Sentences with phrase «in atmospheric water vapour»

So, that's 1.2 degrees C for the basic physics of added greenhouse effect of a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; coupled with a further increase of a similar magnitude from changes in atmospheric water vapour that come about as a direct consequence.

The annual peak in atmospheric water vapour content occur usually around August - September, when northern hemisphere vegetation is at maximum transpiration.

The so - called water vapour feedback, caused by an increase in atmospheric water vapour due to a temperature increase, is the most important feedback responsible for the amplification of the temperature increase.

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.

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.

Not exact matches

In a warming world, atmospheric water vapour content is expected to rise due to an increase in saturation water vapour pressure with air temperaturIn a warming world, atmospheric water vapour content is expected to rise due to an increase in saturation water vapour pressure with air temperaturin saturation water vapour pressure with air temperature.

The climate sensitivity classically defined is the response of global mean temperature to a forcing once all the «fast feedbacks» have occurred (atmospheric temperatures, clouds, water vapour, winds, snow, sea ice etc.), but before any of the «slow» feedbacks have kicked in (ice sheets, vegetation, carbon cycle etc.).

Initial data from the Cassini - Huygens spacecraft, which began exploring the Saturnian system in 2004, show that methane is indeed a minor atmospheric constituent but a very important one, possibly playing a role analogous to that of water vapour in Earth's troposphere.

Observational evidence indicates that the frequency of the heaviest rainfall events has likely increased within many land regions in general agreement with model simulations that indicate that rainfall in the heaviest events is likely to increase in line with atmospheric water vapour concentration.

Simulations and observations of total atmospheric water vapour averaged over oceans agree closely when the simulations are constrained by observed SSTs, suggesting that anthropogenic influence has contributed to an increase in total atmospheric water vapour.

«The far north has indeed been behaving bizarrely in Nov / Dec 2016, setting many new records for temperature, sea ice extent, atmospheric water vapour content, and Arctic amplification (the difference in temperature between the Arctic and northern mid-latitudes)»

This heat leads to great quantities of water vapour introduced in the atmospheric circulation.

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.

The climate sensitivity classically defined is the response of global mean temperature to a forcing once all the «fast feedbacks» have occurred (atmospheric temperatures, clouds, water vapour, winds, snow, sea ice etc.), but before any of the «slow» feedbacks have kicked in (ice sheets, vegetation, carbon cycle etc.).

Presumably the water vapour feedback in models is dealt with by determining / estimating / calculating the radiative forcing from water vapour and then making some assumption about the water vapour response to atmospheric warming (e.g. assuming constant relative humidity).

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-.

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

In view of the much larger quantities and absorbing power of atmospheric water vapour it was concluded that the effect of carbon dioxide was probably negligible.»

Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and amplifies any warming caused by changes in atmospheric CO2.

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.

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.

In 1928, George Simpson published a memoir on atmospheric radiation, which assumed water vapour was the only greenhouse gas, even though, as Richardson pointed out in a comment, there was evidence that even dry air absorbed infrared radiatioIn 1928, George Simpson published a memoir on atmospheric radiation, which assumed water vapour was the only greenhouse gas, even though, as Richardson pointed out in a comment, there was evidence that even dry air absorbed infrared radiatioin a comment, there was evidence that even dry air absorbed infrared radiation.

The second factor is the insulating effect of the atmosphere of which well over 90 % results from atmospheric water in the form of clouds and water vapour with the remaining 10 % due primarily from CO2 and ozone with just a slightly detectable effect from methane and a trivial effect from all the other gases named in tyhe Kyoto Accord that is so small it can't even be detected on measurements of the Earth's radiative spectrum.

The cosmic ray particles work let's say like a «glue» that puts together all the already formed condensation nuclei in the atmospheric air, creating therefore bigger condensation nuclei and finally the clouds, or the cosmic particles act as aerosols on their own, on which the water vapour condenses?

Water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide — the so - called greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the Earth's atmosphere - create a natural «greenhouse effect» by «trapping» heat between the Earth's surface and the Troposphere (the atmospheric layer 5 to 10 miles above the surface).

Other evidence [which I will present in future articles] seems to indicate that these same climate models are NOT realistically simulating such factors as atmospheric water vapour, clouds, solar energy fluctuations and cosmic ray effects, Earth's changing geomagnetic field, and Earth's interior heat with consequent surface heat variations.

The combinations of factors — ice, cloud, water vapour, atmospheric temperature — caused cooling in the first years of the century and a little warming since.

The associated energy changes at TOA are associated with water vapour due to changing atmospheric temps and cloud changes anti-correlated with SST in the tropical and sub-tropical Pacific.

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.

«Trends in observed atmospheric water vapour are hampered by inhomogeneities in data records, which occur when measurement programmes are discontinued because of, for example, the limited lifespans of satellite missions or insufficiently documented or understood changes in instrumentation.

