Sentences with phrase «from increased water vapor»

A decreasing lapse rate is actually a negative feedback, but the increased radiation from increased water vapor is supposed to more than make up for that.

In the case of water vapor, it is referred to as «negative lapse rate feedback» and demonstrates a net negative feedback cooling effect from increased water vapor.

ris — The reduced IR cooling results from increased water vapor which is increasing more than twice as fast as expected from temperature increase alone (increased vapor pressure, hence increased water vapor, from increased temperature is what causes the feedback).

For example, they predicted the expansion of the Hadley cells, the poleward movement of storm tracks, the rising of the tropopause, the rising of the effective radiating altitude, the circulation of aerosols in the atmosphere, the modelling of the transmission of radiation through the atmosphere, the clear sky super greenhouse effect that results from increased water vapor in the tropics, the near constancy of relative humidity, and polar amplification, the cooling of the stratosphere while the troposphere warmed.

Not exact matches

Increase the global temperature a bit, however, and there could be a bad feedback effect, with water evaporating faster, freeing water vapor (a potent greenhouse gas), which traps more heat, which drives carbon dioxide from the rocks, which drives temperatures still higher.

For example, added water vapor pumped into the upper atmosphere from the chimney increases the amount of energy trapped there, in turn heating the planet further.

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.

... 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).

For starters, one simply can not equate the positive feedback effect of melting ice (both reduced albedo and increased water vapor) from that of leaving maximum ice to that of minimum ice where the climate is now (and is during every interglacial period).

There is a clear impact on global temperature, too, though the mechanisms are complex: heat released from the oceans; increases in water vapor, which enhance the greenhouse effect, and redistributions of clouds.

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.

[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?)

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.

More water vapor from rising temperatures will further increase the temperature rise.

And since the 1970 ′ s on average there's about a 4 % increase in water vapor over the Atlantic Ocean and when that gets caught into a storm, it invigorates the storm so the storm itself changes, and that can easily double the influence of that water vapor and so you can get up to an 8 % increase, straight from the amount of water vapor that's sort of hanging around in the atmosphere.

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.

Long waves (infrared) light from the sun, GHGs, clouds, are trapped at the surface of the oceans, directly leading to increased «skin» temperature, more water vapor (a very effective GHG), faster convection (with more loss of heat to space in the tropics),... How each of them converts to real regional / global temperature increases / decreases is another point of discussion...

Although data are not complete, and sometimes contradictory, the weight of evidence from past studies shows on a global scale that precipitation, runoff, atmospheric water vapor, soil moisture, evapotranspiration, growing season length, and wintertime mountain glacier mass are all increasing.

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).

Water vapor also tends to reduce net LW cooling at the surface, which would force increased convection from the surface.

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 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.

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

goodsprk: It relies on not simply CO2, but on feedback from increased CO2 raising the temperature which increases the water vapor in the atmosphere which the alarmist assume will actually breaking up the low level clouds and forming high level cirrus clouds that will trap more heat.

Higher temperatures, from any source, will increase water vapor, assuming there's water around to be evaporated.

It relies on not simply CO2, but on feedback from increased CO2 raising the temperature which increases the water vapor in the atmosphere which the alarmist assume will actually breaking up the low level clouds and forming high level cirrus clouds that will trap more heat.

Peter (11:57:58) said: The fatal flaw here is the assumption that it takes the warming from CO2, or any other greenhouse gas with the exception of water vapor to trigger the warming but, once this is done, the temperature increase from water vapor keeps the» spiral» going.

The fatal flaw here is the assumption that it takes the warming from CO2, or any other greenhouse gas with the exception of water vapor to trigger the warming but, once this is done, the temperature increase from water vapor keeps the «spiral» going.

Therefore, near the poles, water vapor is near zero, almost all of the GHG concentrations are from the non - condensing / man - caused - increasing CO2 and methane.

«Arctic Amplification» form CO2 was not primarily from the (theorectical) loss - of - ice / increase in albedo meme so often used, but ratehr it began from the relative amounts of GHG's in the warmer, more water - vapor laden equatorial climates to the very dry Arctic regions.

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 water vapor, lapse - rate and ice - albedo feedbacks in isolation enhance the global warming that would result from increasing CO2 concentrations alone to around +2.2 °C.

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?

Is it not also therefore true that the polar areas of least water vapor, where a greater temperature increase from doubling of Co-2 would have the most effect, has the least W / sq - m percentage of both incoming S - W and outgoing L - W radiation due to the incident angle of incoming Sun light, the high reflectivity of the snow and ice, and the greatly reduced outgoing L - W radiation due to this?

Is it not also therefore true that the polar areas of least water vapor, where a greater temperature increase from doubling of Co-2 would have the most effect, has the least percentage of both incoming S - W and outgoing L - W radiation due to the incident angle of incoming Sun light, the high reflectivity of the snow and ice, and the greatly reduced outgoing L - W radiation due to this?

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.

Add CO2 — > increased atmospheric LW absorption — > direct radiative constraint from the E (SRF, clear) = 2OLR (clear) geometric requirement — > immediate (instantaneous) negative radiative water vapor feedback.

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

The increased water vapor roughly doubles the direct radiative forcing, giving the 1 — 2 % value, although this will vary from day to day.

On the question of hurricanes, the theoretical arguments that more energy and water vapor in the atmosphere should lead to stronger storms are really sound (after all, storm intensity increases going from pole toward equator), but determining precisely how human influences (so including GHGs [greenhouse gases] and aerosols, and land cover change) should be changing hurricanes in a system where there are natural external (solar and volcanoes) and internal (e.g., ENSO, NAO [El Nino - Southern Oscillation, North Atlantic Oscillation]-RRB- influences is quite problematic — our climate models are just not good enough yet to carry out the types of sensitivity tests that have been done using limited area hurricane models run for relatively short times.

However, there is also the expansion of the Hadley Cells where water vapor from tropical ocean evaporation rises, water in the form of rain falls out as the air cools with increased altitude, then dry air descends at poleward edge of the cells in the dry subtropics.

A substantial reduction in water vapor (shown below, from Lacis et al (2010) as well as increase in the surface albedo are important feedbacks here, showing that removing the non-condensing greenhouse gases (mostly CO2) in the atmosphere can collapse nearly the entire terrestrial greenhouse effect.

Dan Pangborn: The still - rising water vapor (WV) is rising at 1.5 % per decade which is more than twice as fast as expected from water temperature increase alone (feedback, engineering definition).

At the moment, Lindzen is pursuing a theory that says increased amounts of water vapor — from warming surface temperatures — will reduce heat - trapping high - cirrus clouds, which will help balance the planet's temperature.

The Charney Report stated that numerical modelers of global climate had estimated that the modest warming caused by carbon dioxide would be greatly amplified by a more powerful warming from an increase in water vapor, particularly in the tropics.

But what happened to the «feedbacks» from water vapor, clouds, etc., which (according to IPCC AR4) increase the 2xCO2 ECS to 3.2 C and the transient temperature response to ~ 2C?

However, if the water vapor scale increases from 1.0 to 1.1 (and there is no documentation explaining what this value represents), then the 800 ppm temperature offset becomes 1.38 °C, a bit higher, but still nowhere near 3 °C.

I guess one could say there's increased heat uptake from sunlight and heat release from water vapor.

Venus succumbed early to a «runaway water vapor greenhouse,» in which the increased water vapor content arising from increased temperature reached an end state with much of the ocean evaporated into the atmosphere.