Sentences with phrase «albedo loss»

So should we readers of Rabbet Run take it that you are content that the Inter-Governmental Panel should continue to exclude proper account of the observed acceleration and prognoses for even such feedbacks as albedo loss and permafrost melt?

By large, I mean really really really large, enough to account for the albedo loss from diminished Arctic ice.

The example you postulate of ozone depletion, raised human tanning and resulting Albedo Loss is both practical and amusing, but so far below measurability as to be negligible, as you rightly remark.

As oceam albedo is only.06, and arctic land albedo is low as well, the result approximates a 1 % global albedo loss.

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..

The first six were all already accelerating by the mid -»80s, with some now very well established — albedo loss was reported last year to be already imposing a warming equivalent to 30 % of anthro CO2 outputs.

Given that we must be near or past that point, with current albedo loss plus at least five other mega-feedbacks now accelerating, the nuanced definition of «tipping point» being that at which we are committed to the feedbacks swamping the sinks in the future, now appears redundant.

Beside the CO2, CH4 & N2O outputs from rotting wood, wildfires release these and black carbon, with the latter adding to Albedo Loss by darkening snow and ice and accelerating their melting.

It is arguably one of the most advanced of the seven in its impacts, with a 2011 GRL report putting its warming effect as equivalent to around 30 % of atmospheric anthro - CO2, and the recent report putting albedo loss from arctic sea - ice decline since»79 as providing a forcing equivalent on average to that from 25 % of the anthro - CO2 levels during the period.

With the Albedo Loss feedback being reported in 2011 as providing a forcing equivalent to about 30 % of anthro CO2, that is already equivalent to about 35ppm of CO2, I'd suggest that some at least are already kicking in quite severely.

Water vapour is not only a highly potent GHG but it increase has also recently been shown to have a serious potential for reducing cloud formation in the tropics and thus advancing Albedo Loss.

In terms of mitigation strategy, this appears to indicate that even an overnight termination of global anthro - CO2 outputs would already be offset by Albedo loss by around 30 %.

For example, the absence from AR5 of last January's Ramanathan paper indicating a large and very significant Albedo Loss feedback forcing can not be rectified until about 2019 under the current system of periodic IPCC reports advising the UNFCCC as to the climate predicament.

With regard to Dr Tobis» observation that: «there's a something on the order of a 10 % chance that we may have already passed the 2 C mark by any reasonable definition» the evidence of a study of Albedo Loss published last January appears to put the issue beyond doubt: «Observational determination of albedo decrease caused by vanishing Arctic sea ice» (Kristina Pistone, Ian Eisenman, and V. Ramanathan)

However, the individual rates of acceleration to date are in some cases fairly well documented (e.g. Albedo Loss and Fertilized Peatbog Decay) while forward projections have been published for the latter and for Permafrost Melt, but acting only in response to elevated CO2 and to AGW.

A typo in mine at # 25 is where 40,000 m3 should read 400,000 m3, and an addendum is the reference for the forcing from the Albedo Loss feedback shown in the satellite record: «Observational determination of albedo decrease caused by vanishing Arctic sea ice» See: http://eisenman.ucsd.edu/publications/Pistone-Eisenman-Ramanathan-2014.pdf

Or in other words, what's the proportion of albedo loss relative to CO2 forcing?

I have a question: is there a point at which albedo loss equals CO2 forcing?

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.

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.

New «benchmark» for loss of reflectivity Another wild card is the loss of the albedo of the ice, or its surface reflectivity.

Loss of albedo in the Arctic could heat the water sufficiently to release methane stored in ice crystals called clathrates.

This appears to show the extra snow has done little or nothing to compensate for the loss sea ice as far effective albedo is concerned.

Here's an interesting thought for the ice experts, maybe Andy could pick this up, since he's done a very decent job of following up on my question: I've read suggestions that increased sea emissivity from the Arctic waters would gain relative to the loss of albedo from increasingly ice - free seas.

