Sentences with phrase «changes of water vapour»

That is, unless you're ignoring «latent transport» and only tackling the «radiative» aspect of Miskolczi's paper (which, BTW, may throw up the hysteresis value for «phase changes of water vapour»).

He continues: «The important thing is that the inter-annual changes of water vapour and everything else associated with El Niño are not systematic long - term variations, rather they go up and down every two to five years or so.

The model considers all relevant feedback processes caused by changes of water vapour, lapse - rate, surface albedo or convection and evaporation.

Thus a change of water vapour, sky radiation and tempcrature is corrected by a change of cloudiness and atmospheric circulation, the former increasing the reflection loss and thus reducing the effective sun heat.

The second graph of the PDF shows a change of water vapour in the surface layer has a much larger effect on St (the part of the surface flux transmitted directly to space) than the same change in an upper layer.

Not exact matches

Susan Solomon and colleagues at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration combined satellite measurements and weather balloon data to track changes in the concentration of water vapour 16 kilometres up in the stratosphere, between the 1980s and today.

The team believes that the relationship between temperature and the isotopic composition of water vapour changes as climate warms.

What is evident from the dust during the cool phase and lack of dust during the warm phase was that the water vapour content of the air suddenly changed.

Water undergoes a change of state from gas to liquid under these conditions, because cooler air can hold less water vapour than warmerWater undergoes a change of state from gas to liquid under these conditions, because cooler air can hold less water vapour than warmerwater vapour than warmer air.

What G&T are missing is the linear effect of water vapour accelerating the ice albedo effect of change in size of the sea ice sheets.

Forcing changes of similar magnitude, due to water vapour variations, are measurable as regional temperature changes in Europe, see Philipona, but aerosol changes are not...

Blankenship, C.B., and T.T Wilheit, 2001: SSM / T -2 measurements of regional changes in three - dimensional water vapour fields during ENSO events.

Pierrehumbert, R.T., 1999: Subtropical water vapour as a mediator of rapid global climate change.

His research interests are the basic physics of the atmospheric response to climate change, particularly the water vapour feedback.

Let's say there is an initial change of 1 deg C. Which causes a change in CO2 giving 0.75 deg C, Which both causes a change in water vapour giving a total of 6 deg C.

Reasoning that, because it fluctuated daily, water vapour was continually recycling itself in and out of the atmosphere, he turned his attention to carbon dioxide, a gas resident for a long time in the atmosphere whose concentration was only (at that time) dramatically changed by major sources such as volcanoes or major drawdowns such as unusual and massive episodes of mineral weathering or the evolution of photosynthetic plants: events that occur on very long, geological timescales.

Source: Lyman 2010 The reaction of the oceans to climate change are some of the most profound across the entire environment, including disruption of the ocean food chain through chemical changes caused by CO2, the ability of the sea to absorb CO2 being limited by temperature increases, (and the potential to expel sequestered CO2 back into the atmosphere as the water gets hotter), sea - level rise due to thermal expansion, and the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere.

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.

ENSO changes the cloud cover and water vapour amounts and so you would expect it to affect the Top - of - the - atmosphere radiation balance which changes the overall amount of heat in the system.

The increase in water vapour as the surface warms is key, but so might be changes in boundary layer stability, rossby wave generation via longitudinally varying responses at the surface, impacts of the stratopshere on the steering of the jet, and the situation is completely different again for tropical storms.

I've been discussing climate change with lots of people at campaign stalls recently, and it has opened my eyes as to how far this «balanced» climate sceptic reporting is shaping the thinking of even those people who are concerned and want to see some action («I am aware that flying might make climate change worse, but I'll still do it because the warming may just be part of a natural cycle — I would stop if I was more certain»; «I am worried, but I have also heard that it is just water vapour which makes us warmer, so we just don't kow if this CO2 thing is true, everybody seems to have a different agenda» etc.).

What G&T are missing is the linear effect of water vapour accelerating the ice albedo effect of change in size of the sea ice sheets.

Indeed, there is a clear physical reason why this is the case — the increase in water vapour as surface air temperature rises causes a change in the moist - adiabatic lapse rate (the decrease of temperature with height) such that the surface to mid-tropospheric gradient decreases with increasing temperature (i.e. it warms faster aloft).

What other things in the Earth system will change when it warms up that will affect how much SW radiation is reflected back into space [eg ice - albedo feedback, cloud changes] or affect what proportion of emitted LW radiation is allowed to escape to space [eg Water Vapour, cloud changes].

The Tiamat Hypothesis, not eponymously named by me, proposes that the climate is chaotic, and that it is driven partly by the Clausius - Clapeyron relationship for water vapour, and partly by the changes in the state of water.

