seeing Priuses flying past me on highways, as they do 80 to 85 MPH, pretending to be "saving" the environment. At highway speeds, these cars offer no advantage to conventional engined cars, and above 50 MPH or so, mileage decreases precipitately.

Global warming isn't about science. It's about politics and control. Please stop the lying.

 

[arfa brane]

No, global warming is a real phenomenon. CO2 from volcanic activity probably 'saved' the planet from being an eternal snowball earth. Once the level of CO2 reaches a certain background value a feedback mechanism kicks in--the greenhouse effect.

It's also true that humans have been altering the background level since the dawn of agriculture and civilisation about 8000 y.a. and drastically since the Industrial Revolution. Denying that CO2 levels have any effect on climate won't make any difference to the climate, it's simply hubris to pretend that we're that intelligent--viz the post above.

Furthermore, despite the evidence and all the talk, we are simply far too 'into' our current cycle of exploitation and 'economic growth'. All we've done is talk about what to do, and in parallel we've increased the output of CO2 along with all the talking--we won't do anything realistic because we can't. So we will continue to talk about it, but probably that's all we will do.

 

[Billy T]

Summary: What few appreciate is that because of the methane hydrates, the RATE of CO2 release may be more important than the LEVEL of CO2 in the air. Thus they take comfort in the fact that the CO2 level has been twice as high in the past as it is now. Read post to understand why this is no comfort.

No, global warming is a real phenomenon. CO2 from volcanic activity probably 'saved' the planet from being an eternal snowball earth. Once the level of CO2 reaches a certain background value a feedback mechanism kicks in--the greenhouse effect.

It's also true that humans have been altering the background level since the dawn of agriculture and civilisation about 8000 y.a. and drastically since the Industrial Revolution. Denying that CO2 levels have any effect on climate won't make any difference to the climate, it's simply hubris to pretend that we're that intelligent--viz the post above.

Furthermore, despite the evidence and all the talk, we are simply far too 'into' our current cycle of exploitation and 'economic growth'. All we've done is talk about what to do, and in parallel we've increased the output of CO2 along with all the talking--we won't do anything realistic because we can't. So we will continue to talk about it, but probably that's all we will do.

Unfortunately, I agree with you. But note that prior to green plants (and the O2 they made) there was plenty of CH4 in the air to keep Earth from becoming snow covered with a high albedo preventing solar melting of the snow cover even in the tropics ("snowball Earth"). CH4 is at least 10 times more effective GHG than CO2.

There is a lot of CH4 which was safely stored on the ocean floor in methane hydrates. (More carbon there than man has released into the air as CO2) It appears to now* be decomposing as the oceans warm in a positive feedback system. I am quite concerned that man's extra and rapid CO2 release will make the earth devoid of all life. For details, see: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1473111&postcount=2

CH4 has only about a 10 year half life in the current O2 containing air.** Thus CH4 in ocean hydrates could be slowly released as it has been in the past with end of ice ages by slowly rising CO2 levels, but now they are rising too fast for all the CH4 being released to be destroyed by the O2. I.e. if we are in a positive feedback loop now, then earth is doomed to become a slightly cooler version of Venus. (Its other stable state)

*In the last few years, Russian sub have had trouble operating in some parts of the Russian Arctic shelf as the CH4 bubbling up is scattering their sonar signals. - Sort of like trying to drive your car fast in a thick fog. This lead Russian researchers to collect samples and it is CH4 bubbling up.

**The atmospheric destruction process for CH4 can be OH radical concentration limited but currently is not; however, once the OH concentration is reduced to make it limiting, then the CH4 lifetime in the air becomes many decades - I.e. at some point the temperature of earth explodes upward to approximately 100C, limited only by the thermal inertia of the oceans.

It will take something on the order of a million years to boil all the ocean water into space and let the main temperate rise (to 700 or 800C?) of the surface begin again. Like Venus, which was once much like Earth, Earth also has two stable states, the current one and one with a very high pressure (at the surface) supper heated steam atmosphere, much thicker than the current one, so very little surface heat escapes thru it.

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

Other, earlier posts in this thread on the shallow ocean floor CH4 Hydrate danger at:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2237458&postcount=86
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1177065&postcount=26
and last half of:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1566792&postcount=36

 

[RenaissanceMan]

"It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. (Emphasis added.) Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford's book organizes the facts very well.) I don't believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it." - Hal Lewis, emeritus professor of physics, University of California, Santa Barbara

Now consider this graph of atmospheric carbon dioxide. It is intended to spark fear because it SHOWS a DOCUMENTED INCREASE in CO2. While it is completely accurate, it is also completely misleading. This is how to lie with facts.

