Sentences with phrase «by increased water vapor»

The feedback temperature effects are caused by increased water vapor.

The hypothetical amplification of anthropogenic CO2 forcing by increased water vapor is a wholesale fabrication without a shred of evidence to support it and with mountains of contrary evidence.

The mechanisms whereby climate change due to global warming caused by heat - trapping greenhouse gases, and enhanced by increased water vapor, have been well explained in many loci.

At some point the clouds caused by increased water vapor reflect enough sunlight that the incoming energy goes down... and then...

The way I think about is that for precipitation there is a shift in distribution caused by increased water vapor.

It's also pretty likely that the El Nino will bring some very damaging weather at various points, which will serve to remind us that flooding is something to respect and yes, fear, whether it's driven by El Nino or by increasing water vapor content due to global warming.

Not exact matches

Of course, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is also affected by another potent greenhouse gas — methane — which has unexpectedly failed to increase in recent years.

Most climatologists expect that on average the atmospheres water vapor content will increase in response to surface warming caused by the long - lived greenhouse gases, further accelerating the overall warming trend.

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.

According to Dr. Kevin Trenberth at NCAR in Boulder, Colo., an increase in water vapor floating overhead, triggered by warming of the atmosphere and oceans, is already loading the dice.

However, the surface warming caused by human - produced increases in carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases leads to a large increase in water vapor, since a warmer atmosphere holds more moisture.

Current state - of - the - art climate models predict that increasing water vapor concentrations in warmer air will amplify the greenhouse effect created by anthropogenic greenhouse gases while maintaining nearly constant relative humidity.

For every 1 °C (1.8 °F) of warming, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere increases by about 7 percent.

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.

... 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).

The stratopsheric cooling may be caused by the tropospheric water vapor (see figure 3 of http://www.springerlink.com/content/6677gr5lx8421105/fulltext.pdf)-- but in that figure water vapor is fixed only above sigma = 0.14 (~ 140 hPa), so the cooling may also be caused by the increase in lower stratospheric water vapor.

The climate responds to the warming or cooling, in part by increasing or decreasing water vapor a la Claussius - Clapeyron.

Magma at Mount Agung in Bali has moved upward, indicated by the release of water vapor from its crater, in addition to increased seismic activity, the Energy and Mineral Resources Ministry's Volcanology and Geological Hazard Mitigation Center (PVMBG) reported on Monday.

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.

1) Even though CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere has gone up by 30 % over the last 200 years or so (compared to being stable for 400 000), I have a hard time to comprehend how an increase from 0.028 % to 0.038 % of CO2 by volume can have any effect on the thermal mass of the atmosphere considering that water vapor by volume is 50x greater and has higher thermal coefficients.

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.

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?

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

So the water vapor profile might simply shift upward by some amount with each unit temperature increase.

Increased water vapor will provide energy by latent heat release and somewhat compensate for the loss.

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.

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.

One could also show how the spectra of LW radiation is affected by the resulting temperature increase and also by the water vapor feedback.

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).

The first is the paper «Anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback increase temperature in Europe» by Rolf Philipona et al. (GRL, 2005, subscription required for full text), which has attracted a certain amount of media attention.

However, higher temperatures do cause an increased chance of heavy precipitation events, and it is likely that the flooding in some of this year's U.S. flooding disasters were significantly enhanced by the presence of more water vapor in the air due to global warming.

The water vapor from this first increase in temperature will have its own greenhouse effect, raising the temperature further but by a smaller amount.

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.

It is such that any potential warming by increasing CO2 is negated by changes in water vapor.

At the same time climate models produce water vapor amplification by correctly predicting SH increases but incorrectly holding RH constant.

It's hard to see how water vapor could be a negative feedback if 1) water vapor is a greenhouse gas (undeniable); and 2) water vapor increases with temperature (supported by theory and observations).

Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmospWater vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmospwater vapor to enter the atmosphere.

How come the temperature increase from current water vapor levels (above what the temperature would be in the absence of water vapor) doesn't by itself trigger the «spiral» in the first place?

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.

Is the majority of the initial (before feedback) atmosphere heating resulting from increased CO-2 reduced by the fact that the majority (W - Sq - M at low latitude) of outgoing radiation is in the latitudes most saturated by water vapor?

Higher modelled temperature in the troposphere enables the general circulation model to assume there is more water vapour in the troposphere which amplifies the CO2 forcing by increasing the amount of water vapor in troposphere.

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.

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

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.

The notion of an H2O positive feedback (which probably is present on a clear day) is squashed by this process.While warmer air can hold exponentially more water vapor, presumably increasing greenhouse effects (an process the IPCC hangs its collective hat on), it is also this exact same property that vastly improves the chances of convective and phase change heat transport by thunderstorms.

If, for instance, CO2 concentrations are doubled, then the absorption would increase by 4 W / m2, but once the water vapor and clouds react, the absorption increases by almost 20 W / m2 — demonstrating that (in the GISS climate model, at least) the «feedbacks» are amplifying the effects of the initial radiative forcing from CO2 alone.

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.