Sentences with phrase «distribution of water vapor»

Improved understanding of the processes determining the distribution of water vapor and its changes over time, including cloud processes and water vapor transport.

Note 1 — The total amount of water vapor, TPW (total precipitable water), is obviously something we want to know, but we don't have enough information if we don't know the distribution of this water vapor with height.

It is true that water vapor and CO2 have some overlap of spectra, and the distribution of water vapor vs height is different from CO2.

(Where Calipso seems very useful in demonstrating the distribution of water vapor and its reflectivity value (Hence the association with temperature.)

While the amounts and distribution of water vapor and clouds are feedbacks, the intrinsic properties are «externally - imposed» by the physics, as is the case with snow and ice, etc..

The other curve is a calculated actual OLR for the amount and distribution of water vapor, CO2, CH4, etc, and clouds, for a vertical temperature profile, representative of the global atmoosphere.

In Relationships between Water Vapor Path and Precipitation over the Tropical Oceans, Bretherton et al showed that although the Western Pacific warmer surface waters increased the water in the atmosphere compared to the Eastern Pacific, rainfall was lower in the Western Pacific compared to the Eastern Pacific for equal amounts of water vapor in the atmospheric column — e.g., about 10mm / day in the Western Pacific, versus ~ 20mm / day in the Eastern Pacific at 55 mm water vapor, the peak of the distribution of water vapor amounts.

The distribution of water vapor is the only thing that causes or doesn't cause global warming.

All the convective and advective goings on in the atmosphere act to establish the global distributions of water vapor, clouds, and temperature.

Part Six — Nonlinearity and Dry Atmospheres — demonstrating that different distributions of water vapor yet with the same mean can result in different radiation to space, and how this is important for drier regions like the sub-tropics

Not exact matches

The research, published yesterday in Nature Climate Change, outlines a counterintuitive side effect of climate change: As higher temperatures drive plants and trees into areas now inhospitable to them, their new distribution speeds up temperature rise via natural processes such as releases of heat - trapping water vapor into the air.

I will present new numerical models that treat dust coagulation / fragmentation, dust dynamics, simple gas - grain chemistry, and vapor diffusion simultaneously, and explore the connection between the water vapor in the disk atmosphere and the size - distribution and ice - to - rock ratios of the dust grains growing in the midplane.

The distribution of water sources on the surface was derived by observing variations in the water signal during the dwarf planet's nine - hour rotation period, which suggested that almost all of the water vapor was coming from just two spots on the surface.

«It is now widely known that the water vapor feedback in general circulation models (GCMs) is close to that which would result from a climate ‐ invariant distribution of relative humidity [Soden and Held, 2006], as long anticipated before the advent of such models [e.g., Arrhenius, 1896; Manabe and Wetherald, 1967].»

Rearranaging the winds and water vapor distribution strikes me as a good candidate for effecting a flip on the time scale of a few years, with water vapor content resetting the thermostat.

Depending on just what you assume about cloud and water vapor distributions, this yields a radiative forcing of about -2.5 Watts per square meter.

Thus there is convection within the troposphere that (to a first approximation) tends to sustain some lapse rate profile within the layer — that itself can vary as a function of climate (and height, location, time), but given any relative temperature distribution within the layer (including horizontal and temporal variations and relationship to variable CSD contributors (water vapor, clouds)-RRB-, the temperature of the whole layer must shift to balance radiative fluxes into and out of the layer (in the global time averae, and in the approximation of zero global time average convection above the troposphere), producing a PRt2 (in the global time average) equal to RFt2.

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).

That was holding the distribution of solar heating steady, which would require removing water vapor, cloud, and ozone LW optical thickness but still leaving behind their SW (solar) optical properties.

There will be Regionally / locally and temporal variations; increased temperature and backradiation tend to reduce the diurnal temperature cycle on land, though regional variations in cloud feedbacks and water vapor could cause some regions to have the opposite effect; changes in surface moisture and humidity also changes the amount of convective cooling that can occur for the same temperature distribution.

First, for changing just CO2 forcing (or CH4, etc, or for a non-GHE forcing, such as a change in incident solar radiation, volcanic aerosols, etc.), there will be other GHE radiative «forcings» (feedbacks, though in the context of measuring their radiative effect, they can be described as having radiative forcings of x W / m2 per change in surface T), such as water vapor feedback, LW cloud feedback, and also, because GHE depends on the vertical temperature distribution, the lapse rate feedback (this generally refers to the tropospheric lapse rate, though changes in the position of the tropopause and changes in the stratospheric temperature could also be considered lapse - rate feedbacks for forcing at TOA; forcing at the tropopause with stratospheric adjustment takes some of that into account; sensitivity to forcing at the tropopause with stratospheric adjustment will generally be different from sensitivity to forcing without stratospheric adjustment and both will generally be different from forcing at TOA before stratospheric adjustment; forcing at TOA after stratospehric adjustment is identical to forcing at the tropopause after stratospheric adjustment).

