Sentences with phrase «as atmospheric water vapour»

The link between heat and Hurricane intensity is unquestionable, as atmospheric water vapour density increases with higher temperatures, the energy source is likewise augmented, same goes for cyclones.

Other evidence [which I will present in future articles] seems to indicate that these same climate models are NOT realistically simulating such factors as atmospheric water vapour, clouds, solar energy fluctuations and cosmic ray effects, Earth's changing geomagnetic field, and Earth's interior heat with consequent surface heat variations.

To claim that the entire system of atmospheric temperature moderation has been described by the fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 content while excluding the other obvious factors such as atmospheric water vapour content, solar flux and orbital mechanics is just nonsense.

Not exact matches

Combining observations from satellites and ground stations with climate models, they evaluated different factors that affect telescope vision, such as the amount of water vapour, wind speeds and atmospheric turbulence.

Scientists agree that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels could result in temperature increases of between 1.5 and 4.5 °C, caused by rapid changes such as snow and ice melt, and the behaviour of clouds and water vapour.

The rise of CO2 from 270ppm to now over 400ppm, the extent of equatorial and sub tropical deforestation, the soot deposits on the polar ice caps, the increase in atmospheric water vapour due to a corresponding increase in ocean temps and changes in ocean currents, the extreme ice albedo currently happening in the arctic etc, etc are all conspiring in tandem to alter the climate as we know it.

The identified atmospheric feedbacks including changes in planetary albedo, in water vapour distribution and in meridional latent heat transport are all poorly represented in zonal energy balance model as the one used in [7] whereas they appear to be of primary importance when focusing on ancient greenhouse climates.

In 1928, George Simpson published a memoir on atmospheric radiation, which assumed water vapour was the only greenhouse gas, even though, as Richardson pointed out in a comment, there was evidence that even dry air absorbed infrared radiation.

The cosmic ray particles work let's say like a «glue» that puts together all the already formed condensation nuclei in the atmospheric air, creating therefore bigger condensation nuclei and finally the clouds, or the cosmic particles act as aerosols on their own, on which the water vapour condenses?

One idea was that increased IR radiated from water vapour in these air masses could off - set expansion due to release of latent heat, and ad drive horizontal circulation This had to be attacked as it showed a role for radiative gases in atmospheric circulation.

The role of convection and the subsequent condensation out of water vapour into clouds and then rainfall is currently incapable of quantification as a means of slowing or offsetting any atmospheric greenhouse effect but it certainly does those things.

So, that's 1.2 degrees C for the basic physics of added greenhouse effect of a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; coupled with a further increase of a similar magnitude from changes in atmospheric water vapour that come about as a direct consequence.

Methane is an important part of the anthropogenic radiative forcing Methane emissions have a direct GHG effect, and they effect atmospheric chemistry and stratospheric water vapour which have additional impacts natural feedbacks involving methane likely to be important in future — via wetland response to temperature / rain change, atmospheric chemistry and, yes, arctic sources There are large stores of carbon in the Arctic, some stored as hydrates, some potentially convertible to CH4 by anaerobic resporation [from wikianswers: Without oxygen.

Motivated by findings that major components of so - called cloud «feedbacks» are best understood as rapid responses to CO2 forcing (Gregory and Webb in J Clim 21:58 — 71, 2008), the top of atmosphere (TOA) radiative effects from forcing, and the subsequent responses to global surface temperature changes from all «atmospheric feedbacks» (water vapour, lapse rate, surface albedo, «surface temperature» and cloud) are examined in detail in a General Circulation Model.

Humans have no direct control over atmospheric concentrations of water vapour, although it can act as an enhancer for any global warming.

The physics that must be included to investigate the moist greenhouse is principally: (i) accurate radiation incorporating the spectral variation of gaseous absorption in both the solar radiation and thermal emission spectral regions, (ii) atmospheric dynamics and convection with no specifications favouring artificial atmospheric boundaries, such as between a troposphere and stratosphere, (iii) realistic water vapour physics, including its effect on atmospheric mass and surface pressure, and (iv) cloud properties that respond realistically to climate change.

It is well known that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels could result in temperature increases of between 1.5 and 4.5 °C, due to fast changes such as snow and ice melt, and the behaviour of clouds and water vapour.

The greenhouse glass blocks all LW and supposedly represents three atmospheric gases, water vapour, carbon dioxide and methane, known as greenhouse gases (GHG).

Bear in mind that the representation of clouds in climate models (and of the water vapour which is intimately involved with cloud formation) is such as to amplify the forecast global warming from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide — on average over most of the models — by a factor of about three (5).

An independent check on globally vertically integrated water vapour amounts is whether the change in water vapour mass is refl ected in the surface pressure fi eld, as this is the only signifi cant infl uence on the global atmospheric mass to within measurement accuracies.

The average atmospheric water vapour content has increased since at least the 1980s over land and ocean as well as in the upper troposphere.

As I read for example Bony et al. 2006, Soden and Held 2006, there are in the IPCC dogma four «feedbacks»: increased atmospheric optical thickness due to increased water vapour column amount due to sustained relative humidity; cloud radiative effects; albedo effects; lapse rate effects.