Sentences with phrase «do albedo changes»

Not exact matches

They found that in regions where the amount of snowfall was low and any snow that did settle was sublimating away, enough dust would have accumulated to change the surface albedo sufficiently so that the Earth absorbed sunlight and thawed (Journal of Geophysical Research — Atmospheres, DOI: 10.1029 / 2009jd012007, in press).

If this change in global albedo is what is causing global warming, how did the process get started?

[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.

You've hit on one of the weaknesses of the paper, as the model they use admittedly doesn't model changes in albedo (at least, not as a model output).

Does the model accurately reproduce some basic phenomena that happens in the real world when you change the GHG, or the aerosols, solar radiation, or ice albedo?

On the possibility of a changing cloud cover «forcing» global warming in recent times (assuming we can just ignore the CO2 physics and current literature on feedbacks, since I don't see a contradiction between an internal radiative forcing and positive feedbacks), one would have to explain a few things, like why the diurnal temperature gradient would decrease with a planet being warmed by decreased albedo... why the stratosphere should cool... why winters should warm faster than summers... essentially the same questions that come with the cosmic ray hypothesis.

In our own modelling, we have improved the calculations to reduce the amount of numerical diffusion (which helped a lot), and increased resolution (which also helped), but changes to the ocean model also have a big impact, as do Arctic cloud processes and surface albedo parameterisations, so it gets complicated fast.

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.

It doesn't have to be CO2 — in this case it's seasonal insolation changes which cause an expansion of ice cover which cause a change in the planet's overall albedo.

If insolation and albedo don't change, the radiating temperature won't, but clearly both the surface temperature and atmospheric temperature will rise.

Increasing CO2 does increase the greenhouse effect, but there are other factors which determine climate, including solar irradiance, volcanism, albedo, orbital variations, continental drift, mountain building, variations in sea currents, changes in greenhouse gases, even cometary impacts.

Snow doesn't «cool» Earth, decrease in insolation and changes to albedo does.

On the other hand, the Arctic sea ice albedo reduction does contribute significantly to polar amplification of globally averaged temperature changes.

Charney was indulging in speculation, for computer models of the time were too crude to show what a regional change of albedo would actually do to the winds.

Finally, at any given moment the ice tends to hang out where the sun can't reach... and ice increases in those areas don't change the albedo.

As a result, the changes in ice area don't make that much of a change in overall all albedo.

What difference between energy absorption and radiation do we need to induce in order to make the air temperature increase by 1 degree C, assuming no change in albedo?

By so doing, we are ignoring other low frequency forcings (such as long wavelength changes in TSI and albedo) which would have to be included to make any sense of the data.

Why did Trenberth change the albedo from 107Watts / m ^ 2 in 1997 to 101.9 Watts / m ^ 2 for the 2009 version?

This paper analyzes the 420,00 o year Antarctic Vostok ice core data comparing the CO2, CH4, sea level, and surface albedo changes do derive his empirical 3 °C per 4 W / m2 climate sensitivity from the ice core data.

To do this, I took cloud radiative - forcing anomalies (ΔCRF) and adjusted those to account for the impact of changing temperature, water vapor, surface albedo, and radiative forcing, ultimately yielding ΔRcloud.

Doesn't this mean that CO2 is changing the albedo a tiny bit?

Team Purple could check for UHI, albedo change, pollution etc theories to see if those, combined with the greenhouse effect, can produce predictions which actually match reality, something Red's efforts conspicuously fail to do.

Also interesting that they don't understand that water vapour feedback, no matter what it's magnitude, applies equally to anything that causes a change in radiative forcing for the planet — more GH gases, Albedo change, any GCR induced changes in clouds.

As the slightest of albedo changes can have quite a temperature impact, how do all these agricultural changes — either under unabated climate change or in a stratospheric SRM world — in turn affect the atmosphere?

We don't know the forcing because we don't know what the albedo changes were.

Pielke seniors thing is that land use changes leadto albedo changes which lead to more heat absorbed, so actually the warming isn't much to do with CO2 and so there isn't much of a problem.

Poitou & Bréon do not explain why the ice pack volume would be relevant for the albedo; according to Haas (2005)[47] the changes of the thickness of the sea ice are small since they are correctly measured by an airborne radio apparatus, only over the Arctic.

And then you have to accept that the climate models do a very poor job of predicting CO2 - AGW because the equation introduced by Lacis and Hansen in 1974 to predict cloud albedo change from pollution is useless even though Sagan derived it.

