Sentences with phrase «temperature on the albedo»

Not exact matches

Whereas carbon levels can affect warming on a global scale, the effects of increased albedo and poor evotranspiration would affect temperatures only on a regional level.

[Response: weaker cosmic ray flux - > fewer low clouds - > decrease in sunlight reflected back to space), then you need to explain why the night temperatures appear to increase faster then day temperatures (for any amplification mechanism involving te albedo, you'd expect the opposite, as there is no sunlight to reflect on the dark side of the planet...).

Recent research indicates that global albedo is fairly constant, and having no material effect on global temperatures.

For example, [Kruss 1983] has this to say about the Lewis glacier on Mt. Kenya: «A decrease in the annual precipitation on the order of 150 mm in the last quarter of the 19th century, followed by a secular air temperature rise of a few tenths of a degree centigrade during the first half of the 20th century, together with associated albedo and cloudiness variation, constitute the most likely cause of the Lewis Glacier wastage during the last 100 years.»

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.

On the possibility of a changing cloud cover «forcing» global warming in recent times (assuming we can just ignore the CO2 physics and current literature on feedbacks, since I don't see a contradiction between an internal radiative forcing and positive feedbacks), one would have to explain a few things, like why the diurnal temperature gradient would decrease with a planet being warmed by decreased albedo... why the stratosphere should cool... why winters should warm faster than summers... essentially the same questions that come with the cosmic ray hypothesiOn the possibility of a changing cloud cover «forcing» global warming in recent times (assuming we can just ignore the CO2 physics and current literature on feedbacks, since I don't see a contradiction between an internal radiative forcing and positive feedbacks), one would have to explain a few things, like why the diurnal temperature gradient would decrease with a planet being warmed by decreased albedo... why the stratosphere should cool... why winters should warm faster than summers... essentially the same questions that come with the cosmic ray hypothesion feedbacks, since I don't see a contradiction between an internal radiative forcing and positive feedbacks), one would have to explain a few things, like why the diurnal temperature gradient would decrease with a planet being warmed by decreased albedo... why the stratosphere should cool... why winters should warm faster than summers... essentially the same questions that come with the cosmic ray hypothesis.

I meant that the attribution of the forcing between Ice albedo, CO2, etc. might be dependent on the temperature.

As an analogy, if I told you that I was going to paint my white car black and that I expected it would get hotter on sunny days as a result, you would probably start asking questions about what the temperature of the paint was when I applied it and how those molecules heated up or cooled down, ignoring the relevant factor which is this: By painting the car black, I am changing the car's albedo and thus changing the radiative balance between the car and the sun on sunny days.

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.

Depending on meridional heat transport, when freezing temperatures reach deep enough towards low - latitudes, the ice - albedo feedback can become so effective that climate sensitivity becomes infinite and even negative (implying unstable equilibrium for any «ice - line» (latitude marking the edge of ice) between the equator and some other latitude).

The 255K theoretical value depends on the albedo and is an upper limit which can only be reached with constant temperatures across the globe and the day / night cycle.

During that process, upward LW radiation reaching the upper atmosphere will increase (depending on albedo / solar heating feedbacks), which will change the equilibrium temperature of the upper atmopshere again.

In the Antarctic, the increased white albedo at the surface causes the air temperature to increase on cloudy days.

The exposed open water caused by the wind divergence may absorb some additional sunlight and melt more ice than usual over the next few weeks (temperature - albedo feedback)[related NASA animation], but given that the sun is well on its way to setting for the winter, I think this effect will be fairly minimal.

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).

Polar amplification due to CO2 is based on warming melting ice that lowers albedo and thus raises temperatures.

Typical temperature reconstructions for the late Pliocene however [see one at the top of this story - 3.3 - 3.0 Ma] already show an Earth in which a warmer climatic state is indeed [through for instance ice albedo feedbacks] relatively strong around the poles, and (on average) weaker around the equator, exactly the pattern that is monitored under the current climate warming.

In this new study, the researchers showed that increasing the albedo of a 1m2 surface by 0.01 would have the same effect on global temperature, over the next 80 years, as decreasing emissions by around 7 kg of CO2.

On the other hand, the Arctic sea ice albedo reduction does contribute significantly to polar amplification of globally averaged temperature changes.

Six Chinese scientists used remotely - sensed imaging data, including leaf area index (LAI), normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), an enhanced vegetation index (EVI), gross primary production (GPP) and net primary production (NPP), coupled with other data (temperature, soil moisture, evapotranspiration, albedo and wind) over the period 2003 to 2014 to analyze the effects of a wind farm on summer vegetative growth in a region of northern China.

