Sentences with phrase «levels of water vapor»

High levels of water vapor in the atmosphere in turn create conditions more favorable for heavier precipitation in the form of intense rain and snow storms.

[26] Historically, the most intense storms and precipitation events in California have been tied to wintertime atmospheric rivers that fed on high levels of water vapor in the air.

Aerosols are also essential for cloud formation in the troposphere: They act as condensation nuclei which even in the presence of low levels of water vapor do enable droplets to form.

[The stratosphere has extremely low levels of water vapor.

The results, summarized in Fig. 2, show unequivocally that the radiative forcing by noncondensing GHGs is essential to sustain the atmospheric temperatures that are needed for significant levels of water vapor and cloud feedback.

With JWST, a few hours of integration time will be enough to detect Earth - like levels of water vapor, molecular oxygen, carbon dioxide and other generic biosignatures on planets orbiting a white dwarf; beyond that, observing the same planet for up to 1.7 days will be enough to detect the two CFCs in concentrations of 750 parts per trillion, or 10 times greater than on Earth.

The team found that equilibrium to be similar to levels of water vapor seen in the local universe.

This is just one of the many «interesting» weather events that we will all have to get used to in the future, as level of water vapor continue to increase in the warming atmosphere.

If we were to increase the level of water vapor in the atmosphere and leave everything else unchanged, the water vapor would fairly quickly condense out as rain, snow, frost or dew and there would be no lasting effect on global temperatures Carbon dioxide comes second after water vapor and its concentration in the atmosphere is heavily affected by burning of fossil fuels.

It was not due to a drop in CO2, but a very low level of water vapor, the most important and abundant greenhouse gas.

Not exact matches

Next, in vertical distillation columns, hot vapor flows up, condenses, and flows out from different levels: gases from the top of the column, light oils from the upper middle, heavier oils from the middle, water from the lower middle, and powdered carbon — used to manufacture tires, filters, and printer toners — from the bottom.

But since 2001 there has been less water vapor in a narrow, lower band of the stratosphere thanks to cooler temperatures in the tropopause, and that may just be holding back global warming at ground level, according to new research published online in Science on January 28.

A rather straightforward calculation showed that doubling the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere... which would arrive in the late 21st century if no steps were taken to curb emissions... should raise the temperature of the surface roughly one degree C. However, a warmer atmosphere would hold more water vapor, which ought to cause another degree or so of warming.

Meteorologists use water vapor imagery to analyze location and movement of water vapor moisture in the upper and middle levels of the atmosphere.

Water vapor seen at these infrared wavelengths is in the upper and middle levels of the troposphere, where the winds are ruled by large - scale air masses.

Indonesian waters are major agents for global levels of atmospheric water vapor.

Reporting in the 12 July Nature, the scientists note that they can't tell the density of water vapor in HD 189733b's atmosphere — in other words, whether it is present in only trace amounts or at much higher levels.

Thousands of studies conducted by researchers around the world have documented changes in surface, atmospheric, and oceanic temperatures; melting glaciers; diminishing snow cover; shrinking sea ice; rising sea levels; ocean acidification; and increasing atmospheric water vapor.

Understanding the level of oxidation could spell the difference between nasty swamp gas and the mixture of water vapor and carbon dioxide we are currently so accustomed to, according to study lead author Dustin Trail, a postdoctoral researcher in the Center for Astrobiology.

Precipitation rate was used in the calculation rate not because of the latent energy in the water vapor, but because the precipitation rate was treated as proportional to the rate of transfer of air (with water vapor mixed in) from the surface to the upper cloud level; and the fraction of each kilogram of air that was water vapor was treated as constant.

This isn't news to top climate scientists around the world (see Hadley Center: «Catastrophic» 5 — 7 °C warming by 2100 on current emissions path) or even to top climate scientists in this country (see US Geological Survey stunner: Sea - level rise in 2100 will likely «substantially exceed» IPCC projections, SW faces «permanent drying») and certainly not to people who follow the scientific literature, like Climate Progress readers (see Study: Water - vapor feedback is «strong and positive,» so we face «warming of several degrees Celsius»).

However, the Management and Guest Contributors at WUWT accept the basic truth that CO2, water vapor, and other «greenhouse gases» are responsible for an ~ 33ºC boost in mean Earth temperature, that CO2 levels are rising, partly due to our use of fossil fuels, that land use has changed Earth's albedo, and that this human actvity has caused additional warming.

Has realclimate ever done (or considered doing) an entry about the immense contribution that satellite measurements have made in the past two - three decades, in helping us to understand various components of the earth system (e.g., vegetation, ozone, ice sheet mass, water vapor content, temperature, sea level height, storms, aerosols, etc.)?

True, CO2 levels are higher than in most of our past but water vapor, not CO2, is the major «greenhouse» driver.

(Water vapor and low - level clouds can have a big effect on the radiative balance of the surface.)

(Note that radiative forcing is not necessarily proportional to reduction in atmospheric transparency, because relatively opaque layers in the lower warmer troposphere (water vapor, and for the fractional area they occupy, low level clouds) can reduce atmospheric transparency a lot on their own while only reducing the net upward LW flux above them by a small amount; colder, higher - level clouds will have a bigger effect on the net upward LW flux above them (per fraction of areal coverage), though they will have a smaller effect on the net upward LW flux below them.

