Sentences with phrase «as increased water vapor»

This is because climate models only include short - term feedbacks, such as increased water vapor and melting of sea ice.

Its warming effect, however, is simultaneously amplified and dampened by positive and negative feedbacks such as increased water vapor (the most powerful greenhouse gas), reduced albedo, which is a measure of Earth's reflectivity, changes in cloud characteristics, and CO2 exchanges with the ocean and terrestrial ecosystems.

Skeptics also see CO2 as increasing water vapor, but they see this water vapor acting as a net negative feedback.

Not exact matches

Rather, when the fullness of time is reached, there is a qualitative transformation, as in the case of the acorn becoming an oak, or water brought to boiling point becoming vapor, or instinct becoming reflection, or molecular increase becoming cellular.

Early results show that as water vapor increased, thicker clouds would have reflected up to half of the sunlight back into space.

This effect makes the atmosphere act somewhat like a blanket that becomes thicker when amounts of water vapor, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, increase.

An Earth - like planet tends to increase its water vapor content as its mean temperature increases.

Another process knows as a «runaway greenhouse» occurs due to the increased greenhouse effect of water vapor in the lower atmosphere, which further drives evaporation and more warming.

BH — The Gettelman et al paper I linked to demonstrates increases in water vapor from observational data (AIRS) over a 54 month interval, as well as good correlation with model simulations.

Increased water vapor is expected to accompany increases in temperature (IPCC 2013), and as a result heat stress increases are compounded.

As the temperature rises, water vapor evaporates at a higher rate, raising the water vapor content of the atmosphere, further amplifying the the increased greenhouse effect of the additional carbon dioxide.

Simultaneously, as the average liquid droplet becomes smaller through evaporation, the vapor's density increases, so more vapor molecules merge at a faster rate to become microscopic liquid droplets, and more water molecules are ionized.

[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?)

Specific humidity content of the air has increased, as expected as part of the conventional water vapor feedback, but in fact relative humidity also increased between 1950 and 1990, indicating a stronger water vapor feedback than given by the conventional assumption of fixed relative humidity.

As global warming continues, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere increases.

My point with the water vapor was based on the fact that the maximum amount appears to increase as a percentage of the current maximum thereby allowing for rates of temperature increase somewhat greater than linear at higher temperatures.

Since Milankovitch factors are excluded as small, BUT they do exist and by ignoring them you are introducing an increasing underestimation of the incoming solar radiation (& its impact on solar irradiance and on water vapor etc feedbacks), then why is there not an uncertainty estimate for this or better yet an actual estimate of what the under estimation is?

This is just one of the many «interesting» weather events that we will all have to get used to in the future, as level of water vapor continue to increase in the warming atmosphere.

(PS regarding Venus — as I have understood it, a runaway water vapor feedback would have occured when solar heating increasing to become greater than a limiting OLR value (Simpson - Kombayashi - Ingersoll limit — see http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2010/08/23/climate-feedbacks-part-1/ — although I should add that at more «moderate» temperatures (warmer than today), stratospheric H2O increases to a point where H escape to space becomes a significant H2O sink — if that stage worked fast enough relative to solar brightening, a runaway H2O case could be prevented, and it would be a dry (er) heat.

• albedo decreases as ice melts (ice is perhaps 80 % reflective, while ocean albedo can be as low as 3.5 %) • increased water vapor in a warmer climate • warmer oceans absorb less carbon dioxide • warmer soils release carbon dioxide and methane • plants in a hotter climate are darker

So as more CO2 gets pumped into the atmosphere the temperature rises, which causes more water to evaporate (as you accurately state), increasing the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere — which heats the atmosphere even more, causing even more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.

The surface heat capacity C (j = 0) was set to the equivalent of a global layer of water 50 m deep (which would be a layer ~ 70 m thick over the oceans) plus 70 % of the atmosphere, the latent heat of vaporization corresponding to a 20 % increase in water vapor per 3 K warming (linearized for current conditions), and a little land surface; expressed as W * yr per m ^ 2 * K (a convenient unit), I got about 7.093.

increase in the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere as the atmosphere warms as indicated by the Clausius - Clapeyron equation.

Boiling occurs in your kitchen because the water vapor escapes and can't build up so as to increase the surface pressure.

Bye the way physics guy, increased CO2 warms earth some, leading to more water vapor which has a greater greenhouse effect than the CO2 as such.

That doens» t affect the equilibrium increase in the upward flux at TRPP in response, though it may change how much of that is absorbed by the stratosphere (perhaps a reduction due to shielding of water vapor and CO2 wings in the stratosphere by increased tropospheric water vapor (as it would by an increase in clouds, particularly higher clouds)-- PS feedbacks also change the baseline spectral flux in the vicinity of the CO2 band.

@zebra I think the extreme weather factor is all about the increasing lower - tropospheric water vapor content, which plays out in storms as a latent heat issue.

But then there's feedbacks within the stratosphere (water vapor), which would increase the stratospheric heating by upward radiation from below, as well as add some feedback to the downward flux at TRPP that the upward flux at TRPP would have to respond to via warming below TRPP.