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).

This is also based on the most modest affect observed on global temperatures cloud albedo has.

«Here we quantify the direct climate effects of sugar - cane expansion in the Brazilian Cerrado, on the basis of maps of recent sugar - cane expansion and natural - vegetation clearance combined with remotely sensed temperature, albedo and evapotranspiration over a 1.9 million km2 area.

This has a huge influence on the Svalbard temperatures — far more than a tiny effect from the increased albedo at the airport.

To date, while various effects and feedbacks constrain the certainty placed on recent and projected climate change (EG, albedo change, the response of water vapour, various future emissions scenarios etc), it is virtually certain that CO2 increases from human industry have reversed and will continue to reverse the downward trend in global temperatures that should be expected in the current phase of the Milankovitch cycle.

It's used on p. 116 where we read «Earth's albedo is on the order of.3, leading to a blackbody temperature of 255K.

This is consistent with other recent work that hypothesizes that increase of melting rates of Arctic sea ice may be as much due to Chinese black carbon falling on the ice (and thereby decreasing its albedo and increasing solar heating) than from rising global temperatures.

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

Based on the insolation received by the Earth, allowing for its estimated albedo and some internal core heat, the blackbody temperature of the Earth is 254.3 K -LRB--18.8 °C).

If the Earth's true emission temperature (which occurs somewhere at altitude in the troposphere) is less than the 255 K predicted by theory (assuming an albedo 0.306), then the Planck parameter may well be considerably less than the IPCC's value, in which event on this ground alone climate sensitivity may be well below its central estimate of 3.26 K per CO2 doubling.

Likewise, the effects on average global temperature and climate of rapidly diminishing albedo evidenced by loss of Arctic sea ice and retreating glaciers, is not accurately known.

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.

We can make good estimates of global temperature so can estimate planck radiation (on global level), good estimates of albedo from ice extent, reasonable estimates of evaporation and convection from temperature contraints, now try closing that surface budget with GHG.

Assuming an albedo other than zero will change the temperatures, but will not change the general conclusions on how the steel greenhouse works.».

The reason why I think it's wrong is that in her calculation of ESS she takes the radiative forcing caused by albedo changes (resulting from the massive change in ice coverage between a glacial and interglacial state) and assumes it to be a feedback on the CO2 induced temperature - change.

1) In reality both the changes in albedo (reflectivity) and CO2 concentration are feedbacks on the orbital forcing, and the relation in the one direction (a change in earth's orbit causing a temperature change which in turn causes albedo and CO2 levels to change) is not necessarily the same as the relation in the reverse direction, as is currently happening with human - induced increases in CO2.

My Bearded dragon changes albedo based on radiation exposure.The same TSI calculation used to derive the 0.07 degrees would clearly give the wrong answer on the average temperature of my lizard.

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.

The net impact on temperature attributed to each different forcing, solar, ghg (co2, methane), volcanic, aerosol, albedo whatever are based on historical temp data and checked for accuracy against models yes?

captd, the surface temperature in the models is a free variable that depends on things like the cloudiness of the model and surface albedos.

We see a surface temperature of venus that is higher than expected if we used the same methodology for albedo as used on earth.

The number usually calculated in modern textbooks for the temperature without an atmosphere, -18 °C, is based on our planet's present «albedo,» that is, the amount of sunlight it reflects.

This is enough to raise the surface temperature quite a bit (the exact value depends on what assumptions you make about emissivity & albedo).

Further, we suggest that the stability of sea level during the Holocene is a consequence of the fact that global temperature remained just below the level required to initiate the «albedo flip» mechanism on Greenland and West Antarctica.

what I find fascinating is that albedo has no effect on the temperature comparison between earth and venus, which accounts fully for the missing 33K in Ira's analysis.

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?»

If albedo is not what we assume it to be, for reasons that are apparent on venus, then the problem is not where is the missing 33K, but rather why temperatures are not hotter than they are.

The explanations they give for the warm winters are weak or wrong, blaming warmer temperatures on a lack of snow cover (more albedo), roller coaster temperatures and «normals», often ending their broadcasts with with something like... this is the way it's supposed to be.

The Berkeley Lab study found that global land surface temperature decreased by a modest amount — an average of roughly 0.01 degrees Celsius, based on an albedo increase of.003 averaged over all global land surfaces.