Sentences with phrase «ice feedback also»

Introducing the snow / ice feedback also affects the amount of energy trapped by water vapour.

Not exact matches

The paper also describes an atmosphere - ocean modeling study of feedback loops caused by ice sheet melting under 2 °C conditions.

Even if Pluto's ocean is really now just ice, Keane says, these new studies of Sputnik Planitia reveal a powerful and unique feedback between Pluto's climate and orbital evolution that could also operate on other icy worlds in the outer solar system.

Some climate scientists, including James E. Hansen, former head of the nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies, say we must also consider slower feedbacks such as changes in the continental ice sheets.

It's also likely, Russell and his colleagues say, that the drying in Indonesia created a feedback loop that amplified ice age cooling.

While the ECS factors in such «fast» feedback effects as changes in water vapor — water itself is a greenhouse gas, and saturates warm air better than cold — they argued that slow feedbacks, such as changes in ice sheets and vegetation, should also be considered.

The result — and, thanks to feedback effects, also the cause — is dwindling sea ice.

But lower GHGs in the last ice age were also a feedback — weren't they?

Also about the ice - albedo feedback within 1K temperature oscillation the albedo will change of, let us say, 10 %, so for an increase of 1K the albedo will decrease from A = 0.3 to A = 0.27.

Anyone who accepts that sunlight falling on ice free waters which has less reflectivity than sunlight falling on a large ice mass covering those waters and also accepts that this reduction in albedo has a positive feedback effect, leading to further warming, can't help but opt for A or B, it seems to me.

He then uses what information is available to quantify (in Watts per square meter) what radiative terms drive that temperature change (for the LGM this is primarily increased surface albedo from more ice / snow cover, and also changes in greenhouse gases... the former is treated as a forcing, not a feedback; also, the orbital variations which technically drive the process are rather small in the global mean).

There was more ice around in the LGM and that changes the weighting of ice - albedo feedback, but also the operation of the cloud feedback since clouds over ice have different effects than clouds over water.

To all farmers - at - heart: Pure Farming 2018, a new farming game from Techland Publishing and developer Ice Flames, has just hit stores worldwide, and also revealed extensive plans for post-launch content, heavily influenced by community feedback.

Note also that going back to the ice ages, the glacial - interglacial temperature swing can not be explained without full water vapour feedback on top of both the ice sheet albedo and CO2 effects.

But it also means that more ice is going to melt, and with the albedo effect that is a negative feedback feeding into a positive feedback.

Dave Cooke (# 303), +4 C per doubling is a somewhat higher than usual (but still reasonable) number that includes feedbacks such as an increasing amount of atmospheric H2O but also non-greenhouse effects such as a diminshed reflective ice cover on the surface of the planet.

(In the full 4 - dimensional climate, responses can also tend spread horizontally by convection (advection) and temporally by heat capacity, though «fingerprints» of horizontal and temporal variations in RF (externally imposed and feedback — snow and ice albedo, for example) can remain — this spreading is somewhat different as it relies in part on the circulation already present as well as circulation changes)

Charney sensitivity refers to the climate sensitivity when fast - reacting feedbacks (Planck response is a given — also, water vapor, clouds,... I think sea ice, seasonal snow) occur but with other things (land - based ice sheets,... vegetation -LRB-?)-RRB-

Then there are also non-GHE feedbacks, such as albedo feedbacks (cloud albedo, snow, ice, vegetation, dust / aerosols).

But lower GHGs in the last ice age were also a feedback — weren't they?

AR4 specifically excluded Greenland and Antarctica ice sheet melting, due to the uncertainties about ice flow dynamics, and also specifically excluded slow feedbacks, also due to the uncertainties involved.

The second positive feedback mechanism also has to do with ice melting.

And, quite disturbingly, with a manifest warming of only 0.8 ºC, we are already seeing effects − such as the precipitous receding of the Arctic sea ice − that are not only dangerous in themselves but also producing positive feedbacks that accelerate the warming.

We also of course know that the northern sea ice is particularly vulnerable to rapid change (geologically speaking) given the greater advection of energy to that region and the properties of Arctic amplification (positive feedbacks) that we are become more familiar with.

The initial warming also reduces the surface albedo by melting snow and sea - ice, which likewise constitutes a positive feedback because snow and ice are effective reflectors of sunlight.

Cloud variations are obviously an important element on a global scale, but the effects of Arctic ice melting are important locally and also a non-trivial fraction of global albedo feedbacks, which are a contributor to total feedback that is smaller than those from water vapor and probably from cloud feedbacks, but not insignificant.

Climate models also point to a more - likely - than - not probability that even greater impacts will result from feedback mechanisms such as permafrost and ice sheet melting beginning or accelerating, unleashing further warming.

Interestingly, whilst sea ice is a net postive feedback, it is well understood that it is also, in some cirumstances a negative feedback.

However, such an approach not only neglects the effect of year - to - year or longer - term variability (Overland and Wang, 2013) but also ignores the negative feedbacks that can occur when the sea ice cover becomes thin (Notz, 2009).

