Sentences with phrase «effect on cloud cover»

And even if you can demonstrate an effect on cloud cover, clouds have both a cooling and a warming effect, what will the balance be and how much will that net forcing be?

Soot particles in the atmosphere absorb radiation, but studies suggest their effect on cloud cover and thickness may promote an overall net cooling.

Have you ever considered the implications of solar wind and / or the lack of it having an effect on cloud cover?

The reduction in nighttime cooling that leads to this bias may indeed be the result of human interference in the climate system (i.e., local effects of increasing greenhouse gases or human effects on cloud cover), but through a causal mechanism different than that typically assumed.

When aerosol indirect effects on cloud cover were included, tropospheric (anthropogenic) aerosol efficacy reduced from 1.14 to 0.99.

Not exact matches

At any given time, clouds cover about 70 percent of the Earth's surface and together produce a net cooling effect on the planet.

For a subset of 14 relatively clear (cloudy) stations, the mean temperature drop was 0.91 ± 0.78 (0.31 ± 0.40) degrees C, but the mean temperature drops for relatively calm and windy stations were almost identical, indicating that cloud cover has a much greater effect than wind on the air temperature's response to an eclipse.

They change storm tracks, cloud cover and other weather patterns, and they have devastating effects on fisheries and other industries.

Located between the orbits of Mercury and Earth, Venus has a very thick atmosphere that is covered by a layer of clouds that produces a «greenhouse effect» on the planet.

A typical June Gloom morning consists of marine stratus clouds covering the coast of southern California, [4] extending a varying distance inland depending on the strength of the June Gloom effect that day.

While on the subject: Could I ask your take on Erlykin et al. 2011, in particular their finding that any effect of cosmic radiation is limited to 1 % of cloud cover, and their estimate that any temperature increase due to such a mechanism over the past 50 years of barely changing CR is limited to 0.002 °C?

For cause and effect: You never know, but I don't think that cloud cover regulates the sun cycle... Globally, the variation of cloud cover during a sun cycle is around 2 %, which can have a substantial influence on global temperatures.

He conveniently ignores that decreased cloud cover could be a result of the warming, executing a cause / effect bait - and - switch on us.

I have read more than one paper on the topic, and my assessment is that cloud cover and other water vapor effects are widely recognized as among the biggest unknowns going forward.

[Response: These feedbacks are indeed modelled because they depend not on the trace greenhouse gas amounts, but on the variation of seasonal incoming solar radiation and effects like snow cover, water vapour amounts, clouds and the diurnal cycle.

Unknown is what the overall effect of greenhouse gases / temperature was / is / will be on cloud cover.

During a sun cycle, the global cloud cover changes with + / - 2 %, good for a change of several W / m2 (depending on type of clouds and region), far higher than the effect of insolation change as result of the sun's energy variation.

Ever been out on a cold clear night with the stars clearly visible, and then low cloud cover comes in, and you experience a warming effect?

These forcings are spatially heterogeneous and include the effect of aerosols on clouds and associated precipitation [e.g., Rosenfeld et al., 2008], the influence of aerosol deposition (e.g., black carbon (soot)[Flanner et al. 2007] and reactive nitrogen [Galloway et al., 2004]-RRB-, and the role of changes in land use / land cover [e.g., Takata et al., 2009].

Finally I attempt a suggestion that perhaps one solution to the problem that the solar impact on climate is underestimated by models might be because EBM and GCM, like GISS, do not contain CO2 and CH4 cycle mechanisms that might be partially effected by the Sun, and other mechanisms are missing or uncertain (water vapor, cloud cover, vegetation, bacteria respiration, UV radiation, cosmic ray effects etc.).

LOL — Your claims global brightening from reduced cloud cover is a climate forcing without considering the effect of such cloud cover changes on outgoing IR.

This «climate sensitivity» not only depends on the direct effect of the GHGs themselves, but also on natural «climate feedback» mechanisms, particularly those due to clouds, water vapour, and snow cover.

