Water gets very reflective at
low angles of incidence, such as the Arctic circle.
I am not sure how the physics of that works, however, but it certainly absorbs heat, even at
low angles of incidence.
Arctic albedo / sea ice extents are also falsified by the (lack of) absorption of the radiation at
low angles of incidence.
Albedo is high all year round because of
the low angle of incidence.
Not exact matches
Exterior temperature has a small influence on the result, and large
angles of incidence will result in
lower SHGCs than more normal
angles.
Ice models do take account
of incident
angle but seem to model the
angle largely on some
lower latitude Atlantic sea measurements where wind makes the surface choppy enough that there's not too much
of the
low incidence where this happens.
The argument that melt ponds have
low albedo and thus accelterate melting is relevant at higher
angles of incidence.
You don't think it has anything to do with far
lower insolation at the poles due to small
angle of incidence compounded by an albedo
of 0.85?
The
angle of incidence, which is
low, aiding in the reflection
of incoming light.
Furthermore, it can be seen that due to the
lower incidence angle of the solar radiation at
lower latitudes, TEC at 35 ° N is principally higher than TEC at 65 ° N. Differences between both latitudes are always positive at day - time and reach up to 20 TECU while following the solar cycle dynamics.
It is also because
angle of incidence in the polar regions is so
low compared with the other regions
of the world.
H) Thus, at
low angles of solar
incidence, less than 25 %
of the available solar direct energy is absorbed into open, rough water.