The big unrecognized sleeper in ozone control is atmospheric water vapour.

One idea was that increased IR radiated from water vapour in these air masses could off - set expansion due to release of latent heat, and ad drive horizontal circulation This had to be attacked as it showed a role for radiative gases in atmospheric circulation.

After all CO2 is itself only a tiny portion of total greenhouse gases so that it can not have any significant long term effect when the water vapour primarily affecting atmospheric heat retention is in turn itself but a tiny proportion of global heat retaining capacity when one adds in the vastly greater oceanic heat retaining effect.

Methane is an important part of the anthropogenic radiative forcing Methane emissions have a direct GHG effect, and they effect atmospheric chemistry and stratospheric water vapour which have additional impacts natural feedbacks involving methane likely to be important in future — via wetland response to temperature / rain change, atmospheric chemistry and, yes, arctic sources There are large stores of carbon in the Arctic, some stored as hydrates, some potentially convertible to CH4 by anaerobic resporation [from wikianswers: Without oxygen.

Three analyses of the NASA NVAP satellite data show little or no empirical correlation between either surface temperature or atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, Solomon et al in fact shows a 10 % decrease in stratospheric water vapour in the decade pre-2000.

Any additional atmospheric water vapour will only remain in the atmosphere for a few days before precipitating and restoring the previous balance.

Carbon dioxide differs from water vapour in that human activities can increase its atmospheric concentration.

Motivated by findings that major components of so - called cloud «feedbacks» are best understood as rapid responses to CO2 forcing (Gregory and Webb in J Clim 21:58 — 71, 2008), the top of atmosphere (TOA) radiative effects from forcing, and the subsequent responses to global surface temperature changes from all «atmospheric feedbacks» (water vapour, lapse rate, surface albedo, «surface temperature» and cloud) are examined in detail in a General Circulation Model.

The physics that must be included to investigate the moist greenhouse is principally: (i) accurate radiation incorporating the spectral variation of gaseous absorption in both the solar radiation and thermal emission spectral regions, (ii) atmospheric dynamics and convection with no specifications favouring artificial atmospheric boundaries, such as between a troposphere and stratosphere, (iii) realistic water vapour physics, including its effect on atmospheric mass and surface pressure, and (iv) cloud properties that respond realistically to climate change.

It is well known that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels could result in temperature increases of between 1.5 and 4.5 °C, due to fast changes such as snow and ice melt, and the behaviour of clouds and water vapour.

Based on the understanding of both the physical processes that control key climate feedbacks (see Section 8.6.3), and also the origin of inter-model differences in the simulation of feedbacks (see Section 8.6.2), the following climate characteristics appear to be particularly important: (i) for the water vapour and lapse rate feedbacks, the response of upper - tropospheric RH and lapse rate to interannual or decadal changes in climate; (ii) for cloud feedbacks, the response of boundary - layer clouds and anvil clouds to a change in surface or atmospheric conditions and the change in cloud radiative properties associated with a change in extratropical synoptic weather systems; (iii) for snow albedo feedbacks, the relationship between surface air temperature and snow melt over northern land areas during spring and (iv) for sea ice feedbacks, the simulation of sea ice thickness.

Bear in mind that the representation of clouds in climate models (and of the water vapour which is intimately involved with cloud formation) is such as to amplify the forecast global warming from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide — on average over most of the models — by a factor of about three (5).

Most GHE is set by the first ~ 1800 ppmV water vapour, restricting atmospheric GHE to non self - absorbing water side - bands, the 23 W / m ^ 2 absorbed in the atmosphere.

By shifting a higher proportion of the IR towards the atmospheric window, less is absorbed in the atmosphere and that has to be primarily water vapour side - bands.

The resulting warming due to the water vapour is in fact larger than the initial warming due to the CO2 that forced it to happen, and this is the point of the Lacis paper - yes, water vapour is a more important greenhouse gas than CO2, but water vapour doesn't change systematically with time UNLESS CO2 is changing and initiating a warming that sets into motion the surface and atmospheric processes that allow water vapour to systematically increase.

An independent check on globally vertically integrated water vapour amounts is whether the change in water vapour mass is refl ected in the surface pressure fi eld, as this is the only signifi cant infl uence on the global atmospheric mass to within measurement accuracies.

In particular, about eight years ago, Nasa launched the atmospheric infrared sounder on board the Aqua satellite, which measures water vapour distribution with great accuracy.

In the case of atmospheric calculations with water vapour so dominant I'm not sure how much effect a correction would have.

-- Water Vapour (WV) does not mix evenly in with the other gases and atmospheric WV content varies from location to location but I believe it is estimated to be around 4 to 5 %.

The average atmospheric water vapour content has increased since at least the 1980s over land and ocean as well as in the upper troposphere.