I am under the impression that it is driven by CO2 mediated ice - loss that generates albedo changes resulting in positive feedbacks that increase further melting.

My reasoning was that, iirc, black carbon has played an important role in the ice loss by changing albedo.

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).

«Arctic Amplification» form CO2 was not primarily from the (theorectical) loss - of - ice / increase in albedo meme so often used, but ratehr it began from the relative amounts of GHG's in the warmer, more water - vapor laden equatorial climates to the very dry Arctic regions.

Add a dramatic increase of CO2 and methane emissions to the albedo declines of sped up Arctic ice and snow cover losses and you may still witness a runaway situation.

Is climate science making this kind of error, and not knowing they are making this kind of error of simply using too many approximations of real world variables (albedos, transmission losses, cloud reflections, and everything else) that are NOT simple one - point constants?

Further, loss of large areas of ice coverage reduce albedo (reflectivity).

The sum of the two effects (albedo and heat loss) I believe is greater than the GHG forcing influence mostly due to CO2, but is going to have a similar trend.

The decrease in albedo that accompanies the loss of sea ice is the phenom that underlies «arctic amplification» (as you point out, it has nothing directly to do with sea level rise).

Now the Albedo (backradiation into space, energy losses) has to be subtracted with 30 % and the IPCC gives the figure of 242 W / sqm on the Earth» surface received and worked into the climate system after subtraction of the albedAlbedo (backradiation into space, energy losses) has to be subtracted with 30 % and the IPCC gives the figure of 242 W / sqm on the Earth» surface received and worked into the climate system after subtraction of the albedoalbedo.....

The high reflectivity of this new planetary layer, the Lucrosphere, will radically incease our planet's albedo, and so compensate for the loss of reflective Arctic sea ice that threatens to accelerate global warming.

The much - reduced extent of the oldest and thickest ice, in combination with other factors such as ice transport that assist the ice - albedo feedback by exposing more open water, help explain this large and abrupt ice loss.

Most of the greening was driven by the loss of reflectivity, or albedo, from snow cover.

Broad - scale changes in vegetation in general, and tree loss in particular, have pronounced effects on climate processes through biogeophysical mechanisms such as albedo, evapotranspiration (ET), and carbon dioxide exchange with the atmosphere [11].

Analysis of summer conditions to date reveal that the melt began earlier than usual over the western and central Arctic Ocean, helping to set the stage for strong ice losses in this region during summer through the ice - albedo feedback mechanism.

Although increased vegetation would sequester additional carbon, this would be more - than - offset by the loss of the albedo effect, whereby sunlight bounces off white (snow and ice covered) parts of the Earth.

The main albedo change in the last 60 years is probably ice / snow loss, which is another positive feedback to the change and not independent.

Likewise, the effects on average global temperature and climate of rapidly diminishing albedo evidenced by loss of Arctic sea ice and retreating glaciers, is not accurately known.

Melt ponds are critical for sea ice albedo and therefore modeling the loss of sea ice with global warming in global climate models.

In this article I present prima facie evidence that the ongoing natural increase in spring insolation occurring at high northern latitudes, coupled with the positive feedback effect of the resultant snow and ice loss reducing the region's mean albedo over summer, comprises just such a causative agency.

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.

This study concluded that although there was a decrease in sea ice in recent years there was an increase in cloudiness that more than made up for the loss of albedo from the sea ice.

With the albedo - flip kicking in, the energy poured into killing off millennia - old MY ice will then go into the warming of the Arctic Ocean itself, with the result of longer and longer melt seasons each year & a corresponding ramp - up of ice loss from both the Greenland Ice Sheet and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.

An aside: one of the reasons that clouds modulate temperature so effectively is not just the albedo increase which bounces downwelling short wave radiation back into space, but because they radiate IR back to the surface thus reducing the net rate of thermal radiative loss.»

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