Sentences with phrase «albedo feedbacks etc.»

Then, one can presumably decompose this «total forcing» into its components which might include WV feedbacks, cloud feedbacks, surface albedo feedbacks etc..

A number of criticisms may arise from this inference, such as the realism of the LGM CMIP simulations, uncertainty in the temperatures inferred from proxies, and the use of paleoclimates as a surrogate for global warming (differences in temperature patterns, albedo feedback etc.).

Not exact matches

This chemical weathering process is too slow to damp out shorter - term fluctuations, and there are some complexities — glaciation can enhance the mechanical erosion that provides surface area for chemical weathering (some of which may be realized after a time delay — ie when the subsequent warming occurs — dramatically snow in a Snowball Earth scenario, where the frigid conditions essentially shut down all chemical weathering, allowing CO2 to build up to the point where it thaws the equatorial region, at which point runaway albedo feedback drives the Earth into a carbonic acid sauna, which ends via rapid carbonate rock formation), while lower sea level may increase the oxidation of organic C in sediments but also provide more land surface for erosion... etc..

What is more we know with certainty that there are significant positive feedbacks — water vapor, decreased albedo, etc..

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.

(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)

David has higlighted the fact that there are other, larger sources of methane, and of course we know that there are other albedo and carbon cycle feedbacks etc..

One could write a book that surveys the scientific assessments of the causes of global warming, including feedbacks (albedo flip, etc.), that totally ignores public policy.

It is not that the polar regions are amplifying the warming «going on» at lower latitudes, it is that any warming going on AT THE POLES is amplified through inherent positive feedback processes AT THE POLES, and specifically this is primarily the ice - albedo positive feedback process whereby more open water leads to more warming leads to more open water, etc. *** «Climate model simulations have shown that ice albedo feedbacks associated with variations in snow and sea - ice coverage are a key factor in positive feedback mechanisms which amplify climate change at high northern latitudes...»

It is not that the polar regions are amplifying the warming «going on» at lower latitudes, it is that any warming going on AT THE POLES is amplified through inherent positive feedback processes AT THE POLES, and specifically this is primarily the ice - albedo positive feedback process whereby more open water leads to more warming leads to more open water, etc..

AGW climate scientists seem to ignore that while the earth's surface may be warming, our atmosphere above 10,000 ft. above MSL is a refrigerator that can take water vapor scavenged from the vast oceans on earth (which are also a formidable heat sink), lift it to cold zones in the atmosphere by convective physical processes, chill it (removing vast amounts of heat from the atmosphere) or freeze it, (removing even more vast amounts of heat from the atmosphere) drop it on land and oceans as rain, sleet or snow, moisturizing and cooling the soil, cooling the oceans and building polar ice caps and even more importantly, increasing the albedo of the earth, with a critical negative feedback determining how much of the sun's energy is reflected back into space, changing the moment of inertia of the earth by removing water mass from equatorial latitudes and transporting this water vapor mass to the poles, reducing the earth's spin axis moment of inertia and speeding up its spin rate, etc..

A CO2 pulse in the atmosphere will take centuries to finally return to original levels, and that is completely ignoring any potential feedbacks from other parts of the system (ie temperatures raised for centuries could result in massve methane releases and loss of signficant low albedo ice sheets etc.) The experiments I am aware of that show improved plant growth in elevated CO2 levels require that all additional biological needs are amply provided for.

There is nothing in the climate models that says that the positive feedbacks such as the water vapor feedback and the ice albedo feedback, etc. operate only for CO2 warming and not on natural warming.

One can't arbitrarily choose feedbacks for water vapor, ice / albedo, clouds, etc., without looking to see how these phenomena are actually behaving — e.g., what are the radiative properties of water vapor, how is relative humidity changing, what is happening to low cloud cover, high cloud cover, and the high / low cloud ratios, etc.?.

In order of seniority, the seven feedbacks that seem outstanding are: Water vapour — rising by ~ 7 % per 1.0 C of warming; Albedo loss — due mostly to cryosphere decline; Microbial peat - bog decay — due to rising CO2 affecting ecological dynamics; Desiccation of tropical and temperate soils — due to SAT rise and droughts; Permafrost melt — due to SAT rise plus loss of snow cover, etc; Forest combustion — due to SAT rise, droughts, pest responses, etc; Methyl clathrates [aka methane hydrates] now threatened by rising sea - temperatures, increased water column mixing, etc..

Polar albedo changes, hurricanes, ocean dynamics, forest feedbacks, soil chemistry, boundary layer physics, global solar energy fluxes, cloud feedbacks, etc..

Back to Jim: when I first arrived here I believed in AGW based on the papers and books you guys in climate science cite and publish yourselves: more IFR trapping, changing albedo, positive feedbacks, increased W2 forcing, etc..