Sentences with phrase «if water vapour»

If the water vapour content were higher, then the nights would cool less, but the days would warm less too though, as we see in the tropics as compared to deserts.

If water vapour feedback was positive then due to the increased evaporation spurred on by the original warming in the MWP there should have ensued a period of elevated temperatures for thousands of years until the cooling of the Holocene as we dip into the next glacial period overwhelmed the positive water vapour forcing.

If water vapour feedback was positive they would never had ended.

If the water vapour feedback didn't, in the end, change to negative, the Earth would eons ago have lost its oceans.

If an increase of 5 % in CO2 results in an increase of 1 % in water vapour, and if water vapour has say 30x the influence of CO2 on heat trapping, then a 1 % increase in CO2 will result in an increase of 30/5 = 6 % in the heat trapping impact of water vapour.

If your water vapour is out of equilibrium, you will have a forcing that is the systemic response to the water vapour being out of equilibrium.

Lower obliquity should result in more water vapour in the tropics if the water vapour feedback holds true.

This will result in roughly twice as much warming than if water vapour remained constant.

Not exact matches

If a mineral called serpentinite is present, for example, it would break down at 630 °C and release its chemically bound water as vapour.

If it were possible to leave the clouds but remove all other water vapour from the atmosphere, only about 40 % less infrared of all frequencies would be absorbed.

This rapid turnover means that even if human activity was directly adding or removing significant amounts of water vapour (it isn't), there would be no slow build - up of water vapour as is happening with CO2 (see Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are tiny compared with natural sources).

If carbon dioxide melts the Arctic sea - ice the change in water vapour will be catastrophic, because it produces a positve feedback.

Any calculation that lumps together water vapour and CO2 is effectively doing this (and if anyone is any doubt about whether water vapour is forcing or a feedback, I'd refer them to this older post).

Even a smaller eruption that manages to have an eruptive plume that reaches the stratosphere could very well have greater implications on global temperatures if there's more water vapour for SO2 to react with.

I very much doubt that all the melted ice will end up in the atmosphere as water vapour; be interesting to see if someone has some figures on this.

If a positive feedback amplifies a signal, and the resulting change attributable to water vapour feedback is greater than the initial signal, then any further perturbations will be competing with the change attributable to water vapor.

If the enhanced atmospheric warming from a CO2 - induced temperature rise of 1 oC results in enhanced water vapour that gives an additional warming of say x oC, the overall warming (doubled CO2 + water vapour feedback; leaving out other feedbacks for now) will be something like 1.1 * (1 + x + x2 + x3...) or 1.1 / (1 - x)-RSB-.

If these ionisation cascades get to the «weather layer», wouldn't the poles be cloudier on average than expected, cf. at lower latitudes (and accounting for water vapour differences between the two extremes)?

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.).

It cools, and if it get high enough any water vapour it contains that has not already turned into cloud, condenses into ice clouds.

But since it is linear, if the temperature rises then the water vapour will run away, because the higher temperature leads to more water vapour which causes more greenhouse warming which leads to higher temperatures.

Planck feedback will not stabilise the temperatures at a particular point if forcings are constantly increasing a la the proposed water vapour feedback to increased temperatures.

You really need to account for the vertical structure of temperature (the lapse rate), and if you want your model to get a number of basic things right you need to include spectrally grey absorbers — plus the additional mixing in the troposphere (which depends on convection, and hence affects water vapour feedbacks) etc....

Any calculation that lumps together water vapour and CO2 is effectively doing this (and if anyone is any doubt about whether water vapour is forcing or a feedback, I'd refer them to this older post).

If the Arctic ice is melting and more water vapour is rising into the stratosphere from there, then that might account for the clouds you are seeing, although they should soon start travelling north again.

OTOH, if a nuclear weapon was exploded on or under the ocean surface, then water vapour would be ejected into the stratosphere.

And the equation is true for water vapour as well if there is no phase change.

If it is correct, as I have read, that water vapour taken into the atmosphere takes about a week to return as precipitation then that implies that on average the entire atmosphere turns over 52 times in every year.

