Sentences with phrase «albedo feedback effect»

The Arctic is warming up three times more quickly than the rest of the Earth, in part because of the reflectivity, or the albedo feedback effect, of ice.

For precisely the same core reason (apsidal precession) the opposite occurs in the southern hemisphere: less insolation at far southern latitudes, sea ice melting delayed, albedo increasing, less energy absorbed: growing sea ice: the ice albedo feedback effect acting negatively.

As I have pointed out in the «essay», what has happened (in an accelerating manner since 1246 CE) is that the insolation reaching far northern latitudes has increased during the first half of each year, and this should be anticipated to cause earlier and more - extensive spring melting of snow and ice, and therefore a progressively - earlier albedo reduction, and therefore more sunlight subsequently being absorbed across spring and summer: the ice albedo feedback effect acting positively (causing warming).

I explained in my essay in some detail, and several times, the ice albedo feedback effect, and gave an illustrative calculation.

If we lose them rapidly then there would be a small rapid sea - level rise, major rapid local effects to do with huge quantities of meltwater, and an albedo feedback effect.

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

Furthermore, decline in snow cover and sea ice will tend to amplify regional warming through snow and ice - albedo feedback effects (see Glossary and Chapter 9).

Not exact matches

This positive feedback phenomenon, called the runaway albedo effect, would eventually lead to a single dominating ice cap, like the one observed on Pluto.

Another positive feedback of global warming is the albedo effect: less white summer ice means more dark open water, which absorbs more heat from the sun.

I guess I am surprised that with better understanding of the importance of water vapor feedback, sulfate aerosols, black carbon aerosols, more rapid than expected declines in sea ice and attendant decreases in albedo, effects of the deposition of soot and dust on snow and ice decreasing albedo, and a recognition of the importance of GHGs that were probably not considered 30 years ago, that the sensitivity has changed so little over time.

Anyone who accepts that sunlight falling on ice free waters which has less reflectivity than sunlight falling on a large ice mass covering those waters and also accepts that this reduction in albedo has a positive feedback effect, leading to further warming, can't help but opt for A or B, it seems to me.

There are many other feedbacks, most notably the the ice - albedo effect of Arctic sea ice, which have already passed their tipping points.

For starters, one simply can not equate the positive feedback effect of melting ice (both reduced albedo and increased water vapor) from that of leaving maximum ice to that of minimum ice where the climate is now (and is during every interglacial period).

There was more ice around in the LGM and that changes the weighting of ice - albedo feedback, but also the operation of the cloud feedback since clouds over ice have different effects than clouds over water.

There are many other feedbacks, most notably the the ice - albedo effect of Arctic sea ice, which have already passed their tipping points.

You are welcome to try something similar with global radiative forcing fluctuation, but if you do it will be rather tricky to isolate the cloud effect, since you have the snow and ice albedo effect to deal with then, which are largely temperature - related feedbacks.

I guess I am surprised that with better understanding of the importance of water vapor feedback, sulfate aerosols, black carbon aerosols, more rapid than expected declines in sea ice and attendant decreases in albedo, effects of the deposition of soot and dust on snow and ice decreasing albedo, and a recognition of the importance of GHGs that were probably not considered 30 years ago, that the sensitivity has changed so little over time.

«By comparing the response of clouds and water vapor to ENSO forcing in nature with that in AMIP simulations by some leading climate models, an earlier evaluation of tropical cloud and water vapor feedbacks has revealed two common biases in the models: (1) an underestimate of the strength of the negative cloud albedo feedback and (2) an overestimate of the positive feedback from the greenhouse effect of water vapor.

Note also that going back to the ice ages, the glacial - interglacial temperature swing can not be explained without full water vapour feedback on top of both the ice sheet albedo and CO2 effects.

The resulting increased / decreased ice is amplified by «various feedbacks, including ice - albedo, dust, vegetation and, of course, the carbon cycle which amplify the direct effects of the orbital changes.»

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.

But it also means that more ice is going to melt, and with the albedo effect that is a negative feedback feeding into a positive feedback.

As I read the abstract, it is saying that all existing climate models underestimate an important feedback, the sea - ice albedo effect.

For instance, the effect of soot making snow and sea ice darker has a higher efficacy than an equivalent change in CO2 with the same forcing, mainly because there is a more important ice - albedo feedback in the soot case.

The effect of last summer's wind anomaly and ice - albedo feedback may be found in a number of publications, including ours: Zhang, J., R.W. Lindsay, M. Steele, and A. Schweiger, What drove the dramatic retreat of Arctic sea ice during summer 2007?

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.

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.

(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)

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).