Jim, the bottom line for me is that for the earth to be in radiative thermal equiibrium with the sun, it has not been demonstrated that any change in chemical composition of the earth or atmosphere is able to affect the equilibrium temperature, providing this does not change albedo.

The solar radiation does not change at all, the albedo does not change.

How much did the Albedo of the Earth change due to that much land being replaced by ice cover — as a forcing in W / M ^ 2.

But all those glaciers, sea ice and desert / grasslands and a -6 W / m2 increase in low cloud cover (IPCC feedback estimates) do not result in Zero Albedo change.

And we don't have to go back all that far to get changes in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and quite unknowable albedo effects.

Seasonal changes in SWR from clear skies have little to do with the surface albedo feedback that will follow global warming (aka ice - albedo feedback).

At this point, it sounds like you're saying that no, mankind can not alter the albedo of the Earth through aerosols or soot or changes in land use, and no, greenhouse gases don't exist.

I did suggest some time ago to Dr Bob Tisdale across at WUWT that perhaps a difference in the rate of energy loss during both the warming and cooling phases of ENSO and PDO cycles, because of a change in the atmospheric albedo, could provide a physical explanation for the correlation they were describing, but the hypothesis was not favoured.

So a long term trend in horizontal heat transport can't change weather patterns or weather patterns don't affect albedo or albedo doesn't affect the energy budget?

Changes in a region's albedo - for example, snow cover melting earlier in the season than it did previously - Could result in climate change.

Changes in a regions albedo - for example, snow cover melts earlier in the season than it did previously - climate changes could Changes in a regions albedo - for example, snow cover melts earlier in the season than it did previously - climate changes could changes could follow.

Just because you can not measure it, or do not have the time to consider all of the changes in the sun and how it affects the planet's albedo, does not mean it is not there.

How do clouds change their annual average global albedo spontaneously when their individual lifetime is minutes to hours?

If you have six feet of snow or three inches of snow the albedo doesn't change.

Internal variability doesn't imply an absence of radiative forcing but includes albedo changes from clouds, dust, snow and ice, vegetation and volcanoes.

The black line, reconstructed from ISCCP satellite data, «is a purely statistical parameter that has little physical meaning as it does not account for the non-linear relations between cloud and surface properties and planetary albedo and does not include aerosol related albedo changes such as associated with Mt. Pinatubo, or human emissions of sulfates for instance» (Real Climate).

Jeffrey, you don't get it: the huge feedback to the tiny Milankovich change in forcing is largely the result of ice / vegetation albedo changes.

You won't do it of course because I suspect you know just as well I that merely changing 70 % of the planet's surface albedo from the less than 1 % of the ocean to the 15 % of dirt and rocks will reflect enough additional shortwave energy away from the planet that the bloody thing will be covered in snow faster than you can say Al Gore's Momma Wears Combat Boots.

And I think you hit the nail on the head with: «5) Once we scientifically - oriented Skeptics accept the reality of the Atmospheric «greenhouse effect» we are, IMHO, better positioned to question the much larger issues which are: a) HOW MUCH does CO2 contribute to that effect, b) HOW MUCH does human burning of fossil fuels and land use changes that reduce albedo affect warming, and, perhaps most important, c) Does the resultant enhanced CO2 level and higher mean temperature actually have a net benefit for humankind?&radoes CO2 contribute to that effect, b) HOW MUCH does human burning of fossil fuels and land use changes that reduce albedo affect warming, and, perhaps most important, c) Does the resultant enhanced CO2 level and higher mean temperature actually have a net benefit for humankind?&radoes human burning of fossil fuels and land use changes that reduce albedo affect warming, and, perhaps most important, c) Does the resultant enhanced CO2 level and higher mean temperature actually have a net benefit for humankind?&raDoes the resultant enhanced CO2 level and higher mean temperature actually have a net benefit for humankind?»

So how can we possibly start talking about anthropogenic forcings and surface temperature changes wrought by same when we don't even know to + -5 C what the average temperature of the earth should be due to our albedo measurements being so imprecise and having no bloody idea how, when, and why the earth's average albedo varies.

It should be easy enough for you to do... You won't do it of course because I suspect you know just as well I that merely changing 70 % of the planet's surface albedo from the less than 1 % of the ocean to the 15 % of dirt and rocks will reflect enough additional shortwave energy away from the planet that the bloody thing will be covered in snow faster than you can say Al Gore's Momma Wears Combat Boots.