Air is therefore supersaturated if it contains more than enough water vapour to saturate it at its current temperature.

July 17, 2013 at 1:39 pm The lapse rate feedback is only a negative feedback (in the general circulation model) if the long wave radiation that is released when the water vapour condenses is emitted to space rather than trapped by increased water vapour.

These models suggest that if the net effect of ocean circulation, water vapour, cloud, and snow feedbacks were zero, the approximate temperature response to a doubling of carbon dioxide from pre-industrial levels would be a 1oC warming.

We have far more data about increasing CO2 than increasing water vapor, hence if we want to test this hypothesis by looking for a correlation between global warming and the combined effect of CO2 and H2O, a correlation with CO2 alone is more feasible than one involving water vapour.

If humidity — the levels of water vapour in the air — go up with the thermometer, then people caught in a zone of extreme heat can not adjust body temperatures by perspiration.

If you remove CO2, the resulting decline in temperature will cause a decline in water vapour, which would drive temps down further than 1K.

If the radiation from one molecule of carbon dioxide in every 2,500 air molecules could actually slow the rate of cooling of Earth's surface, then the radiation from water vapour should slow the cooling at least a hundred fold, making rain forests about 50 degrees hotter than dry regions at similar latitudes and altitudes.

If you want, you can compare the absorption rates of the whole atmosphere, or parts (poles, mid-latitudes and tropics), winter or summer, clear sky or cloudy,... for different CO2, O3 and CH4 levels and feedbacks of water vapour at the Archers page: http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/Projects/modtran.orig.html

If the «top - of - the - water - vapour» is lower, even if PW is greater, the atmosphere sends more energy to spacIf the «top - of - the - water - vapour» is lower, even if PW is greater, the atmosphere sends more energy to spacif PW is greater, the atmosphere sends more energy to space:

Meanwhile it does not answer the main point of my last post, which is that that most climatologists view this aspect of the earth's environment as «weather» (or statistical noise) and that if you measure temperatures for long enough periods of time (30 + years) the effect of clouds, rain and water vapour average out and a temperature trend signal will become apparent.

So called greenhouse gases (mostly water vapour, of course) do not raise the temperature of the lower troposphere and cool the upper troposphere because, if they did, the wet adiabatic lapse rate would be steeper than the dry one — the opposite of reality.

But in calculating the 254.5 K temperature they fail to alter the albedo which, according to their energy diagrams includes 30 % of solar radiation reflected back to space by those clouds which would only exist if the greenhouse pollutant, water vapour actually existed.

If you drop atmospheric water vapour to zero, it will reconstitute.

But, if global temperatures increase from man - made global warming, this could increase water vapour concentrations, potentially leading to more warming.

Neither you nor your reference proves any error in my explanation that Earth would be just as hot or hotter than the present if there were no water, water vapour, clouds, vegetation, carbon dioxide or other radiating gases in it atmosphere which would thus have no albedo due to lack of clouds, and which rocky surface would have emissivity less than 0.88.

For instance if a 1 degree increase in T leads to lets say a further 3 degree increase through positive feedback with water vapour then shouldn't this 3 degree increase lead to a further 9 degree increase and then a 27 degree increase etc..

I wonder if these models recognize the loss of atmospheric water that has occurred since 1948 or do they ignore the reality and build in a water vapour feedback loop to boost the supposed backwelling radiation to the surface.

All you need if for the temp increase to last for enough time for the water vapour to have time to effect the climate.

If you burn a 5ton tree, 0,5 kg ash left — the rest all gone in smoke as water vapour + CO2.

Even if that were the case though, the point is, there is no hotspot which means there is currently no major amplification from water vapour.

This assumption means that if temperatures increase for any reason, the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere increases.

You can get any invalid «sensitivity» you wish if you start with invalid assumptions that the atmosphere would have been isothermal without WV and GHG Without WV the surface would have been around 300K, but water vapour reduced the gradient (as does carbon dioxide to a minuscule extent because it radiates in far fewer frequencies than WV) and so each has a cooling effect.