Sentences with phrase «much albedo change»

Not exact matches

I was interested not so much in the forcing effect of clouds themselves so much as the change in albedo which might result from a change in the overall extent of global cloud cover.

The change in ice volume and climate changes the planets albedo (how much sunlight is reflected) and affect carbon storage.

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).

I've been told by a friend that James Hansen once said that albedo changes from melting the arctic sea ice would capture as much additional heat as doubling CO2.

It would appear that the remaining contributor would be light, an interesting aspect to research may be how much would the quantity of life change in the region, if the albedo changes?

The Arctic sea ice melting out above 75N would have almost no impact at all if that is the forcing change of glaciers down to Chicago and sea ice down to 45N (at lower latitudes where the Albedo has much more impact).

What other things in the Earth system will change when it warms up that will affect how much SW radiation is reflected back into space [eg ice - albedo feedback, cloud changes] or affect what proportion of emitted LW radiation is allowed to escape to space [eg Water Vapour, cloud changes].

http://www.springerlink.com/content/lm0024kv72t3841w/ «The simulated magnitude of hydrological changes over land are much larger when compared to changes over oceans in the recent marine cloud albedo enhancement study since the radiative forcing over land needed (− 8.2 W m − 2) to counter global mean radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2 (3.3 W m − 2) is approximately twice the forcing needed over the oceans (− 4.2 W m − 2).

Re 9 wili — I know of a paper suggesting, as I recall, that enhanced «backradiation» (downward radiation reaching the surface emitted by the air / clouds) contributed more to Arctic amplification specifically in the cold part of the year (just to be clear, backradiation should generally increase with any warming (aside from greenhouse feedbacks) and more so with a warming due to an increase in the greenhouse effect (including feedbacks like water vapor and, if positive, clouds, though regional changes in water vapor and clouds can go against the global trend); otherwise it was always my understanding that the albedo feedback was key (while sea ice decreases so far have been more a summer phenomenon (when it would be warmer to begin with), the heat capacity of the sea prevents much temperature response, but there is a greater build up of heat from the albedo feedback, and this is released in the cold part of the year when ice forms later or would have formed or would have been thicker; the seasonal effect of reduced winter snow cover decreasing at those latitudes which still recieve sunlight in the winter would not be so delayed).

In their latest Science paper submittal Jim Hansen, et al. argue that we must reduce atmospheric CO2 to below 350 ppm because so - called «slow feedbacks» such as changes in ice sheet albedo are occurring much faster than expected.

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

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..

Dr Curry, When considering changes in albedo due to melting, pools, etc, is there also consideration that the Sun is very low in the sky and much of the incoming Solar is reflected off water as glare?

But unless the albedo changes quite a lot there's not usually much effect on average temperatures.

But much stronger albedo effects (a measure of how much sunlight is simply reflected back out into space) might be generated by the high winds of the glacial era, giving 10 °C temperature changes rather than the 1 °C excursion of the Little Ice Age.

Given that the blackbody equilibrium temperature of earth as seen from space is a function of solar irradiance arriving and earth albedo and not much of anything else apart from factors that change those two, anyone claiming earth's temperature isn't affected by solar output better have a pretty good theory and data to support that.

This is the limit imposed by albedo which can only change so much with the current arrangement of the continents.

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.

There are indications that albedo changes by as much as 1 % a year, with a few years» change in the same direction dwarfing anything proposed for the greenhouse effect.

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.

That the insolation change was enough to warm the NH while it had a lower albedo is an indication of how much it matters.

This leads me to believe that CO2 forcing is a minor component of the temperature rise (even Hansen in his paper «Global Warming in the 21st century, an Alternative Scenario» has assigned much warming to e.g. black carbon, methane etc, and an inquisitive mind might easily think of others such as albedo change).

Really the big question for me, once aware of all in http://s24.postimg.org/rbbws9o85/overview.gif and much else, is whether or not coming cooling in the 21st century will end with a somewhat brief LIA - like event, or, via amplification of cooling through further albedo change from snow cover rise then, continue far longer into a non-little Ice Age afterwards..

Even if it were possible for greenhouse gases to increase that much — it pales in comparison to albedo changes.

Albedo change due to LGM — Holocene vegetation change, much of which is inherent with ice sheet area change, and albedo change due to coastline movement are lumped together with ice sheet area change in calculating the surface albedo climate foAlbedo change due to LGM — Holocene vegetation change, much of which is inherent with ice sheet area change, and albedo change due to coastline movement are lumped together with ice sheet area change in calculating the surface albedo climate foalbedo change due to coastline movement are lumped together with ice sheet area change in calculating the surface albedo climate foalbedo climate forcing.

Being an ocean, the Arctic ice is a much less stable system because it is subject to positive feedback from the albedo change, while the Antarctic albedo can stay quite fixed, so it is not going to have this positive feedback.

See how much of this change is attributed to greenhouse gases, albedo (i.

That's a pretty silly claim on Dr. Curry's part if you consider that in the months the arctic sea ice isn't diminished, there's never really so much sunlight as you'd count it against the average, so whatever albedo changes there are during the half of the year that matters, they're when the sun is at its highest angle.

The three studies, using different methodologies to estimate the global surface albedo feedback associated with snow and sea ice changes, all suggest that this feedback is positive in all the models, and that its range is much smaller than that of cloud feedbacks.

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?&ramuch 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?&raMUCH 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?&raMUCH 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?»

But if climate really is as insensitive as he claims it to be, the climate forcing producing the ice ages must have been huge, much larger than the radiative forcing from orbital changes, surface albedo, and greenhouse gases.