In order to determine the solar contribution, we have to start with the solar radiative forcing, which is the change in total solar irradiance (TSI) in Watts per square meter (W / m2) divided by 4 to account for spherical geometry, and multiplied by 0.7 to account
for planetary albedo (Meehl 2002).
The solar radiative forcing is TSI in Watts per square meter (W - m - 2) divided by 4 to account for spherical geometry, and multiplied by 0.7 to account
for planetary albedo (Meehl 2002).
Not exact matches
Whilst several methods
for counteracting climate change with geoengineering are considered feasible, injecting sulfates or other fine aerosols into the stratosphere, thereby increasing
planetary albedo, is a leading contender.
For each
planetary candidate, the equilibrium surface temperatures are derived from «grey - body spheres without atmospheres... [and] calculations assume a Bond
albedo of 0.3, emissivity of 0.9, and a uniform surface temperature... [with uncertainties of] approximately 22 %... because of uncertainties in the stellar size, mass, and temperature as well as the
planetary albedo.»
This implies that the CRF levels must have systematically decreased over time, causing a long - term decrease in the low cloud fraction and hence a long - term reduction in the
planetary albedo, that again would be responsible
for the warming.
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..
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.
Found Joseph Postma's derivation of the formulae
for calculating
planetary temperature very helpful, even if I think he has made a small mistake in failing to account
for both
albedo and emissivity.
But whether someone chooses to use the term
Albedo or Bond albedo it doesn't appear as though anyone has actually got right the values for the Bond albedo on any planetary body or any object in space - and as result still getting a ballpark n
Albedo or Bond
albedo it doesn't appear as though anyone has actually got right the values for the Bond albedo on any planetary body or any object in space - and as result still getting a ballpark n
albedo it doesn't appear as though anyone has actually got right the values
for the Bond
albedo on any planetary body or any object in space - and as result still getting a ballpark n
albedo on any
planetary body or any object in space - and as result still getting a ballpark number.
Global temps vary
for many reasons beyond CO2 levels including but not limited to:
planetary motion, changes in
albedo, stratospheric aerosols, and solar variability to name a few, but the only area of genuine study by the IPCC has been rising CO2 levels.
High sensitivity is caused by increasing water vapour as the tropopause rises and diminishing low cloud cover, but the sensitivity decreases
for still larger CO2 as cloud optical thickness and
planetary albedo increase, as shown by Russell et al. [112].
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).
Moreover, the loss of sea ice would have altered the
planetary albedo, causing the planet to warm until clouds cover had increased enough
for the radiation balance at the TOA to be restored.
quote from the article:
For example, in the analysis, not only does the amount of CO2 not enter in (Earth has 0.04 %, Venus a whopping 96.5 %), but the
albedo (from either cloud tops or the
planetary surface) does not either (Venus has dense clouds that reflect much of the incident visible radiation, while Earth does not, and Earth's surface is 70 % deep ocean, while Venus is solid crust).
Part of the changes in the spatial correlations is expected to be due to convection and clouds, which too play a role
for the GHG, in addition to influencing the
planetary albedo.
Clouds, which cover about 60 % of the Earth's surface, are responsible
for up to two - thirds of the
planetary albedo, which is about 30 %.