AGW climate scientists seem to ignore that while the earth's surface may be warming, our atmosphere above 10,000 ft. above MSL is a refrigerator that can take water vapor scavenged from the vast oceans on earth (which are also a formidable heat sink), lift it to cold zones in the atmosphere by convective physical processes, chill it (removing vast amounts of heat from the atmosphere) or freeze it, (removing even more vast amounts of heat from the atmosphere) drop it on land and oceans as rain, sleet or snow, moisturizing and cooling the soil, cooling the oceans and building polar ice caps and even more importantly, increasing the albedo of the earth, with a critical negative feedback determining how much of the sun's energy is reflected back into space, changing the moment of inertia of the earth by removing water mass from equatorial latitudes and transporting this water vapor mass to the poles, reducing the earth's spin axis moment of inertia and speeding up its spin rate, etc..

Some climate scientists, including James E. Hansen, former head of the nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies, say we must also consider slower feedbacks such as changes in the continental ice sheets.

Feedback from local observers and vessels operating in the North American Arctic also highlights the need for further work on reconciliation between different ice nomenclatures and ice information derived from different sources (satellite remote - sensing, ship - based observations, buoys etc.).

They also warn that feedback patterns are starting to emerge in the shape of the ice albedo effect: ice reflects heat away from the surface, so as it decreases in extent so warming quickens.

Indeed, the long lifetime of fossil fuel carbon in the climate system and persistence of the ocean warming ensure that «slow» feedbacks, such as ice sheet disintegration, changes of the global vegetation distribution, melting of permafrost, and possible release of methane from methane hydrates on continental shelves, would also have time to come into play.

These and other observations can be integrated into a model with feedbacks and having two unstable end ‐ points that is consistent both with classical studies of past climate states, and also with recent analysis of ice dynamics in the Arctic basin by Zhakarov, whose oscillatory model identifies feedback mechanisms in atmosphere and ocean, both positive and negative, that interact in such a manner as to prevent long ‐ term trends in either ice ‐ loss or ice ‐ gain on the Arctic Ocean to proceed to an ultimate state.

Yes, CO2 comes out of a warming ocean and that was a positive feedback after the last Ice Age, but in the last century or so Man has emitted a boatload (twenty times) more than the ocean, and also added some to the ocean, hence a lower pH. Figure that into your carbon budget.

Second, the abstract admits that, «Pleistocene climate oscillations yield a fast - feedback climate sensitivity of 3 ± 1 °C for a 4 W m − 2 CO2 forcing if Holocene warming relative to the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) is used as calibration, but the error (uncertainty) is substantial and partly subjective» and also «Ice sheet response time is poorly defined».

The loss of sea ice is also expected to create a positive feedback cycle, heating up the region even faster.

Studies in the past have also confirmed the value of this feedback on the AIS evolution during the ice age.

The remaining slow drift to lower GMT and pCO2 over glacial time, punctuated by higher - frequency variability and the dust − climate feedbacks, may reflect the consequences of the growth of continental ice sheets via albedo increases (also from vegetation changes) and increased CO2 dissolution in the ocean from cooling.

But note that the SH also misses (or at least minimises) some of the feedbacks that act in the NH, such as snow / ice albedo.

Simply extrapolating historical trends also does not account for feedbacks in the system, such as the negative ice thickness - ice growth rate feedback identified by Bitz and Roe (2004) that can slow the ice volume rate of loss.

It is positive feedback, not only from summer ice area, but also from winter snow area over the northern continents.

Based on the understanding of both the physical processes that control key climate feedbacks (see Section 8.6.3), and also the origin of inter-model differences in the simulation of feedbacks (see Section 8.6.2), the following climate characteristics appear to be particularly important: (i) for the water vapour and lapse rate feedbacks, the response of upper - tropospheric RH and lapse rate to interannual or decadal changes in climate; (ii) for cloud feedbacks, the response of boundary - layer clouds and anvil clouds to a change in surface or atmospheric conditions and the change in cloud radiative properties associated with a change in extratropical synoptic weather systems; (iii) for snow albedo feedbacks, the relationship between surface air temperature and snow melt over northern land areas during spring and (iv) for sea ice feedbacks, the simulation of sea ice thickness.

We also obtain an empirical estimate of f = 2 - 4 for the fast feedback processes (water vapor, clouds, sea ice) operating on 10 - 100 year time scales by comparing the cooling due to slow or specified changes (land ice, CO2, vegetation) to the total cooling at 18K.

By the way, I intended to give the link to the abstract for the permafrost feedback abstract at the end of the last post, and instead posted a link to the article that discussed the CO2 in ice issue that I was also discussing there — oops.

The conclusion that limiting CO2 below 450 ppm will prevent warming beyond two degrees C is based on a conservative definition of climate sensitivity... Some climate scientists... say we must also consider slower feedbacks such as changes in the continental ice sheets.

This development also sets up dangerous climate feedback loops as reflective white snow and ice turn into heat - absorbing dark - blue water.

But if you change the ratio of water to ice, you also change the strength of the feedback.