Sentences with phrase «by atmospheric water vapor»

Magnesium lines are critical for determining a black holes mass, but for objects at this distance, the redshifting of the light makes them extremely difficult to capture from the surface of our planet due to absorption by atmospheric water vapor.

Instead of dissipating into space, the infrared radiation that is absorbed by atmospheric water vapor or carbon dioxide produces heating, which in turn makes the earths surface warmer.

Not exact matches

A mighty atmospheric river, fueled by water vapor from the Amazon and heat from the sun, flows across South America until it reaches the Andes and condenses into rain.

Using publically available data about wind speed and water vapor flux from real - world atmospheric rivers over the Atlantic, the scientists created a computer model consisting of thousands of moving virtual air particles and found a close match between the complex swirls — the Lagrangian coherent structures — made by the air particles and the patterns made by the real atmospheric rivers.

Martínez - Frías believes that megacryometeors form when an ice crystal is driven repeatedly through cold water vapor by atmospheric turbulence, acquiring coat after coat of frozen water.

By analyzing global water vapor and temperature satellite data for the lower atmosphere, Texas A&M University atmospheric scientist Andrew Dessler and his colleagues found that warming driven by carbon dioxide and other gases allowed the air to hold more moisture, increasing the amount of water vapor in the atmospherBy analyzing global water vapor and temperature satellite data for the lower atmosphere, Texas A&M University atmospheric scientist Andrew Dessler and his colleagues found that warming driven by carbon dioxide and other gases allowed the air to hold more moisture, increasing the amount of water vapor in the atmospherby carbon dioxide and other gases allowed the air to hold more moisture, increasing the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.

Thousands of studies conducted by researchers around the world have documented changes in surface, atmospheric, and oceanic temperatures; melting glaciers; diminishing snow cover; shrinking sea ice; rising sea levels; ocean acidification; and increasing atmospheric water vapor.

A NOAA website on atmospheric rivers contains this fascinating statistic that illustrates just how much moisture can be transported by winds in the mid-to-upper atmosphere: «A strong atmospheric river transports an amount of water vapor roughly equivalent to 7.5 - 15 times the average flow of liquid water at the mouth of the Mississippi River.»

... The Earth's atmospheric methane concentration has increased by about 150 % since 1750, and it accounts for 20 % of the total radiative forcing from all of the long - lived and globally mixed greenhouse gases (these gases don't include water vapor which is by far the largest component of the greenhouse effect).

Using atmospheric devices on a 150 - foot tower in the Morgan - Monroe State Forest, IU researchers measured how much water vapor and gases were being absorbed and released by the forest.

The important point here is that a small external forcing (orbital for ice - ages, or GHG plus aerosols & land use changes in the modern context) can be strongly amplified by the positive feedback mechanism (the strongest and quickest is atmospheric water vapor - a strong GHG, and has already been observed to increase.

It also seems that even though the selective absorption of specific energy bands by different molecules IS the mechanism to add energy to the air, the energy absorbed by CO2 & especially Water Vapor is extremely rapidly dispersed by molecular collisions to ALL the components of the atmosphere, so that the N2 and O2 also heatup, and all the atmospheric components assume a uniform temperature (ie global warming).

(Note that radiative forcing is not necessarily proportional to reduction in atmospheric transparency, because relatively opaque layers in the lower warmer troposphere (water vapor, and for the fractional area they occupy, low level clouds) can reduce atmospheric transparency a lot on their own while only reducing the net upward LW flux above them by a small amount; colder, higher - level clouds will have a bigger effect on the net upward LW flux above them (per fraction of areal coverage), though they will have a smaller effect on the net upward LW flux below them.

The major (by nearly three orders of magnitude) atmospheric warming gas is water vapor.

The convective heat / mass transfer due to water dwarfs any radiative forcing; besides — just on optical depth alone, any re-radiated LWIR from atmospheric CO2 would be IMMEDIATELY absorbed by the much higher concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere (aka clouds!)

We have had lengthy heating phase caused by a spurt of insolation, now we have had a big El Nino, a subsequent shift to La Nina and the resulting warm currents moving up the the Western Pacific, causing warming polar oceans and changes in atmospheric water vapor content.

Moreover, the increase in atmospheric water vapor content in the Arctic region during late autumn and winter driven locally by the reduction of sea ice provides enhanced moisture sources, supporting increased heavy snowfall in Europe during early winter, and the northeastern and mid-west United States during winter.

What it does show is a major role for atmospheric water vapor, to which there is a significant direct human contribution from both the combustion of hydrocarbon fuels and the cooling needed by steam generation of power, but one that is totally disregarded by Trenberth and the IPCC.

The water vapor content of the atmosphere rises by about 50 percent if atmospheric temperatures were to increase by 5C and relative humidity remained constant.

Evidence that extreme precipitation is increasing is based primarily on analysis1, 2,3 of hourly and daily precipitation observations from the U.S. Cooperative Observer Network, and is supported by observed increases in atmospheric water vapor.4 Recent publications have projected an increase in extreme precipitation events, 1,5 with some areas getting larger increases6 and some getting decreases.7, 2

Therefore, the August - Roche - Magnus equation implies that saturation water vapor pressure changes approximately exponentially with temperature under typical atmospheric conditions, and hence the water - holding capacity of the atmosphere increases by about 7 % for every 1 °C rise in temperature.

The principles of absorption and emission of radiation by various atmospheric trace gases like water vapor and CO2 rely on the theory of quantum mechanics.

Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas that dominates all atmospheric CO2 by a factor of 26 to 1.

An aposite example is «Potential energy of atmospheric water vapor and the air motions induced by water vapor condensation on different spatial scales» which can be found at http://www.bioticregulation.ru/common/pdf/neraz-en.pdf.