The 4 W / m2 TOA forcing is the consequence of an imposed change in CO2 — all changes to LW absorption in the atmosphere as a consequence of that initial change (through water vapour, cloud or temperature profile responses) are feedbacks.

There is a small potential for the direct forcing of water vapour by changes in irrigation patterns, but this appears to be small on the global scale.

There's one piece to that jigsaw which is not often discussed: the primary feedbacks (water vapour, clouds), which ultimately determine the magnitude of the imbalance, are mainly dependent on surface temperature change rather than the mere presence of GHGs or related energy fluxes.

To be sure, some of these effects (such as the impact of irrigation on surface water vapour, or land use changes on evapotranspiration) are not easily dealt with in terms of the tropospheric radiative forcing — a point that was well made in the National Academies report on radiative forcing (on which Dr. Pielke was an author).

Forcing changes of similar magnitude, due to water vapour variations, are measurable as regional temperature changes in Europe, see Philipona, but aerosol changes are not...

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.

both phase change of ice to water and water to vapour are involved.

And the other sort of latent heat, a decrease in atmospheric water vapour is also the stuff of fantasy requiring a change of 50,000 cu km when the atmosphere only contains (and only can contain) ~ 13,000 cu km without crazy temperature increases.

It is standard practice to include only the fast feedback processes, including changes in water vapour, in the calculation of climate sensitivity, but to exclude possible induced changes in the concentrations of other greenhouse gases (as well as other slow feedback processes).

That temperature change will be considerable amplified by the greenhouse effect of water vapour due to the greater humidity at the higher temperature.

Those water vapour swings have changed the power of the greenhouse effect many times over the millennia, far more than CO2 is expected to, yet no tipping point has ever been crossed.

In GCMs, the global mean evaporation changes closely balance the precipitation change, but not locally because of changes in the atmospheric transport of water vapour.

All that said, we can draw the conclusion that the theoretical effects of CO2 do in fact exist, they have been measured over a 10 cm path length, and from this we can extrapolate that a still higher sensitivity would be arrived at once the entire atmospheric scale and the change in water vapour concentration from bottom to top of that scale is taken into account.

confuses the question as the main driver of the «thermal» structural changes in the upper troposphere is not the lapse rate changes as such, it is the water vapour itself.

The observed regional changes are consistent in pattern and amount with the changes in SST and the assumption of a near - constant relative humidity increase in water vapour mixing ratio.

1) «Land use changes are a component forcing of AGW» and I thought (according to the IPCC TAR) it was CO2 emissions but at least in your reply you are prepared to admit that CO2 is a secondary effect and that the major GHG is water vapour.

Due to instrumental limitations, it is difficult to assess long - term changes in water vapour in the upper troposphere, where it is of radiative importance.

they claim the tropospheric hot spot exists because more water vapour should exists in that region (raising of the upper troposphere), and small fractional changes make a larger change in the temperature anomaly because GHGs are in the lower part of the log scale rather that the higher saturated state.

Based on evidence from Earth's history, we suggest here that the relevant form of climate sensitivity in the Anthropocene (e.g. from which to base future greenhouse gas (GHG) stabilization targets) is the Earth system sensitivity including fast feedbacks from changes in water vapour, natural aerosols, clouds and sea ice, slower surface albedo feedbacks from changes in continental ice sheets and vegetation, and climate — GHG feedbacks from changes in natural (land and ocean) carbon sinks.

Second, the feedbacks are all based on a series of assumptions that climate science will not question (water vapour, positive cloud feedback, no / tiny lapse rate change).

It is my understanding that he derived these results from his knowledge of the infrared properties of carbon dioxide and water vapour (and not by curve fitting to observations, though he had also carried out his own estimates of changes in global temperature.)

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.

Susan Solomon wrote this paper on water vapor in 2010 and she states this: Scientists have underestimated the role that water vapour plays in determining global temperature changes, according to a new study that could fuel further attacks on the science of climate change.

Of course Ferdinand is right not to project catastrophism onto anthropogenic CO2 levels for as you likely know there is a inverse logarithmic relationship between changes in temperature and CO2 levels such that without the assumed positive feedback from water vapour there is no chance of runaway global warming, tipping points or whateveOf course Ferdinand is right not to project catastrophism onto anthropogenic CO2 levels for as you likely know there is a inverse logarithmic relationship between changes in temperature and CO2 levels such that without the assumed positive feedback from water vapour there is no chance of runaway global warming, tipping points or whateveof runaway global warming, tipping points or whatever.

The surface temperature changes are the result of both cloud and water vapour change and changes in heat flux between ocean and atmosphere.