Perhaps this is because of the band - widenning (of the type refered to above) effect, with the initial introduction of some CO2 causing some upper level warming (enhanced by the shorter wavelengths of the CO2 band relative to stratospheric water vapor given the cold temperatures (lack of importance of the ~ 5 to 7 micron band -LRB-?)

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).

Now the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere is fairly constant, not water vapor levels.

But as we got into autumn, the upper level westerlies really picked up in strength, and you could see the tops of incipient TCs getting strongly sheared in the satellite images, with the water vapor blown aloft to the east of the cyclone resembling the trial left behind a comet.

There can / will be local and regional, latitudinal, diurnal and seasonal, and internal variability - related deviations to the pattern (in temperature and in optical properties (LW and SW) from components (water vapor, clouds, snow, etc.) that vary with weather and climate), but the global average effect is at least somewhat constrained by the global average vertical distribution of solar heating, which requires the equilibrium net convective + LW fluxes, in the global average, to be sizable and upward at all levels from the surface to TOA, thus tending to limit the extent and magnitude of inversions.)

C isothermic level in the pacific appeared to rise from an average of 400 meters to about 100 meters recently; I find myself wondering then how is it that the oceans heat content is dropping, the solar input appears to be consistant, that one of the GEWEX comitties appears to indicate that the atmospheric water vapor seems to be decreasing.

In the meantime, the Calipso data is supposed to range between 0 and 30 km, there are recent examples in the SH temperal zone below the ITCZ of cloud / water vapor structures well above both the 5 - 7 km normal condensation level, above the 15 - 17 km normal Thunderstorm peak and into the 20 - 26 km region of the upper stratosphere.

However, to support the assertion that global warming is responsible for a great deal of damage from such events, it is sufficient to show that such events have the «signature» of global warming — for example, that specific global warming - related factors such as abnormally high sea surface temperatures, elevated water vapor levels, and altered jet stream patterns contributed to making Hurricane Sandy what it was — even if those factors can not be precisely quantified.

How is it that the AGW enthusiasts attribute such a water vapor contribution to CH4 rather then the mixing of the Tropopause and Stratospheric water vapor in a similar action as to the boundary layer temperature change at the Stratospheric and Mesospheric level?

It seems that climate has responded to the increased forcing due to the greenhouse effect of water vapor and CO2 (+ other GHGs) with the result that the solar forcing is reduced to a level so that the 0.75 C / Wm ^ -2 was maintained.

Direct comparison of the radiances predicted by the model to those observed by AIRS in the thermal spectral regions dominated by water vapor absorption provides a means of assessing the simulation of water vapor in the climate model at the high level of detail provided by spectral measurements.

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?

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.

CO2 starts climate warming, increased water vapor due to the Clausius - Clapeyron phenomenon of thermodynamics, and then that water vapor amplifies the greenhouse effect to the desired, sufficiently frightening but sufficiently unverifiable critical level.

Disputes within climate science concern the nature and magnitude of feedback processes involving clouds and water vapor, uncertainties about the rate at which the oceans take up heat and carbon dioxide, the effects of air pollution, and the nature and importance of climate change effects such as rising sea level, increasing acidity of the ocean, and the incidence of weather hazards such as floods, droughts, storms, and heat waves.

This lesson explores the relationship between the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere available for precipitation and actual precipitation levels.

The water vapor evaporated from the surface taking with it latent heat of evaporation (the molecules» kinetic energy) when those water vapor molecules reach the condensation level they change state — and release energy — then again when they freeze they release energy.

The 0.9 degr.C for 2xCO2 is from the Modtran program, carefully composed from laboratory measurements, where line by line absorption characteristics were measured and implemented for different air pressures (heights), water, CO2 and CH4 levels, for different parts of the globe and with or without clouds, rain,... That is a basic «model», without any real life feedbacks (except water vapor, which may be included in different ways).

-- it is all daft theories about it not being greenhouse gases, radiation or water vapor — and endless quibbling from both sides of the blogosphere climate trenches about the talking points — Arctic ice, seal level rise, surface temperature trends, the LIA and MWP — in the very latest reconstruction.

A rising planetary temperature sets in motion all sorts of secondary effects that can boost the temperature even higher — effects like melting Arctic sea ice, rising levels of heat - trapping water vapor in the atmosphere, and... Read More

Non-condensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25 % of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75 % of the greenhouse effect.

When the convective processes of the atmosphere remove enough water vapor from the oceans to drop sea levels and build polar ice caps, as has happened many times before, the top 35 meters of the oceans where climate models assume the only thermal mixing occurs, must heat up cold ocean water that comes from depths below the original 35 meter depth, removing vast more amounts of heat from the earth's surface and atmosphere.

Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25 % of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperaturestructure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75 % of the greenhouse effect.

As if sweltering heat weren't bad enough, Europeans also suffered through a higher - than - normal number of days with dangerous smog levels that year.6 Smog — with ground - level ozone as the main component — forms when sunlight reacts with chemicals such as volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and water vapor.