Sentences with phrase «albedo due»

This change is explained by a decrease in subtropical and mid-latitude low cloudiness, along with a reduction in high - latitude surface albedo due to decreased sea ice.

The work continued on natural variability of albedo due to snow cover.

Putting the two formulas together, a theoretical additional factor of 2.06 multiplier due to the greenhouse effect becomes an actual multiplier of 0.226, thanks to negative factors like increases in albedo due to clouds, decreases in lapse rate, etc..

Reductions in albedo due to decreasing sea ice induced by wind changes were attributed as the cause of this early warming.

The great thing is that, since we can make good estimates of the changes in solar radiation, changes in the Earth's albedo due to melting ice, and changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the ice ages, scientists can directly calculate the sensitivity of the climate to changes in the atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Recent research has shown that temperature changes in the Arctic are magnified by feedback over and above the effect of changing albedo due to reduced snow and ice cover.

I can think of a number of reasons why measured Ocean Heat content may be increasing or seem to be increasing even when albedo due to clouds increases reducing the amount of heat to the surface.

With regard to his «other hypotheses, predict the opposite» he may be referring to increased albedo due to the expectation that increased global warming increases snowfall in the northern and southern latitudes; or the shutdown of the thermohaline circulation of the ocean.

Most of the GMT drop has been attributed to radiative forcing decreases from increased albedo due to equatorward ice extension and from decreased greenhouse gas concentrations; vegetation and atmospheric dust are thought to play secondary roles (20, 21).

Furthermore, since clouds only account for about 0.2 of that 0.3 albedo, it would take about a 5 % increase in the current albedo due to clouds in order to cancel.

When you compare this with the actual surface temperature of ~ 288 K and the temperature in absence of the greenhouse effect but no change in albedo of ~ 255 K, what we can say is the follows: The greenhouse effect due to all the greenhouse gases (water vapor, clouds, and the long - lived GHGs like CO2 and CH4) raises the temperature of the Earth by an amount of ~ 33 K (which is 288K — 255K); the albedo due to cloud reduces the temperature by ~ 17 K (which is 272 K — 255 K); the net effect of both the GHGs and the cloud albedo is ~ 16 K (which is 288K — 272K).

What Jimmy D also ignores is that ice mass loss can also be due to: a) reduced precipitation b) reduced albedo due to reduced cloudiness (goes together with reduced precipitation) c) reduced albedo due to soot and / or volcanic ash, both of which have been seen in the last five years d) other local phenomena

His answer to that problem is found in changes in seasonal albedo due to the increased seasonal insolation.

I predict that we we will soon see denialist arguments of the form «yeah sure global temperatures are again rising sharply, but that is due to decreased albedo due to decreased arctic sea ice, not because increased CO2 causes global warming».

Other factors potentially include added methane and perhaps reduced albedo due to land.

Neither you nor your reference proves any error in my explanation that Earth would be just as hot or hotter than the present if there were no water, water vapour, clouds, vegetation, carbon dioxide or other radiating gases in it atmosphere which would thus have no albedo due to lack of clouds, and which rocky surface would have emissivity less than 0.88.

Dr Curry, When considering changes in albedo due to melting, pools, etc, is there also consideration that the Sun is very low in the sky and much of the incoming Solar is reflected off water as glare?

Most of it temperature related which was driven by change in albedo due to Earth dynamics — some 25W / m2 less reflected shortwave.

In the NH a lot of land surrounding the arctic ocean is subject to the combination of decrease in seasonal snow cover (with climate warming), and decreasing albedo due to vegetation feedbacks.

That is clearly the Milankovitch cycles that initiate the process — and CO2 and water vapor (along with changes in albedo due to snow and vegetation) are both feedbacks.

[Response: UVic doesn't model changes in cloud albedo, but I'm quite sure it models changes in albedo due to sea ice and land ice.

Not exact matches

«We used actual satellite measurements of both albedo and sea ice in the region to verify this and to quantify how much extra heat the region has absorbed due to the ice loss.

However, there is an additional shortcoming due to the fact that the equilibrium temperature is also affected by the ratio of the Earth's geometrical cross-section to its surface area as well as how much is reflected, the planetary albedo (A).

The reduction of surface reflection due to biological activity, derived from our results, was used as a proxy for a reduction in albedo in the regional climate model Modèle Atmosphérique Régional (MAR; Fettweis et al., 2013) to project future microbially - mediated increases in GrIS melt (see Methodology, Supplementary Information).

Due to the positive feedback caused by the high albedo of snow and ice, susceptibility to falling into snowball states might be a generic feature of water - rich planets with the capacity to host life.

al find that the spread in 2xCO2 climate sensitivity among CMIP GCM's is largely due to differences in low cloud behavior, and that's primarily an albedo effect.

However, the Management and Guest Contributors at WUWT accept the basic truth that CO2, water vapor, and other «greenhouse gases» are responsible for an ~ 33ºC boost in mean Earth temperature, that CO2 levels are rising, partly due to our use of fossil fuels, that land use has changed Earth's albedo, and that this human actvity has caused additional warming.