3.bp.blogspot.com/_UeZlUJSTKEk/TLZIj_7z1hI/AAAAAAAABtU/fwDGhaxAnEo/s1600/Al+Gore%27s+Graph.jpg

Note that the Scary Graph, above, spans only 70 parts per million.

Now we proceed to the same data presented with a zero base and showing the anthropogenic (man-made) component of carbon dioxide, estimated at ~3.4% of the total:

2.bp.blogspot.com/_UeZlUJSTKEk/TLZLm-zOigI/AAAAAAAABtc/zewmAKI4Ag8/s1600/Al+Gore%27s+Graph1.jpg

That little red line at the bottom doesn't appear nearly as threatening, does it.

Finally, let's add just one other greenhouse gas, water vapor. Water vapor constitutes roughly 1.5% of the atmosphere by weight. But by number of molecules, or ppm, it is almost 2.1% or 20,864 parts per million.

How does the 11 to 13 ppm of anthropogenic CO2 look compared to 21,000 ppm? The graph can't do it justice. On any reasonable graph, say 8 1/2" by 11", the man-made carbon dioxide is indistinguishable from the 0 base line.

And for this, the Luddites want you to cut your energy use 80%? Let's see them do it first.
They're all flying to Cancun for the next big conference, where they'll lie in the sun for a few days, and dine on steak and lobster, at government expense.

Thanks, suckers.

Just Google "environmental conferences" and click on the top link. It will show you conferences ALL OVER THE WORLD, to be attended by these hypocrites. They can't videoconference. That would be practicing what they preach.

Al Gore's Scary Graph becomes absolutely nothing simply by adding the primary greenhouse gas, water vapor:

 

[arfa brane]

Of course, anyone who has done actual chemistry knows that H20 and CO2 are very different things.

At planet-earth temperatures and pressures, CO2 doesn't condense and fall as a liquid like H2O does, that is one BIG difference. CO2 doesn't evaporate like liquid water does (unless you start with liquid CO2).
Only an IDIOT would consider that these species have EXACTLY the same effect when their IR spectroscopy is very different and differentiates them qualitatively.

By IDIOT, I mean uninformed, self-righteous, confused, bigoted, and mostly moronic, of course.

 

[Billy T]

Al Gore's Scary Graph becomes absolutely nothing simply by adding the primary greenhouse gas, water vapor:

FALSE. You do not understand some very basic physics so have been mislead and are trying to mislead others by presenting the graph of Water Vapor CONCENTRATION.
I will give you an analogy so you can understand your misrepresentation, why what you say is totally false, but first I must teach you a little physics you obviously don’t know:
Every molecule has narrow bands of heat radiation, IR, which it can absorb or block as IR that wave length tries to escape from Earth but the N2+O2 air is transparent to 99% of the other IR wave lengths leaving the Earth. (I can explain why N2 & O2 don't absorb much of the IR trying to escape, if anyone asks, but don't want to go off point now.)

The analogy is: think of a baseball grounds keeper trying to keep a sudden rain shower from wetting the field with a large tarp that is 99% holes. He put it on, but it blocks only 1% of the rain. He is as ignorant about this as you are about IR absorption, so he takes an IDENTICAL tarp out and lays it on top of the first. But as the holes are in exactly the same spots (wavelengths) it does not block any more rain. Even adding 1,000 more of these identical tarps will not block any more rain from passing thru the holes. End of analogy.

Approximately 10 parts per million H2O concentration, but I will assume 20 ppm to be sure, will block 100% of the IR at the wave lengths it can absorb from escaping the earth, but 99% of the IR heat radiation with other wavelengths will still freely escape. Even if the H2O concentration were 1,000 times higher (say its actual 20,864 parts per million) still 99% of the heat radiation with other wavelengths would still escape the earth. I.e. 20,864 ppm of H2O will not make block more – make the earth any hotter – than 20 ppm would.

To make the earth get hotter, you need to add a different gas molecule, one with different absorption wavelengths, not more H2O (not more tarps with the same holes) as it can only stop 100% of radiation at its absorption wave lengths no matter how much H2O you add.