So a local spike in precipitation releases a lot of heat — but as the heat increases, this negatively affects the vapor - > water transition (precipitation, or raindrop formation), since warm air holds more water then cool air — and so the limit on precipitation vis - a-vis the radiative balance of the atmosphere appears.

As to the idea of CH4 contributing to an increase in O2 in the atmosphere we are leaving out the recent examples of increased water vapor in the Stratospheric region.

Warming must occur below the tropopause to increase the net LW flux out of the tropopause to balance the tropopause - level forcing; there is some feedback at that point as the stratosphere is «forced» by the fraction of that increase which it absorbs, and a fraction of that is transfered back to the tropopause level — for an optically thick stratosphere that could be significant, but I think it may be minor for the Earth as it is (while CO2 optical thickness of the stratosphere alone is large near the center of the band, most of the wavelengths in which the stratosphere is not transparent have a more moderate optical thickness on the order of 1 (mainly from stratospheric water vapor; stratospheric ozone makes a contribution over a narrow wavelength band, reaching somewhat larger optical thickness than stratospheric water vapor)(in the limit of an optically thin stratosphere at most wavelengths where the stratosphere is not transparent, changes in the net flux out of the stratosphere caused by stratospheric warming or cooling will tend to be evenly split between upward at TOA and downward at the tropopause; with greater optically thickness over a larger fraction of optically - significant wavelengths, the distribution of warming or cooling within the stratosphere will affect how such a change is distributed, and it would even be possible for stratospheric adjustment to have opposite effects on the downward flux at the tropopause and the upward flux at TOA).

If a doubling of CO2 resulted in a temperature increase of approximately 1 K before any non-Planck feedbacks (before water vapor, etc.), then assuming the same climate sensitivity to the total GHE, removing the whole GHE would result in about a (setting the TOA / tropopause distinction aside, as it is relatively small relative to the 155 W / m2 value) 155/3.7 * 1 K ~ = 42 K. Which is a bit more than 32 or 33 K, though I'm not surprised by the difference.

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).

If C02 is the largest single contributing factor to the Greenhouse Effect (because supposedly water vapor is only involved as a feedback to primary chemistry involving C02 itself), and C02 lags temperature increases (as has been stated on this very blog), how has the Earth ever returned to colder glacial conditions following periods of warming?

If CO2 in the Anthropocene atmosphere contributes to re-vegetating currently arid areas as it did post-LGM, we should expect an even greater warming feedback from CO2 than is assumed from water vapor and albedo feedbacks, due to decreased global dust - induced albedo and increased water vapor from transpiration over increased vegetated area.

So does the warming of the ocean, or for that matter, even the water vapor feedback as the increasing partial pressure water vapor is both a response to higher temperatures and a cause of higher temperatures — but can raise temperatures only against the thermal inertia of the ocean.

So while the monsoon winds might weaken the precipitation nonetheless increases (more bang for the buck) as a weaker circulation carries more water vapor (and latent energy).

Physically, the Stefan - Boltzmann feedback becomes more negative and the water vapor feedback becomes less positive as the temperature increases.»

Warmer air holds more water vapor than colder air, so the amount of water vapor in the lower atmosphere increases as it is warmed by the greenhouse effect.

Because as the temperature did drop (through increased cloudiness), water vapor would also decrease, which in turn would cause cloudiness to decrease, which would lessen the amount of cooling...

Specifically, as global temperatures have steadily increased at their fastest rates in millions of years, it's directly affected things like water vapor concentrations, clouds, precipitation patterns, and stream flow patterns, which are all related to the water cycle.

This build up of energy increases the temperature of the atmosphere, which then causes water vapor to increase as the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is a function temperature.

The contention is that as CO2 increases water vapor decreases.

You have mentioned a MGT feedback loop of diminishing water vapor as the only thing that explains the hiatus well but it could also occur with increasing water vapor as clouds might reflect more sunlight back restoring the new system to its temperature mean.

The collapse of the Sc clouds occurs because, as the free - tropospheric longwave opacity increases with increased CO2 and water vapor concentrations, the turbulent mixing that is driven by cloud - top radiative cooling weakens, and therefore is unable to maintain the Sc layer.

One driver of temperatures in this region is the abundance and variability of ozone, but water vapor, volcanic aerosols, and dynamical changes such as the Quasi - Biennial Oscillation (QBO) are also significant; anthropogenic increases in other greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide play a lesser but significant role in the lower stratosphere.

If water vapor increased as expected, that would make the impact easier to measure, but it is not.

I can certainly see that SOME CO2 level would do that, but everything I have read so far about Antarctic says that in a somewhat warmer climate, which we will have in Antarctica soon, Antarctic as a whole will get more snowfall, hence more retention of ice, because warmer air holds more water vapor, even if the increase in warmth is merely from minus 40 C to minus 35 C.

The effects water vapor as evidenced by the increase in the amount of snowfalls and floods should also be discussed.

Too much CO2 could even cool it, due to increased proportions of CO2 which is less effective than water vapor as a heat - trapping gas.