This loss is exacerbated by the intensifying Climate Destabilization (reportedly reflecting the start of the «Albedo Loss» feedback due to the decline of Arctic sea - ice and ice caps) which is suppressing subsistence farm yields and some commercial farm yields on a random basis by the impacts of extreme droughts, storms, floods, and heat and cold waves.

If the melting were solely due to the albedo reduction coming from the 19th century precipitation reduction, it should have shown up much earlier.

This positive climate feedback is greater than expected from the additional forcing alone, due to amplification by reduced surface albedo through melting of continental snow and decreased sea - ice coverage, especially in the wintertime.

Referring to a 2004 paper examining the impact of soot on albedo, Goddard fabricates a conclusion by Hansen: «In 2004, Dr Hansen... explained that most of Arctic warming and melting is due to dirty snow from soot, not CO2.»

Also, we have to note that as to insolation, that the albedo difference due to ice melt will likely only be higher for one to two months per year.

This implies a forcing of 3 W / m2 for albedo changes presumably due to additional ice / snow sheets.

For instance, increasing cloud cover due to global warming may change the albedo, but this would be a feedback to a larger warming effect, rather than a cooling.

Hansen et al. (1993) calculated the ice age forcing due to surface albedo change to be 3.5 + / - Wm ^ -2.

, (3) changes in surface albedo of snow & ice due to changes in temperature and deposition of mineral and black carbon particulates, and last, but arguably most significantly (4) the intensity of the positive feedback that comes from the inevitable -LRB-?)

However, simulations using the relatively straightforward «direct effect» of aerosols (the increase in albedo of the planet due to the particle brightness) do not match the inferred changes.

In LGM simulations land albedo changes are prescribed (at least in regards to ice sheets and altered topography due to sea level; there are feedback land albedo changes) so are a forcing, whereas sea ice is determined interactively by the model climate, so is a feedback in this framework.

Claquin et al's model - derived findings show a change in tropical atmospheric forcing of «-- 2.2 to — 3.2 W m — 2» between PI and LGM earth, due to the increased albedo of atmospheric dust.

It's the same series of an initial forcing (change in insolation due to Milankovitch orbital cycles) being amplified by reinforcing feedbacks (change in albedo, change in temperature and partial pressure regulating both CO2 and H2O), but in reverse from an exit from a glacial period.

Simple physics dictates that with less sea ice there is magnified warming of the Arctic due to powerful albedo feedback; this in turn reduces the equator to pole temperature gradient which slows the jet stream winds causing them to become more meridional; this combined with 4 % more water vapor in the atmosphere (compared to 3 decades ago) is leading to much more extremes in weather.

The details of the physics of different forcings (i.e. ozone effects due to solar, snow albedo and cloud effects due to aerosols etc.) do vary the feedbacks slightly differently though.

Venus has a much higher albedo (reflectivity) than Earth because of its thick cloud cover (and would even have a high albedo without the clouds due to Rayleigh scattering from the dense CO2 atmosphere).

Gavin has already pointed out that ceteris probably ain't paribus, as there could be negative feedbacks due to clouds that diminish the positive albedo feedbacks.

Global climate models have successfully predicted the rise in temperature as greenhouse gases increased, the cooling of the stratosphere as the troposphere warmed, polar amplification due the ice - albedo effect and other effects, greater increase in nighttime than in daytime temperatures, and the magnitude and duration of the cooling from the eruption of Mount Pinatubo.

Isn't there an even bigger issue that approx half of the temperature amplitude between glacial and interglacial isn't actually due to CO2 or other GHG, but to albedo changes (ice albedo feedback)?

What would then be left would be primarily the positive feedbacks due to the carbon cycle, the cryosphere «albedo» feedback, and the effects of aerosols, but the last of these is quickly becoming amenable to calculation.

Suppose that there has been a multi-century increase in the poleward heat transport in the oceans due to internal variability, which warms the poles, reduces ice extent and albedos, and thereby warms the planet.

[Response: What if we postulate a feedback between ozone depletion, which causes people to get better sun tans, warming the climate due to decreasing planetary albedo?

Re 9 wili — I know of a paper suggesting, as I recall, that enhanced «backradiation» (downward radiation reaching the surface emitted by the air / clouds) contributed more to Arctic amplification specifically in the cold part of the year (just to be clear, backradiation should generally increase with any warming (aside from greenhouse feedbacks) and more so with a warming due to an increase in the greenhouse effect (including feedbacks like water vapor and, if positive, clouds, though regional changes in water vapor and clouds can go against the global trend); otherwise it was always my understanding that the albedo feedback was key (while sea ice decreases so far have been more a summer phenomenon (when it would be warmer to begin with), the heat capacity of the sea prevents much temperature response, but there is a greater build up of heat from the albedo feedback, and this is released in the cold part of the year when ice forms later or would have formed or would have been thicker; the seasonal effect of reduced winter snow cover decreasing at those latitudes which still recieve sunlight in the winter would not be so delayed).