Sentences with phrase «higher albedo of»

However, Venus's higher albedo of 0.76 reflects a greater fraction of sunlight, greatly reducing the average absorbed flux to

Is this because of the high albedo of the Antarctic ice cap?

Due to the positive feedback caused by the high albedo of snow and ice, susceptibility to falling into snowball states might be a generic feature of water - rich planets with the capacity to host life.

The Arctic provides an early indicator of global climate change through feedback systems associated with factors such as the high albedo of snow and ice [Holland and Bitz, 2003].

So the Earthshine project first reveals the global high albedo of the more equatorward jets from the 1960s when the sun was less active during cycle 20 (although cycle 20 was still high in historical terms) and there was some tropospheric cooling.

Notice that the high albedo of frost doesn't help either.

I put to you that the reversal was volcanic ash and CO2 accumulating to the point where the high albedo of ice was finally overcome by a coating of dark volcanic soot and CO2 level in the 10,000 ppm range.

Do you believe that the current high albedo of Greenland is keeping temperatures more stable in the Holocene?

Not exact matches

Enceladus, an icy moon of Saturn, has an albedo of 1.4, the highest known albedo of any celestial body in the Solar System.

It has been known for quite some time that red pigmented snow algae blooming on icy surfaces darken the surface which in turn leads to less albedo and a higher uptake of heat.

So if the occultation results hold up, then the density of Eris must be higher, 2.5 g / cm3 or more, and its albedo (reflectivity) at least 90 per cent.

At this angle, the albedo of water is about 0.3 or an order of magnitude higher than in the tropics.

Regardless of how hot the Sahara may feel when you stand in it, the difference in radiative effect between it and rainforest is in its higher albedo, reflecting more direct sunlight, the darker forests absorb more heat.

In her global maps of Europa, Callisto and Ganymede, the color gradient represents the surface temperature — blue means colder and therefore, presumably a more reflectively surface (higher albedo).

With higher precipitation, portions of this snow may not melt during the summer and so glacial ice can form at lower altitudes and more southerly latitudes, reducing the temperatures over land by increased albedo as noted above.

But they do at least have certain basic physical principles in their cloud representations — clouds over ice have less albedo effect than clouds over water, you don't get high clouds in regions of subsidence, stable boundary layers lead to marine stratus, etc..

Albedo is a measure of how reflective a surface is, wither higher albedo being more refleAlbedo is a measure of how reflective a surface is, wither higher albedo being more reflealbedo being more reflective.

However, I had to wear my white dress, because it's perfect for being outside in the heat (white increases your albedo, and a higher albedo means more sunlight reflected off of you, so you don't feel as warm!).

I would like to see a discussion of the likelihood that factors traditionally viewed as slow response feedback factors (such as Arctic albedo, or high methane emissions permafrost degradation) may actually become faster response feedback factors.

This in combination with the drop in greenhouse gases has resulted in the acceleration of the existing ice age; now self - perpetuating as glaciers have a much higher albedo.

[1] CO2 absorbs IR, is the main GHG, human emissions are increasing its concentration in the atmosphere, raising temperatures globally; the second GHG, water vapor, exists in equilibrium with water / ice, would precipitate out if not for the CO2, so acts as a feedback; since the oceans cover so much of the planet, water is a large positive feedback; melting snow and ice as the atmosphere warms decreases albedo, another positive feedback, biased toward the poles, which gives larger polar warming than the global average; decreasing the temperature gradient from the equator to the poles is reducing the driving forces for the jetstream; the jetstream's meanders are increasing in amplitude and slowing, just like the lower Missippi River where its driving gradient decreases; the larger slower meanders increase the amplitude and duration of blocking highs, increasing drought and extreme temperatures — and 30,000 + Europeans and 5,000 plus Russians die, and the US corn crop, Russian wheat crop, and Aussie wildland fire protection fails — or extreme rainfall floods the US, France, Pakistan, Thailand (driving up prices for disk drives — hows that for unexpected adverse impacts from AGW?)

That is, by decreasing the (rather high) Bond albedo of Earth one could increase rate of entropy production, which is inconsistent with a MEP state.

Pretty much all existing GCMs take into account changes in cloud albedo effects (though these are still characterized by a fairly high level of uncertainty).

Thick clouds about to rain are not the same as thick (fluffy, high albedo) clouds with lots of pollution caused CCN.

Ecological succession and biological evolution would also provide hysteresis (for example, I read of an idea that under some conditions, bogs will tend to take over forests; these bogs will have a higher albedo than forest when snow falls, thus potentially bringing an ice age...).

For instance, the effect of soot making snow and sea ice darker has a higher efficacy than an equivalent change in CO2 with the same forcing, mainly because there is a more important ice - albedo feedback in the soot case.

Decreasing the ratio of the high albedo to low albedo surface increases the solar absorption.

The famous «255 K» value for no greenhouse effect on Earth is an example of this, although in reality if we got that cold you would expect a snowball - like Earth and a much higher albedo from the increased brightness of the surface... and thus the «no - greenhouse temperature» would be even colder than 255 K.