However, even a smaller figure (I had calculated about 0.17 W / m ^ 2 based on your inflated figure for total planetary albedo, but you can check it out) is still significant when compared with the total flux imbalance, which I think is a more informative comparison than an arbitrarily selected change in cloud cover, because it compares the sea ice reduction with the effects of all climate variations that have been operating in recent years..

I propose a simple dependence of cloud cover and water vapor greenhouse effect on incident solar radiance which can maintains temperatures to 0.5 degrees over the last 4 billion years.

Radiative effects of surface - observed cloud cover anomalies, called «cloud cover radiative forcing (CCRF) anomalies,» are estimated based on a linear relationship to climatological cloud radiative forcing per unit cloud cover.

Every model assumes that tropical - region cirrus cloud cover, which has a net warming effect on surface temperatures, increases with increasing surface temperature — a positive feedback.

Given the small intrinsic effect of CO2, it would only take a very small change in daily cloud cover to completely cancel the CO2 absorption, on the order of 2 %.

I've read most (but not all) comments and found nothing about the Svensmark effect (cosmic ray influence on cloud cover).

In this paper geographer Alexander von Danckelman describes the effect of biomass burning in the Congo region on visibility, haze, cloud cover, and precipitation.

The cooling effect of clouds during the daytime depends very much on solar inclination as well as cloud optical thickness and cover.

It's a survey — they look at the relationship between cloud cover and GCR on multiple levels as described in the recent literature, including during forbrush decreases, «positive cosmic ray excursions», over the 11 - year solar cycle, in the troposphere, the stratosphere, regional effects, etc..

As the CO2 and CH4 (methane) level goes up, H2O vapour in the atmosphere falls which — because H2O is 30 times more important than CO2 as a «greenhouse gas» offsets the effect of CO2 on temperature, while cloud cover and albedo increases because warmed moist air rises to form clouds, further cooling the world.

Climate models focus on the effect of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide and water vapor, to the neglect of cloud cover.

(Note, however, that to the extent that positive cloud feedbacks on GHG - mediated forcing mediate a reduction in cloud cover, the amplification will substitute some SW effects for LW effects due to the reduced cloud greenhouse warming and increased warming from a lower albedo).

In my experience, cloud cover has a much greater effect on UHI than wind.

«Nature is too complex, they (the authors) say, and depends on too many processes that are poorly understood or little monitored — whether the process is the feedback effects of cloud cover on global warming or the movement of grains of sand on a beach,» the Times article explained.

A larger set of arrays in Mobile is tracking the effect of heat and humidity on solar production, and power pole - mounted panels in various locations are feeding energy to the grid in an experiment to gauge the effects of frequent changes in cloud cover.

We hear about «run - away» greenhouse effect on Venus, without any explanation of how this is possible with 100 % cloud cover if albedo and aerosols works as we think they do.

Chemically, there will be an increase in ozone depletion (due to increases in heterogenous surface chemistry in the stratosphere), increases in acid rain, possibly an increase in high cirrus cloud cover due to indirect effects of the sulphates on cloud lifetime.

From solar influence weighting to % of white ground cover to when are clouds on the dayside VS lack of clouds on the nightside, we have miles to go before gaining a good understanding of cause and effect with climatology.

Apparently, the global average cloud cover must not have a dramatic effect on the global average clear - sky optical thickness..

The findings also show the effect of reduced airborne particulates from burning coal, which may decrease the cloud cover that cools the earth, probably has less of an impact on climate through indirect cooling than originally projected.

Chemically, there will be an increase in ozone depletion (due to increases in heterogeneous surface chemistry in the stratosphere), increases in acid rain, possibly an increase in high cirrus cloud cover due to indirect effects of the sulphates on cloud lifetime.

It's not very clear in the Kiehl and Trenberth energy budget diagram (Figure A. 1 in the El Niño's heat post) what the effect of a change in cloud cover on the various radiation components would be.

It could be human CO2, or unicorn farts, or cow farts (since cows are real), or plankton blooms, or the subtle effect of sunbathing on cloud cover.