The exposed open water caused by the wind divergence may absorb some additional sunlight and melt more ice than usual over the next few weeks (temperature - albedo feedback)[related NASA animation], but given that the sun is well on its way to setting for the winter, I think this effect will be fairly minimal.

This is what I get out of it: the Arctic - ice - albedo situation is more complicated than earlier thought (due to clouds, sun - filled summers, dark winters, etc), but NET EFFECT, the ice loss and all these other related factors (some negative feedbacks) act as a positive feedback and enhance global warming.

Subject of some specific concern about global warming because of large temperature rises predicted for the arctic, and because of some arctic - specific feedback effects (e.g. the albedo feedback following loss of arctic sea ice).

All of these have albedo effects and all are «slow» feedbacks which are considerably more sensitive than we expected — given a variety of feedbacks which we hadn't even been aware of before.

The net effect is a much stronger albedo feedback in the NH than in the SH, enhance because the large land mass in the NH results in larger temperature fluctuations in any event.

Is it the long - awaited, predicted and scientifically reasonable CO2 fertilization feedback effect on the oceans» vast biomass of CO2 - consuming cyanobacteria, albeit also driven by the (literally) «shit - loads» of nitrogen compounds the human race is also pumping into the oceans — thereby shifting sea surface albedos, reducing evaporation rates and troposphere relative humidities (ringing any bells here, bros)?

The Arctic has been warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world for decades because of feedback loops that have reduced the albedo effect, a measure of the way Earth reflects heat.

Cloud variations are obviously an important element on a global scale, but the effects of Arctic ice melting are important locally and also a non-trivial fraction of global albedo feedbacks, which are a contributor to total feedback that is smaller than those from water vapor and probably from cloud feedbacks, but not insignificant.

Which was cause, which effect — or was there a feedback loop with warm dry conditions causing drought and erosion leading to dust storms, leading to albedo feedback to further add to the warming?

A substantial reduction in water vapor (shown below, from Lacis et al (2010) as well as increase in the surface albedo are important feedbacks here, showing that removing the non-condensing greenhouse gases (mostly CO2) in the atmosphere can collapse nearly the entire terrestrial greenhouse effect.

Its warming effect, however, is simultaneously amplified and dampened by positive and negative feedbacks such as increased water vapor (the most powerful greenhouse gas), reduced albedo, which is a measure of Earth's reflectivity, changes in cloud characteristics, and CO2 exchanges with the ocean and terrestrial ecosystems.

He assumes a feedback of 1.6 for water vapor, 1.3 for clouds, and 1.1 for ice / albedo effects.

If not either the CO2 / temp relationship is wrong [I do not think so] or the effect of the CO2 rise is being variably effected by negative feedbacks such as increased cloud formation and albedo thus offsetting the CO2 related temperature rise.

Shields A, Meadows VS, Bitz C, Pierrehumbert RT -LCB- \ it et al -RCB- 2013: The Effect of Host Star Spectral Energy Distribution and Ice - Albedo Feedback on the Climate of Extrasolar Planets.

However, I am not a «warmista» by any means — we do not know how to properly quantify the albedo of aerosols, including clouds, with their consequent negative feedback effects in any of the climate sensitivity models as yet — and all models in the ensemble used by the «warmistas» are indicating the sensitivities (to atmospheric CO2 increase) are too high, by factors ranging from 2 to 4: which could indicate that climate sensitivity to a doubling of current CO2 concentrations will be of the order of 1 degree C or less outside the equatorial regions (none or very little in the equatorial regions)- i.e. an outcome which will likely be beneficial to all of us.

The forcing is really a net albedo forcing from the varying ice extent, and the albedo has a positive feedback effect both on itself and with CO2 / H2O as the earth cools into an Ice Age.

To date, while various effects and feedbacks constrain the certainty placed on recent and projected climate change (EG, albedo change, the response of water vapour, various future emissions scenarios etc), it is virtually certain that CO2 increases from human industry have reversed and will continue to reverse the downward trend in global temperatures that should be expected in the current phase of the Milankovitch cycle.

In the Arctic, one familiar feedback effect is sea ice albedo, which measures how well the Earth's surface reflects sunlight.

They also warn that feedback patterns are starting to emerge in the shape of the ice albedo effect: ice reflects heat away from the surface, so as it decreases in extent so warming quickens.

The net effect is a greater (reflecting) albedo, less sunlight reaching the surface, and therefore a negative feedback that reduces the original warming from increasing CO2.

My «Pope's Climate Theory» says that when you melt Arctic Sea Ice, you get Arctic Ocean Effect Snow which increases Albedo and provides negative feedback to the temperature of the earth.