Sentences with phrase «level of water vapour»

(c) The level of water vapour depends on the global temperature, so it is roughly fixed until something else warms the atmosphere when it increases in amount producing more warming.

The level of water vapour in the atmosphere is determined mainly by temperature, and any excess is rapidly lost.

As I understand all models they all predict a water vapour based forcing caused by increased temperatures leading to increased levels of water vapour and hence an increased greenhouse effect.

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.

Without the radiative forcing provided by noncondensing GHGs, the most important of which is CO2, levels of water vapour would also decline and atmospheric temperatures would rapidly drop.

As the planet warms, increasing levels of water vapour in the atmosphere caused by higher evaporation levels form more clouds and snow increasing the albedo of the planet, reflecting heat back into space more efficiently, thus working to regulate the temperature downward.

Moreover, I think that it does generate different levels of water vapour for different types of vegetation.

Not exact matches

A new computer simulation suggests that the water vapour and sea salt thrown up by the impact could damage the Earth's protective ozone layer, leading to record levels of ultraviolet radiation that could threaten human civilisation.

Elisabetta Pierazzo of the Planetary Science Institute in Tucson, Arizona, and colleagues used a global climate model to study how water vapour and sea salt thrown up from an impact will affect ozone levels for years after the event.

The glider will carry instruments to measure levels of aerosols and greenhouse gases, including ozone, methane and water vapour, and will gather information on the exchange of gases and energy between the two lower layers of Earth's atmosphere: the troposphere and the stratosphere.

Those data, to be collected this year and next, could improve climate models, which account poorly for these atmospheric interactions and contain «horrific» uncertainties about the levels and behaviour of water vapour at stratospheric altitudes, Austin says.

The researchers found climate models that show a low global temperature response to carbon dioxide do not include enough of this lower - level water vapour process.

Source: Lyman 2010 The reaction of the oceans to climate change are some of the most profound across the entire environment, including disruption of the ocean food chain through chemical changes caused by CO2, the ability of the sea to absorb CO2 being limited by temperature increases, (and the potential to expel sequestered CO2 back into the atmosphere as the water gets hotter), sea - level rise due to thermal expansion, and the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere.

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.

When it reaches a level high enough to cool it to it's «dew point» the water vapour condenses out in the form of clouds and rainfall and the Latent Heat of Condensation is released into the upper part of the atmosphere to accelerate the escape of radiant energy to space.

Others include, the role of the Sun (being the main heat source), the vast oceans which cover over 70 % of the Earth's surface (and the natural factors which determine the storage and release of CO2 back into the atmosphere), water - vapour being the dominant greenhouse gas comprising 98 % of the atmosphere, the important role of low - level clouds which is thought to be a major factor in determining the natural variation of climate temperatures (P.S. Significantly, computer - models are unable to replicate cloud - formation and coverage — which again — injects bias into model).

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.

However, you have avoided my last comment that without a positive feedback from water vapour there is no chance of runaway global warming arising from increasing atmospheric CO2 levels.

Of course Ferdinand is right not to project catastrophism onto anthropogenic CO2 levels for as you likely know there is a inverse logarithmic relationship between changes in temperature and CO2 levels such that without the assumed positive feedback from water vapour there is no chance of runaway global warming, tipping points or whateveOf course Ferdinand is right not to project catastrophism onto anthropogenic CO2 levels for as you likely know there is a inverse logarithmic relationship between changes in temperature and CO2 levels such that without the assumed positive feedback from water vapour there is no chance of runaway global warming, tipping points or whateveof runaway global warming, tipping points or whatever.

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

Sea levels rise and fall partly as a result of thermal expansion and contraction, and partly to do with water vapour, the water cycle, cloud levels and weather conditions in general.

A temperature rise (from whatever cause) would evaporate more water from the sea into the atmosphere, this would cause more warming and set up a feedback of ever escalating temperatures and water vapour levels.

The THS is a major fingerprint of AGW and what is not understood by idiots like NO is that a THS would be a product of water vapour feedback and is not a first order forcing; given that the lack of a THS is entirely consistent with the decline of water vapour levels in the mid to high troposphere.