Suppose the planet in consideration has a surface of high albedo surrounded (or on top of) a surface of lower albedo, and the extent of such a surface is temperature - dependent.

Venus has a much higher albedo (reflectivity) than Earth because of its thick cloud cover (and would even have a high albedo without the clouds due to Rayleigh scattering from the dense CO2 atmosphere).

Regardless of how hot the Sahara may feel when you stand in it, the difference in radiative effect between it and rainforest is in its higher albedo, reflecting more direct sunlight, the darker forests absorb more heat.

This thicker multiyear ice takes longer to melt back (both because of greater thickness and higher albedo than first - year ice) and so in conjunction with the weather it is responsible for more extensive ice in the late summer in this region.

Would the much lower albedo result in higher temperatures over a broad enough region to accelerate the crossing of other «tipping points» elsewhere, such as the release of large quantities of methane / CO2 from Siberian peat?

Global average temperature is lower during glacial periods for two primary reasons: 1) there was only about 190 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, and other major greenhouse gases (CH4 and N2O) were also lower 2) the earth surface was more reflective, due to the presence of lots of ice and snow on land, and lots more sea ice than today (that is, the albedo was higher).

The direct beam energy is much stronger on clear days, yet it's impact is muted because of the higher albedo at the surface.

If part of the result of increased GHG's is increased cloudiness, leading to a higher SW albedo, then the overall global temperature need not increase, because the amount of energy actually entering the system has been reduced.

Declining solar activity (Oort, Sporer, Maunder, Dalton Minimums) and higher volcanic activity (higher albedo reduces the amount of SW radiation penetrating the ocean surfaces).

In the real world the most obvious and most common reason for an increase in the speed of energy flow through the system occurs naturally when the oceans are in warm surface mode and solar input to the oceans due to reduced global albedo is high as apparently occurred during the period 1975 to 1998.

Also, if you want to compare the percent change in albedo of 0.134 (too high, but assume it correct for the moment) with a 1 % reduction, the latter would be 1 % of about 100 W / m ^ 2, not 1 % of 340 W / m ^ 2, and would yield a value of about 1 W / m ^ 2.

18.4wm - 2 higher assuming the same albedo means a radiative forcing of 3.23wm - 2, which is almost the forcing you get from doubling of CO2 or increasing solar output by 2 %.

In addition to direct MYI melt due to high - latitude warming, the impact of enhanced upper - ocean solar heating through numerous leads in decaying Arctic ice cover and consequent ice bottom melting has resulted in an accelerated rate of sea - ice retreat via a positive ice - albedo feedback mechanism.

The result is cooling oceans able to gradually absorb and lower atmospheric CO2, enabling restoration of albedo at higher latitude / altitude, producing further slow global cooling.

I believe we all agree that sea ice has an empirically observed higher albedo than sea water, so that a significant net melting of sea ice should lower the average albedo of Earth.

Near the poles the albedo is always high, from a combination of low sun angle and the dependency of albedo on that low grazing angle.

Keep in mind there's a dearth of insolation at high latitudes so albedo becomes increasingly less important so snow cover over land doesn't mean as much.

Beyond the problems of the high margin of error of shortwave albedo measurements, and the lack of a counter-factual on precisely and accurately what albedo has been and what it would be in the absence of humans, SO2 emissions globally appear to have peaked:

So, the scientific thread of albedo prediction from optical depth, Van de Hulst, Sagan and Pollack [Venusian runaway global warming], Lacis and Hansen is wrong., the crutch for the high CO2 - AGW hypothesis is taken away, CO2 probably loses AGW monopoly via «polluted cloud heating».

Moreover, CDR techniques can affect temperatures via SRM mechanisms too: afforestation — at least in higher latitudes — reduces albedo, producing offsetting warming, while OIF releases dimethyl sulphides which could have a significant impact on temperatures by reflecting incoming sunlight (analogous to, if more short - lived, than the effect of sulphates in the stratosphere).

However, I am not a «warmista» by any means — we do not know how to properly quantify the albedo of aerosols, including clouds, with their consequent negative feedback effects in any of the climate sensitivity models as yet — and all models in the ensemble used by the «warmistas» are indicating the sensitivities (to atmospheric CO2 increase) are too high, by factors ranging from 2 to 4: which could indicate that climate sensitivity to a doubling of current CO2 concentrations will be of the order of 1 degree C or less outside the equatorial regions (none or very little in the equatorial regions)- i.e. an outcome which will likely be beneficial to all of us.

(7) A requirement that building retrofits conducted pursuant to a REEP program utilize, especially in all air - conditioned buildings, roofing materials with high solar energy reflectance, unless inappropriate due to green roof management, solar energy production, or for other reasons identified by the Administrator, in order to reduce energy consumption within the building, increase the albedo of the building's roof, and decrease the heat island effect in the area of the building, without reduction of otherwise applicable ceiling insulation standards.