I thought I did say they were WRONG. Maybe by saying that they used spin, I was misunderstood. Or by saying “not totally correct”. Either way, it was my intention to say that SPPI appears to be wrong.

To reiterate:

Since they didn’t point to a study that says the Arctic is warming and I can’t find anything to support this statement, it appears that SPPI is wrong (unless they can point out a study that disputes this).

It is not apparent to me what the correct albedo for the Arctic Ocean is as I have not seen a study for this. Any statements to the contrary would be either conjecture, assumptions, or wrong (or maybe a combination of the three).

The air does influence the ice but I cannot follow the logic of SPPI that it is the only influence, which is what they infer, and that solar energy doesn’t influence it as well.

The whole point may be moot though. Mr. Gore created a movie that discussed global warming and mankind’s influence on the climate. He spent many minutes discussing the Arctic which by its inclusion implies that the reduction of ice in the Arctic is mankind’s fault. Multiple studies have been written to question this assertion and have blamed water currents and wind currents for some, much or all of this change. By including statements about the Arctic but not discussing that humans do not appear to affect ocean currents and therefore may not have anything to do with the ice in the Arctic is at best SPIN and quite possibly WRONG.

If Mr. Gore would have been more complete in his explanations then perhaps SPPI wouldn’t have made the mistakes. Regardless of his Nobel prize status, he still is trying to incite some degree of panic by, in some cases such as this, giving incomplete information.

A Google search for ‘Al Gore 35 Errors’ now reveals hundreds of websites and links screaming about Al Gore errors and lies (that is how I came across yours). Yet, I have completely discredited the first two I looked at. You could have done the same but chose not to. When confronted with this, you quibble about 80% vs 90% albedo or whether the Arctic has warmed 1 C or 0.7 C (as opposed to cooling 1 C as claimed by SPPI). You can paint all the lipstick you want on that pig, but on ERRORs 17 and 18 SPPI is WRONG (that is W-R-O-N-G). Maybe you should ask yourself why it is so difficult to admit that.

I believe that 80% of the light that hits sea ice is reflected. At least that is what the National Snow and Ice Data Center says when I quoted them in this article http://globalwarming-factorfiction.com/2007/09/07/why-is-arctic-ice-melting-50-years-too-fast/
They also quote the absorption of sea water at 90%, not 95%. Your sources may be more correct and I am not going to argue about the exact percentage since we both appear to agree on the principle.

The first part of my statement is also correct because it is not purely the direct sunlight that is melting the ice rather some scientists are theorizing the water current change underneath the ice is causing much of the melting. While that current change may be the result of global warming, that is a hypothesis I have yet to see adequately discussed. If the ice melt is caused by currents and not atmospheric temperature then the reduction of arctic ice is not caused by man but instead caused by nature.

Perhaps I should have been more clear in my analysis. Mr. Gore gives the “feeling” in his movie that the reduction of ice in the arctic is caused by man-made global warming. He then points out that this will cause the waters to warm more dramatically. There is no question that open sea water absorbs more energy than sea ice and I apologize if you thought I was saying that.

SPPI’s statement is patently ridiculous and any Junior High science student can figure that out. For the record, the annual average solar flux incident at the surface in the Arctic is on the order of 90-100 Watt/m^2, which dwarfs warming from the atmosphere (2 W/m^2) and re-emission in the IR (22 W/m^2). (See ‘Measurements near the Atmospheric Surface Flux Group tower at SHEBA: A near-surface conditions and surface energy budget’, Persson et al., J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 107, pages SHE 21-1 to 21-24, 2002). Because of the high reflectivity of sea ice (particularly snow-covered sea ice) most of the incident solar flux (about 72 W/m^2) is reflected back and does not heat the surface. If the ice is removed then the incident solar flux falls directly on the ocean where 95% will be absorbed. Yes, it will heat the ocean. This is referred to as ice-albedo feedback. This is essentially what Gore said. Here is the quote:

“When the sun’s rays hit the ice, more than 90 percent of it bounces off right back into space like a mirror. But when it hits the open ocean more than 90 percent is absorbed. As the surrounding water gets warmer, it speeds up the melting of the ice. Right now the arctic ice cap acts like a giant mirror. All the sun’s rays bounce off, more than 90 percent, to keep the earth cooler.”

I am afraid your comments add nothing to the issue. It isn’t difficult if you actually know something about the subject before you start discussing it and ‘the climate models’ are NOT involved. It is simple physics and direct measurements. Note, Gore did not say ‘the polar ocean absorbs 90% of the light that hits it’ he said ‘open’ ocean – i.e., seawater with no ice on it. The mean albedo of seawater is 5%, so about 95 % is absorbed (I can furnish references if you think this is false). Gore actually understated it.