CO2 does absorb at different wave lengths than H2O so adding only a 20 ppm of it to the 20,864 ppm of H2O will make a significant additional reduction in the heat escaping the earth. – make the earth hotter. Adding a few ppm of CH4 would block even more radiation from escaping than 10,000 ppm of CO2 would* as it has about 10 times more wave lengths it can block IR at than CO2 has. That is why I am concerned, as stated in post 286, by the fact that some CH4 which was safely stored on the ocean floor is now bubbling up.

SUMMARY: I hope you understand now that it is FALSE, ignorant nonsense, to conclude that increasing CO2 concentrations is not a concern because the H2O CONCENTRATION is already more than 1000 times higher than the CO2 concentration is.

-----------------
* For the same reason: Any gas can only absorb 100% of the IR radiation trying to leave earth which has its IR absorption wavelengths. Thus, 10,000 ppm of CO2 would not heat the earth anymore than 20 ppm of CO2 would. If the positive feed back heating I discussed in post 286 did not exist, I would not be much concerned if the CO2 concentration were to become 100 times greater than it is today.** The Earth has had higher CO2 concentrations, achieved VIA SLOW increase of CO2 levels and life on earth was not abolished. It is the unprecedented, man-made, rapid increase of CO2, not the level of CO2, that may kill all life on earth - Read post 286, and links therein, to understand why.

** If I had to guess and there were no positive feed back via CH4 problem, I think earth would be more suitable for modern mankind with CO2 concentration of twice what it is today! The productivity of green crops would be greatly increased. The Arctic would be free of ice so its resources would be more easily available and Russian oil and gas could be shipped to China and other Asian nations much more cheaply - that is where the growth is and need will be. Perhaps even SID (sudden infant death)*** would not exist as it is the CO2 concentration in your body, not the need for O2, which causes you to breath. There would be some adverse effects on some life forms but life is very adaptable.

*** SIDs occur only when the infant has been sleep for several hours, never when it is awake and moving. With little motion, its body is not generating much CO2 in the blood. Same reason you can hold your breath much longer after 5 minutes with normal rate of breathing and with no motion than when you have been running for 2 minutes. Test my knowledge -try both.

 

[adoucette]

Approximately 10 parts per million H2O concentration, but I will assume 20 ppm to be sure, will block 100% of the IR at the wave lengths it can absorb from escaping the earth,

Not to be picky, but that is totally false.

If that statement were true, the oceans would have boiled away long ago.

These gases, absorb and then reradiate the energy they absorb and thus they SLOW the escaping of energy to space, but if they blocked it entirely the world would quickly burn up.

Arthur

 

[arfa brane]

Not to be picky, but that is totally false.

I think you may have jumped too soon. H2O blocks IR at specific wavelengths. To ensure 100% 'efficiency' you just increase the concentration; but H2O absorbs at the same specific wavelengths regardless of concentration.

Billy T didn't state that H2O "blocks/absorbs 100% of IR", have a closer look. To block all the IR would require a mixture of gases that together 'cover' that range of the spectrum--something like the atmosphere of Venus for example.

 

[adoucette]

I know what he said, and it's wrong in the sense that using the term BLOCKED leaves the impression that the heat never leaves the earth.

But the IR is not BLOCKED, it's absorbed, but then that absorbed energy is radiated away again.

The better way of describing the process is that increasing GHGs simply slow down heat as it's escaping from the earth.

We are always in an equilibrium, and all the energy that we receive leaves, the gases only determine the rate they leave it at.

The lag in the heat leaving is what keeps us warm.

The more GHGs the longer it takes the energy we receive to escape and thus the higher average global temp.

Simple thought experiment.

Turn off the sun.

What happens?

The heat that was supposedly blocked, in fact leaves.

Increasing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere would only slightly increase the time it took to cool down.

Arthur

 

[Billy T]

...
These gases, absorb and then reradiate the energy they absorb and thus they SLOW the escaping of energy to space, ... Arthur

Part about re-radiation is true, but the escaping energy is not slowed, the amount is reduced. (It escapes at a fixed rate -See post 295.)

Half the time the re-radiated energy is headed back towards Earth so although absorption insignificantly (a few seconds at most) delays the escape of energy carried by certain IR photons* that do escape, it greatly reduces the escape of energy carried by those that can be absorbed (and re-radiated). ("Heats the earth" or more correctly causes surface temperature to be higher, as it is mainly the sun that heats the earth)

Also, in addition to ~50% of the "absorbable" IR energy leaving earth surface being returned to earth by downward re-radiation, that energy briefly stored in an excited molecule following absorption of a photon may be removed in a super elastic collision, especially in the lower atmosphere where collisions are frequent. Thus, half the leaving "absorbable energy" is returned to earth by re-radiation and a significant part is converted to thermal energy where it was absorbed, so the reduction in the earth leaving photon's escaping energy of these "absorbable energy" photons is greater than 50%.

