Sentences with phrase «about albedo»

Yet they believe that they can calibrate their models without the most important data about albedo.

What about albedo?

There are also more fundamental scientific questions about whether managed forests really absorb carbon, problems with monoculture forests, questions about the albedo effects of trees, and so on.

Are you talking about albedo?

It includes the unexplained statement about albedo being lowered by global warming and then goes on to talk about visual reflectivity.

James and Eli, I am not talking about albedo forcing.

Thinking about electrons, it turns out, can also generate some terrifying thoughts about albedo.

This point, however is inconsequential, for (as previously noted), Steel's assumptions about albedo are simply false, and if corrected will radically reduce the calculated effect.

But you make a good point about the albedo and Arctic circle endless winter night and endless daytime in summer issue.

I don't know what to believe about the albedo any more.

I agree about the albedo effect of snow, but the way albedo is formed has been given some insights with the new Svensmark paper on cloud formations.

Conversely, any future decision about albedo modification will be judged primarily on questions of risk, and there are many opportunities to conduct research that furthers basic understanding of the climate system and its human dimensions — without imposing the risks of large - scale deployment — that would better inform societal considerations.

Also reading a little bit about albedo may burn some of the fog.

A cool fact about Albedo: Eyes From Outer Space is that it was made by ONE guy, Fabrizio Zagaglia.

Not exact matches

[2] Earth has an average optical geometric albedo of about 0.37.

«Scientists have talked about Arctic melting and albedo decrease for nearly 50 years,» said Ramanathan, a distinguished professor of climate and atmospheric sciences at Scripps who has previously conducted similar research on the global dimming effects of aerosols.

A more detailed knowledge of the albedo would provide information about possible cloud cover on the planet, or the nature of its surface.

At this angle, the albedo of water is about 0.3 or an order of magnitude higher than in the tropics.

Also about the ice - albedo feedback within 1K temperature oscillation the albedo will change of, let us say, 10 %, so for an increase of 1K the albedo will decrease from A = 0.3 to A = 0.27.

With the albedo of older snow and ice at about 0.6, the open ocean will absorb more heat than the ice capped ocean.

Abstract: Black carbon (BC) from biomass and fossil fuel combustion alters chemical and physical properties of the atmosphere and snow albedo, yet little is known about its emission or deposition histories.

The resulting slow GHG and albedo feedbacks are about 3 W / m2 each, in his calculation.

Light - curve observations indicate that the object has an extremely oblong shape, with a length about ten times its width, and a mean radius of about 102 metres assuming an albedo of 0.04.

I can't tell where you got the figure but -3.5 W / m2 is about right for current understanding of «boundary condition» land albedo change between pre-industrial and LGM.

This method tries to maximize using pure observations to find the temperature change and the forcing (you might need a model to constrain some of the forcings, but there's a lot of uncertainty about how the surface and atmospheric albedo changed during glacial times... a lot of studies only look at dust and not other aerosols, there is a lot of uncertainty about vegetation change, etc).

As I understand Hansen he's saying: if we double CO2 this century (so upto about 550 - 600 ppm), that will mean a forcing of about 4 W / m2 and 3 degrees C warming in the short term (decades), and thru slow feedbacks (albedo + GHG) another 4 W / m2 and 3 degrees in the long term (centuries / millennia).

Ice sheet albedo forcing is estimated to have caused a global mean forcing of about — 3.2 W m — 2 (based on a range of several LGM simulations) and radiative forcing from increased atmospheric aerosols (primarily dust and vegetation) is estimated to have been about — 1 W m — 2 each.

The infrared findings indicated that UB313 has a reflectivity, or albedo, of about 60 percent, which is similar to Pluto's and suggested that the two bodies have surfaces are made of very similar materials such as frozen methane and nitrogen snow at a temperature of -248 °C or -418 °F.

I do worry about the evolution of the summer albedo of the GIS.

For example, [Kruss 1983] has this to say about the Lewis glacier on Mt. Kenya: «A decrease in the annual precipitation on the order of 150 mm in the last quarter of the 19th century, followed by a secular air temperature rise of a few tenths of a degree centigrade during the first half of the 20th century, together with associated albedo and cloudiness variation, constitute the most likely cause of the Lewis Glacier wastage during the last 100 years.»

Thus if the sun were to become stronger by about 2 %, the TOA radiation balance would change by 0.02 * 1366 * 0.7 / 4 = 4.8 W / m2 (taking albedo and geometry into account) and this would be the radiative forcing (RF).

The albedo is about a third lower without the clouds (earth's surface = 70 % water).

With no clouds, the albedo would be about 0.13 and the Earth and atmosphere would both be at abougy 277 K. You'd have no lapse rate at all.

About 6 %, so the Earth's albedo would be perhaps 0.2 and the temperature of surface and atmosphere would be 264 K.

But let me expand a bit on the larger point, about the relationship between albedo and cloud feedback.

Eventually, when we know more about the effects of the mechanisms involved, fluctuations in cosmic rays could be incorporated in helping model cloud albedo changes.

is about geoengineering crops to increase their albedo.

Thick clouds about to rain are not the same as thick (fluffy, high albedo) clouds with lots of pollution caused CCN.

I understand that the current albedo of the earth is responsible for about 107 W / m2.

The resulting slow GHG and albedo feedbacks are about 3 W / m2 each, in his calculation.

A correlation of 0.6 suggests that the ISCCP can account for only about 36 % of the variance of the albedo — and 64 % of the variance can not be accounted for using this linear ISCCP - based model (i.e. not very good).

I agree that most people will not fully understand the implications of this, because most don't know diddly about Hadley cells, Ferrel cells, the Polar cell, albedo, latent or sensible heat, and mechanisms by which solar energy can be transported from the Arctic to melt more of the Greenland ice sheet.

As an analogy, if I told you that I was going to paint my white car black and that I expected it would get hotter on sunny days as a result, you would probably start asking questions about what the temperature of the paint was when I applied it and how those molecules heated up or cooled down, ignoring the relevant factor which is this: By painting the car black, I am changing the car's albedo and thus changing the radiative balance between the car and the sun on sunny days.

In Hansen Nazarenko 2004, Hansen wrote that «Our estimate for the mean soot effect on spectrally integrated albedos in the Arctic... is about one quarter of observed global warming.»

I can't tell where you got the figure but -3.5 W / m2 is about right for current understanding of «boundary condition» land albedo change between pre-industrial and LGM.

So for example deglaciation warmed global mean temps by about 5 C over 10k years with a radiative forcing of about 6.5 W / m2 (total of both GHG increases and albedo decreases).

I have a question about the potential albedo feedback effect on a ablating ice sheet surface.

your confusion is about longwave flux forcing of CO2 vs shortwave solar albedo changes.

(This doesn't include any solar - heating (albedo, etc.) feedbacks, which is necessary for a direct comparison; the GHE warming of about 33 K is only the effect of the atmopheric LW optical thickness, and thus doesn't include any feedbacks on solar heating)

S at Earth's orbit averages 1367.6 Watts per square meter, the Earth's albedo is about 0.3 (assume this is exact for the moment), and sigma has the value 5.6704 x 10 ^ -8 in the SI, which gives an emission temperature for Earth of 254.9 K.