By several meteorological measures, the airmass associated with this storm is pretty extraordinary: the amount of atmospheric water vapor (precipitable water) expected to be present near San Francisco on Saturday morning may be close to the all - time record value for any time of year.

Miskolczi found in the balloon sounding record that as atmospheric CO2 rose absolute humidity declined in direct proportion such that the extra greenhouse effect from CO2 was exactly cancelled by less greenhouse effect from water vapor.

Of course, when it comes to the atmospheric temperature increase caused by a doubling of CO2, the water vapor feedback is critical in determining the final outcome.

Results of previously published empirical studies are used to demonstrate that the water vapor feedback mechanism, so important to the calculation of a significant climatic effect for a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration, appears to be counter-balanced by another feedback mechanism of opposite sign.

Line - by - line calculations of atmospheric fluxes and cooling rates: Application to water vapor.

The results, summarized in Fig. 2, show unequivocally that the radiative forcing by noncondensing GHGs is essential to sustain the atmospheric temperatures that are needed for significant levels of water vapor and cloud feedback.

Instead atmospheric physics uses the fundamental equations (the radiative transfer equations) which determine absorption and emission of radiation by water vapor, CO2, methane, and other trace gases.

Part Four — discussion and results of a paper by Dessler et al using the latest AIRS and CERES data to calculate current atmospheric and water vapor feedback vs height and surface temperature

Some of the mid-latitude increase of stratospheric water vapor (1 % per year) over the period of 1980 - 2006 can be explained by the increase of atmospheric methane, but not all.

Also, while we have good atmospheric measurements of other key greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, we have poor measurements of global water vapor, so it is not certain by how much atmospheric concentrations have risen in recent decades or centuries, though satellite measurements, combined with balloon data and some in - situ ground measurements indicate generally positive trends in global water vapor.»

His model runs had atmospheric water vapor dropping by 90 % after CO2 was removed, but cloud cover increasing by 50 %, resulting in a world that would be a perpetually cloud - covered desert.

He deduced that the cooperation of these gases has to take the form of an optimal atmospheric transmittance window for infrared radiation, such that if the concentration of one gas, say carbon dioxide, varies and changes atmospheric transmittance, the other components, such as water vapor, will have to compensate for it by changing their concentrations.

The Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) The Economist refers to is how much Earth temperatures are expected to rise when one includes fast feedbacks such as atmospheric water vapor increase and the initial greenhouse gas forcing provided by CO2.

I also made an approximate correction for the effect of correlated noise caused by random fluctuations in cloud cover, atmospheric water vapor, and ocean heat re-distribution.

The storms are being driven by an «atmospheric river,» which, as NOAA explains, is a «relatively narrow» region in the atmosphere «responsible for most of the horizontal transport of water vapor outside of the tropics.»

A detailed and very accurate calculation of the atmospheric flows of moist air must take into account also the effects related to the volume taken by water vapor both when water vapor is added by evaporation and when it's removed in condensation, but these effects are very minor corrections and not a source of anything significant.

«For example, the best global atmospheric models driven by specified sea surface temperatures can do a good job of simulating global temperature, winds and water vapor distributions.

Since the CO2 looses 4.7 watts emission in a century, the earth accumulates this over the century raising temperature by 0.012 C / yr while the random chaos of the hydrological system with its raising temperature will radiate an additional power of 0.047 watts / year with its atmospheric water vapor temperature rise.

On January 3 and 4, the first of two back - to - back atmospheric river storms (wide paths of moisture in the atmosphere composed of condensed water vapor), brought heavy rain and mountain snow to central California, ahead of an even more intense round of heavy precipitation brought by a powerful, long - duration atmospheric river storm pulling warm and moist air to California from the subtropical and equatorial region southeast of Hawaii.

Fortunately, as depicted in Figure 2 (orange «thermal down surface» arrow), some of this energy does stay in the atmosphere, where it is sent back toward Earth by clouds, released by clouds as they condense to form rain or snow, or absorbed by atmospheric gases composed of three or more atoms, such as water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4).

This basic picture is complicated by important interactions between water vapor, clouds, atmospheric motion, and radiation from both the Sun and the Earth.

Humans emit gigatons of water vapor, by burning hydrocarbons, and it doesn't affect atmospheric H2O, because it's condensable.

Strangely, as Solomon et al. clearly are not aware that the sun does not shine at night, whereas the opacity (OPQ, a term unknown to the IPCC) of the sky becomes relevant, if we replace AVGLO by OPQ, then we have these results, that OPQ has a larger role than [CO2], but without being statistically significant, whereas the main player as before is the ESRL's «precipitable water», i.e., atmospheric water vapor, denoted here as [H2O], hugely statistically significant (t stat = 3.39, well above the benchmark 2.0).

Ryan Maue, I have found that I can, by brute force, get zonal atmospheric water vapor trends using the graphic displays at the RSS website here: http://www.remss.com/idx/ion - The displays at that link can be made to show zonal regions of a selected width for longitude and height for latitude that give a monthly mean for that area of the globe in the graphic caption.

The basic results of this climate model analysis are that: (1) it is increase in atmospheric CO2 (and the other minor non-condensing greenhouse gases) that control the greenhouse warming of the climate system; (2) water vapor and clouds are feedback effects that magnify the strength of the greenhouse effect due to the non-condensing greenhouse gases by about a factor of three; (3) the large heat capacity of the ocean and the rate of heat transport into the ocean sets the time scale for the climate system to approach energy balance equilibrium.

Moreover, the increase in atmospheric water vapor content in the Arctic region during late autumn and winter driven locally by the reduction of sea ice provides enhanced moisture sources, supporting increased heavy snowfall in Europe during early winter and the northeastern and midwestern United States during winter.