*The "absorbable energy" photon that does escape, from high up, is not the same one that left the surface of the earth, but has the same energy. The escaping photon is the "great,great,great,...." granddaughter of the one that left Earth.

Note: An elastic collision conserves the pre-collision kinetic energy. A "super elastic" collision has more kinetic energy in the colliding molecules after the collision than before.

PS to adoucette I don't think I have said anything wrong, but you may have not understood what I was saying. If you think I have, quote my error, but note:

Not to be picky, but that is totally false. ...

That is extremely picky. I will admit IR energy at the center of H2O absorption lines leaving the earth is not 100% blocked. Probably only ~99.8% blocked. There is a huge amount of H2O in the atmosphere compared to any other GHG. Thus the mean free path between absorptions is very small – I would guess less than one meter at sea level. After each absorption half the absorbed energy is sent back towards earth and some is transfered locally to other molecules via super elastic collision so lets assume 47% continues its journey away from Earth towards space. Let’s also assume that at this wave length the total thickness of the atmosphere is 1000 mean free paths (it is much more I am sure).

Note also that the energy that does escape in a series of several thousand different photons did not go straight up. It random walked horizontally too. This greatly increased the opportunity for it to be converted into local heat via super elastic collisions.

Thus the escape fraction is (0.47) multiplied by (.47) more than 1000 times. I.e. essentially zero or 100% blocked.

I was trying to explain to RenaissanceMan in post 289 why his conclusions based on the huge amount of atmospheric H20 was completely false, not to be numerically accurate to 5 decimal places.

 

[Billy T]

... The better way of describing the process is that increasing GHGs simply slow down heat as it's escaping from the earth. ... Arthur

This is at best misleading, if not false. Even if the absorbed energy were stored for an hour on average in excited states of molecules the rate of photons escaping from the earth would be unchanged. It is the progress of the energy carried by each escaping photo leaving the earth that is slowed, not the rate of individual photons leaving. The amount of energy per minute leaving is reduced by absorption, but not the photon's escape rate. I said it correctly. Again if you think not, please quote my error and explain why you think it an error.

SUMMARY: Absorption REDUCES the rate of heat loss, but does not significantly slow the escape of heat (carried by the photons leaving).

 

[Billy T]

... all the energy that we receive leaves, the gases only determine the rate they leave it at. ...Arthur

Again, at best misleading. The rate of energy leaving earth is set by and equal to the rate of energy released by radioactive decay, tidal heating, and 99+ percent by the rate of solar heatng of earth. I.e. we radiate back into space a little more heat than we receive from the sun. What the mix of atmospheric gases does is to determing the TEMPERATURE of earth necessary for that fixed amount of heat to be lost to space each minute.

SUMMARY: Gas mix determines the earth temperature, not your "rate of heat leaving" - that is a constant reguardless of how you change the atmospheric mix of gases.

 

[tantalus]

sorry for jumping in but I am looking to take the advice of the op,

You are still free to post other threads on global warming, but I would HIGHLY suggest reading back a bit to the other zillion threads on the same topic. Doing this will give you a feeling for the type of discussion and the few nuts around here who know too much about the subject

considering the number of threads on the topic, can anyone link me to one or two of the better threads, Iam looking for discussion predominately on the science, with reference to the literature and expert opinion, from both sides, not so much on the politics, although I understand that the interlinking of the 2 is unavoidable for some, depending on your stance.

help-anyone?

 

[Billy T]

To adoucette If you want to be picky and find fault with my posts probably my worst error, taken literally with little contextual understanding, is here:

Part about re-radiation is true, but the escaping energy is not slowed, the amount is reduced. ...

and repeated here:

... SUMMARY: Absorption REDUCES the rate of heat loss, but does not significantly slow the escape of heat (carried by the photons leaving).

Only it is "100% false" but in post 295 I did explain that the radiant energy leaving the earth is NOT reduced by any mix of atmospheric gases. I.e. it is always the same and equal to the sum of solar heating + tidal heating + radioactive heating plus less than 0.0001% “other.”