These effects are relatively well understood in the lowest level of the atmosphere, the troposphere, where increased warming leads to greater evaporation, causing more water vapour and so further warming, although this is offset to some extent through the formation of clouds that reflect incoming sunlight back into space.

If the IPCC is correct, higher water vapour levels TRIPLE the warming effect of the original forcing....

Source: Lyman 2010 The reaction of the oceans to climate change are some of the most profound across the entire environment, including disruption of the ocean food chain through chemical changes caused by CO2, the ability of the sea to absorb CO2 being limited by temperature increases, (and the potential to expel sequestered CO2 back into the atmosphere as the water gets hotter), sea - level rise due to thermal expansion, and the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere.

It is my contention (and that of many others) that in fact this is the default null hypothesis and until proponents of the anthropogenic global warming hyothesis come up with some better evidence to back up their claims of imminent dangerous warming driven by co2 and a water vapour feedback to its increasing levels, the null hypothesis is the best one we have.

* the water vapour content of upper layer of the air (in blue figure 6 - D) will change by about 12 % / K near the tropopause and is reduced by the enhanced cooling of the 250 mbar layer; hence the water vapour radiation will the be from a «lower and warmer» level, with a very significant spectral leverage of a factor of ten (400 cm - 1 for the water vapour w.r.t to 40 cm - 1 for the CO2).

The ENSO also affects global water vapour levels in exactly the same manner (with the same lag), cloud patterns, OLR patterns, wind patterns, even the rotation of the Earth, etc..

[44] a reduction of 1/7 of the water vapour content of the air near 300 mbar pushes down by a factor 1 / (1-1/7) 4.7 = 1.03 the P80 % level and the P80 % temperature increases by a factor 1.030.19 = 1.006 that is by about 1.5 K for the radiation temperature over the far infrared spectral range

Complete absorption is THE reason that potent GHGs like water vapour and CO2 reduce the rate of heat loss from the surface and lower levels of the atmosphere.

Some point to aerosols (but that is not very plausible, as that should give an increase since 1975 for Europe and in part for North America), but I have the impression that increased water vapour levels are at the base of this change.

Even if the temperature e.g. at the poles, the sink places, dropped 1 °C more than average, that doesn't make much difference: the current CO2 level at about 400 ppmv gives about the same partial pressure of 400 microatm everywhere over the oceans (minus a few % due to water vapour).

Based on chemical transport model studies, the RF from the increase in stratospheric water vapour due to oxidation of CH4 is estimated to be +0.07 [± 0.05] W m — 2, with a low level of scientific understanding.

Remember that this is the same Professor who believes that ``... the Great Barrier Reef will benefit from rising seas, that there is no correlation between carbon dioxide levels and temperature, that only 0.1 % of carbon dioxide emissions are due to human activities, and that 96 % of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour.»

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.

Given there is much more water vapour in the lower levels of the atmosphere, the study really found that there was a decline in overall global relative humidity when global warming theory suggests it should stay more - or-less stable.

Total water vapour in the atmosphere may increase as the temperature of the surface rises, but if at the same time the mid - to upper - level concentration decreases then water vapour feedback will be negative.

Given there is much more water vapour in the lower levels of the atmosphere, the study really found that there was a decline in overall global relative humidity.

Lindzen doesn't really separate them, he talks about low level cloud feedbacks as being one of the major negative feedbacks that would accrue from increased water vapour and is still consistently saying the same thing.

CO2 is a small fraction of sea level gases, so far all models, calculations do not include water vapour or particulates which act in the atmosphere and in reducing the ice cap / snoe level albido effect.

Carbon dioxide and water - vapour had their own sets of absorption - lines that did not exactly coincide and it was reaffirmed that water vapour was relatively unimportant in the dryer upper levels of the atmosphere.

The models (and there are many) have numerous common behaviours — they all cool following a big volcanic eruption, like that at Mount Pinatubo in 1991; they all warm as levels of greenhouse gases are increased; they show the same relationships connecting water vapour and temperature that we see in observations; and they can quantify how the giant lakes left over from the Ice Age may have caused a rapid cooling across the North Atlantic as they drained and changed ocean circulation patterns.