Sentences with phrase «increased water vapor leads»

RE # 48 and # 59: The long - term negative feedbacks are described by gavin in the first section; however the notion that increased water vapor leads to an increase in cloudiness and that this net effect is a negative feedback — this has been a topic of discussion for a very long time now, hasn't it?

In weather systems, convergence of increased water vapor leads to more intense precipitation and the risk of heavy rain and snow events, but may also lead to reductions in duration and / or frequency of rain events, given that total amounts do not change much.

Not exact matches

And climate change has led to more water vapor in the atmosphere, which increases rainfall totals.

Satellite data showed that the increase coincided with a «greening» of the rainforest, or an increase in fresh leaves, leading researchers to suspect the moisture might be water vapor released during photosynthesis.

For every 1 °F increase in temperature, the atmosphere can hold around 4 percent more water vapor, which leads to heavier rain and increases the risk of flooding of rivers and streams.

However, the surface warming caused by human - produced increases in carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases leads to a large increase in water vapor, since a warmer atmosphere holds more moisture.

Global warming also leads to increases in atmospheric water vapor, which increases the likelihood of heavier rainfall events that may cause flooding.

The higher temperatures associated with climate change near the surface are resulting in increased evaporation, leading to more water vapor in the stratosphere which chemically reacting with the ozone — resulting in ozone depletion.

Bye the way physics guy, increased CO2 warms earth some, leading to more water vapor which has a greater greenhouse effect than the CO2 as such.

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...

The normal stratosphere is water free, however increased emissions of methane lead to production of more water vapor, and eventually HOx in the stratosphre.

However, at the same time, there's been the steady increase in subtropical ocean surface temperatures in the Atlantic Warm Pool, leading to record water temperatures off the US east coast in winter, which tends to fuel more extreme storms (via the increase in water vapor pressure over the warmer ocean).

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.

We know that more open water will put more water vapor in the air, and increase the sunlight absorbed each summer, both of which will lead to yet more warming.

This snowpack accumulation near the poles, which gets its water via the Arctic and Antarctic oceans, that in turn rob it from equatorial latitudes of our oceans, also results in a reduction in the earth's spin axis moment of inertia and causes the spin rate to increase as evidenced in the recent history of the rate at which Leap Seconds are added to our calendar (see Wysmuller's Toucan Equation for more on this evidence that during this warm time with much greater polar humidity, earlier seasonal, later seasonal and heavier snows are beginning to move water vapor from the oceans to the poles to re-build the polar ice caps and lead us into a global cooling, while man - made CO2 continues to increase http://www.colderside.com/faq.htm).

Vaporization rate increases with vapor pressure, so that as the surface temperature warms up, increasingly large amounts of energy are transferred to water vapor instead of more temperature increase — and that leads in turn to more clouds (blocking the sun and transferring energy to the upper troposphere) and rainfall.

However, the surface warming caused by human - produced increases in carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases leads to a large increase in water vapor, since a warmer atmosphere holds more moisture.

Note 1: A simple hotspot explanation summarized from this article: Increasing CO2 levels causes atmosphere to warm; then atmosphere causes Earth's surface to warm; warming of oceans cause evaporation; increased evaporation leads to more water vapor in the upper troposphere; water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas that warms the atmosphere even more (positive water vapor feedback); the Earth's surface warms even more; and then auto «repeat and rinse» until Earth's oceans boil, per an «expert.»

You may be thinking that the increased back radiation to the surface would cause an enhancement of evaporation and convection that will lead to a warming of the upper troposphere and hence to some increase of the amount of IR (mainly from water vapor) that makes it to space from the warmer upper troposphere.

Yes stefanthedenier, it is indeed correct that increasing the percentage of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere leads to lower mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures.

(In the real - world, of course, if warming leads to more water vapor and if that leads to more daytime clouds, possibly more precipitation and thunderstorms and so on, the additional warming will be reduced, but, there will still be some warming with increased GHGs).

They also point out that an increase in stratospheric water vapor during the 1990s may have led to about 30 percent more warming during that decade than otherwise would have occurred.

Forget about CO2, if a random increase in water vapor occurs, doesn't that all by itself increase the greenhouse effect, leading to evaporation of more water, more greenhouse effect, and so on?

Since most of the greenhouse effect for the earth is due to water vapor and clouds, added CO2 must substantially increase water's contribution to lead to the frightening scenarios that are bandied about.

A simple example, increased water vapor [a GHG], leading to much more clouds and greater albedo means that more energy will be reflected to space meaning that the effective heat source drops in intensity hence the temperature must fall back or as Lucia would put it, fails to go up any more [She does not believe feedbacks can be ultimately negative].

Also, as the earth warms evaportation from the ocean increases, leading to a general increase in the water vapor in the air.

This would lead to increased condensation and a net lowering of the total water vapor in the atmosphere.

One of the most well - known effects of global warming is an intensification of the water cycle, with higher air temperatures leading to increased evaporation from the seas and soils, and more atmospheric water vapor contributing to more frequent heavy precipitation events.

The authors, led by Rolf Philipona of the World Radiation Center in Davos, show experimentally that 70 percent of the rapid temperature increase is very likely caused by water vapor feedback.