... the gases only determine the rate they leave it at. The lag in the heat leaving is what keeps us warm. ...Arthur

This is 100% wrong and that is not "being picky" as there is no lag in the heat leaving. There is a lag in the many times absorbed photon's energy's progress upwards. It is the reduced probability of eventual escape, not how much time the trip takes, that causes the earth to be warmer than if 100% could escape. "Lag" or transport delay, has nothing to do with warming the earth.

 

[Billy T]

... can anyone link me to one or two of the better threads, Iam looking for discussion predominately on the science, with reference to the literature and expert opinion, from both sides, not so much on the politics, although I understand that the interlinking of the 2 is unavoidable for some, depending on your stance. help-anyone?

Unfortunately, "better" is subjective, but IMHO the most important post is 286 here. It links to some other threads with same point and they give other links.

 

[adoucette]

Billy,

Simple thought experiment.

Turn off the sun.

What happens?

The heat that was supposedly blocked, in fact leaves.

Increasing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere would only slightly increase the time it took to cool down.

You are corrrect, in that the amount of heat that leaves each day is always in balance, I never said it wasn't.

But the net effect of increased GHGs is pretty much the same as putting on a slightly thicker blanket on your bed. You'll be a bit warmer because the rate of heat leaving will be a bit slower.

the radiant energy leaving the earth is NOT reduced by any mix of atmospheric gases. I.e. it is always the same and equal to the sum of solar heating + tidal heating + radioactive heating plus less than 0.0001% “other.”

If that were true the oceans wouldn't be expanding due to increasing thermal energy. The biggest thing which is slowing the heat from leaving is that the increased lag in energy leaving allows a greater absorbtion by the oceans, which if the CO2 levels were to remain fixed at 100 ppm greater than pre-industrial times would take many thousands of years to reach equilibrium.

Now THAT is a clear example of slowing down the rate of heat loss!


Arthur

 

[Billy T]

Billy, Simple thought experiment.
Turn off the sun. What happens?
The heat that was supposedly blocked, in fact leaves.... Arthur

To answer your question:

About 8 minutes after the sun magically "turns off", it gets very dark. Then over a few days, the KE in the winds becomes nearly zero.* In a few months the gulfstream flow is insignificant compared to present and rain is very rare or never happens so rivers nearly dry up. (Years before they go completely dry as they are also feed by ground water.). In a couple of years, perhaps a decade, all* the earth has essentially the same temperature almost* everywhere, which is below its average temperature now, but not yet by much. Average temperature getting below 4C takes many decades (>100 years?) as deep ocean water rises. How many decades it would take to get from 4 C to 0 C, I am not sure as the thermal lag in cooling the oceans down to 0C would be very long by human time scales, at least many generations (even 1000 years?), I would guess.

Eventually, the earth would turn into “snow ball” earth, but “frosted earth” would probably be a more accurate description. There would be beautiful big vapor deposited ice crystals covering the land and the H2O content of the atmosphere would be falling; however for more than 100 years, very little IR radiation at wavelengths where H2O has strong absorption would escape from earth. At those wave lengths IR would still be essentially blocked. The cooling of the earth by those wavelengths would not be significantly for a long time.

Until the atmosphere if freed of more than 95% of its current H2O vapor, H2O absorbed IR would not contribute much to the cooling of the earth and even when there was essentially no H2O vapor left (frozen ocean surface) IR radiation at those water vapor absorbable wave lengths would be less than 5% of energy leaving.

My main fault with your posts is that they erroneously focus on the “slowing of radiation” leaving the earth instead of on the reduction in the amount leaving at their absorption wave lengths as GHG concentration is increased.

Stating that GHG reduce IR is incorrect as I discussed in post 295. GHG certainly does not "slow the radiation" or even reduce the total amount. They redistribute the spectral distribution of the constant amount radiation leaving. For example, if “earth shine” is viewed from space with a high resolution spectrograph, you will see very deep “notches” (reduction in intensity) at the wavelengths where H2O is a strong absorber. That radiation is essentially blocked.

To respond to your comment about ocean expanding that is due (if true, and I think it is) to the average temperature of the earth increasing. It must to still radiate into space the constant amount of energy I listed in post 295 as the addition of GHG blocks or reduces the radiation trying to leave at specific wave lengths. - I.e. each GHG cuts its notches in the spectral distribution of "earthshine" so temperature rises to make more radiation escape at the un-blocked or only partially blocked intensity notches in wavelength distribution.

*As there is a huge amount of ice in Antarctica much of the above will have a different time scale near there. I.e. that cold mass will serve as a heat engine sink for many years, partially replacing the sun to make winds etc. in the Antarctica.