There can / will be local and regional, latitudinal, diurnal and seasonal, and internal variability - related deviations to the pattern (in temperature and in optical properties (LW and SW) from components (water vapor, clouds, snow, etc.) that vary with weather and climate), but the global average effect is at least somewhat constrained by the global average vertical distribution of solar heating, which requires the equilibrium net convective + LW fluxes, in the global average, to be sizable and upward at all levels from the surface to TOA, thus tending to limit the extent and magnitude of inversions.)

First and foremost is I have yet to see a good discussion on how Global Warming effects your observation of a Northward movement of the apparent circulation of the ITCZ heat energy and water vapor distribution.

A Lacis: You don't seem to appreciate the fact that water vapor and clouds are feedback effects, which means that the water vapor and cloud distributions depend directly on the local meteorological conditions, and are therefore constrained by the temperature dependence of the Clausius - Clapeyron relation.

You don't seem to appreciate the fact that water vapor and clouds are feedback effects, which means that the water vapor and cloud distributions depend directly on the local meteorological conditions, and are therefore constrained by the temperature dependence of the Clausius - Clapeyron relation.

We use the GISS model of radiative transfer through the global atmosphere to try and break down the attribution using realistic distributions of local temperature, water vapor and clouds.

The upshot is flatlining temperatures observed in the last one or two decades may be caused by a hidden, as yet unidentified homeostatic mechanism mediated by changes in fine details of water vapor distribution (never represented properly in computational models, neither measured ever).

Follow the water vapor and you can follow the regional distribution of AGW.

Andrew Lacis wrote: (3) Water vapor and clouds account for about 75 % the strength of the terrestrial greenhouse effect, but are feedback effects that require sustained radiative forcing to maintain their atmospheric distribution.

Atmospheric water vapor and cloud distributions are the direct results of the model physics interactions (via evaporation, transport, condensation, precipitation).

During this two - week transition period, any water vapor excess (or deficit) relative to the equilibrium distribution did of course produce a radiative greenhouse heating (or cooling) effect, but this «virtual forcing» was very transient in nature, without any lasting impact on the global temperature.

(3) Water vapor and clouds account for about 75 % the strength of the terrestrial greenhouse effect, but are feedback effects that require sustained radiative forcing to maintain their atmospheric distribution.

3 Further complicating the response of the different atmospheric levels to increases in greenhouse gases are other processes such as those associated with changes in the concentration and distribution of atmospheric water vapor and clouds.

And the simple equations for how much water vapor is in the atmosphere as a function of temperature would be several percent, but, in addition, the distribution of the storms that release the moisture is changing.

I have compared it to water vapor levels, OLR, precipitation, rotation of the Earth, SOI, Pacific subsurface temperatures, Trade Winds, cloud patterns, precipitation, atmospheric angular momentum, the AMO, tropical / global temperatures, and the spatial distribution of those temperature changes.

States that other feedbacks likely to emerge are those in which key processes include surface fluxes of trace gases, changes in the distribution of vegetation, changes in surface soil moisture, changes in atmospheric water vapor arising from higher temperatures and greater areas of open ocean, impacts of Arctic freshwater fluxes on the meridional overturning circulation of the ocean, and changes in Arctic clouds resulting from changes in water vapor content

«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.

The mean distribution of precipitable water, or total atmospheric water vapor above the Earth's surface, is shown in Figure 2.

Modeling would be improved by systematic examination of models's treatment of water vapor in light of what is now known of its distributions.

Figure 1 shows the mean vertical distribution of temperature and the mixing ratio of water vapor in the atmosphere.

The mean vertical distribution of temperature and the water vapor mixing ratio in the atmosphere are shown.

The challenge is how best to merge the available information on water vapor distribution into an improved description of the time and space variations of water vapor to enhance climate studies.

The results are pictures of global water vapor distributions and their changes.

David, Wouldn't you agree that if the seasonal and geographic distributions of atmospheric temperature, water vapor, and clouds distributions of climate model simulations are a reasonably close reproduction of current climate conditions, that atmospheric dynamics is not a major obstacle or source of bias in the modeling of atmospheric effects.

It is the combined effects of solar heating and greenhouse warming that establishes the atmospheric temperature structure and water vapor and cloud distribution.

Despite the simplicity of this idea, which entirely neglects detailed microphysics and other small - scale processes, such models accurately reproduce the observed water vapor distribution for the mid and upper troposphere (3, 4).

The oceans can impact global mean surface temperature in several ways; directly, through surface fluxes of heat, or indirectly, by altering the atmospheric circulation and impacting the distribution of clouds and water vapor.