Sentences with phrase «more water vapor results»

Not exact matches

So this effect could either be the result of natural variability in Earth's climate, or yet another effect of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases like water vapor trapping more heat and thus warming sea - surface temperatures.

Aerosols compete in the same way for water vapor: more aerosols result in smaller drops with a more even distribution, and fewer aerosols create larger drops with uneven distribution.

Further, more fires would mean fewer trees and that could mean that less water vapor transpired into the air, resulting in drier conditions.

The criticisms have ranged from the absurd (water vapor is still not 95 % of the greenhouse effect, particularly in a glacial world where one expects a drier atmosphere) to somewhat more technical sounding (like criticizing the way they did the weighting of their proxy records, though the results aren't too sensitive to their averaging method).

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.

If a doubling of CO2 resulted in a temperature increase of approximately 1 K before any non-Planck feedbacks (before water vapor, etc.), then assuming the same climate sensitivity to the total GHE, removing the whole GHE would result in about a (setting the TOA / tropopause distinction aside, as it is relatively small relative to the 155 W / m2 value) 155/3.7 * 1 K ~ = 42 K. Which is a bit more than 32 or 33 K, though I'm not surprised by the difference.

I think it's more a matter of the physics of the situation, and the sky is just too big a lab and the experiment still ongoing to get exact results and there are these pesky «internal» feedbacks — such as water vapor and clouds.

This additional rise in temperature will result in still more water vapor which will raise the temperature still more, but by a smaller amount.

With respect to hurricane intensity, there are observed trends indicating this and model results predicting this, and while there are problems in each (data problems with hurricanes, coarse resolution in global models, etc.), theoretical arguments also make clear that there will be more energy and water vapor available in the atmosphere to cause more intense hurricanes, so a very strong case can be made for this happening.

Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, but it is more often than not a result of climate changes rather than man - made emissions.

ris — The reduced IR cooling results from increased water vapor which is increasing more than twice as fast as expected from temperature increase alone (increased vapor pressure, hence increased water vapor, from increased temperature is what causes the feedback).

Basic physics, more simply stated the actual physical properties of how things work, indicates that an accumulation of heat - trapping greenhouse gases is warming the planet, resulting in an increase in energy and water vapor and particularly in an increase of extremes.

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).

What basis would that have: We're pumping more energy (forcing) and water vapor (feedback) into a system that is already oscillating chaotically; as a result, oscillation amplitude and chaos are reduced?

If it is true that a temperature rise will cause more water vapor, which will cause more temperature rise, and more water vapor yet again, one would expect temperatures to continue to rise after 1998, and result in a run - away effect.

Water vapor increases as a result of warmer waters, creating healing effects (more snow — > more ice).

As a result, it would be more accurate to represent about half of the CO2 absorption (bar width) as being absorbed by water vapor.

in addition another thought they do not bring up is under sea volcanic activity may heat up the oceans, increasing the amounts of water vapor put into the atmosphere which could result in more snowfall and eventual glaciation.

When temperatures rise there may be more water vapor evaporated into the Atmosphere and that may result in more clouds and, if clouds have a net cooling effect (as I think they do) that may reduce the rate of incoming shortwave radiation and thus reduce incoming energy rates such that the temperatures will not rise as high.

The end result is there's virtually no heating beyond the first few micrometers and the molecules near the surface just keep picking up more and more energy as latent heat until they have enough energy to vaporize and then they leave the surface and quickly convect upwards because water vapor is lighter than air.

So Gavin, you are claiming that in the GHE when a photon comes in it sits around in the air until man releases CO2 which results in warming which results in more water vapor which THEN absorbs the energy photon to create feedback?

In light of trends showing a likely 3 °C or more global temperature rise by the end of this century (a figure that could become much higher if all feedback processes, such as changes of sea ice and water vapor, are taken into account) that could result in sea level rises ranging from 20 to 59 cm (again a conservative estimation), Hansen believes it is critical for scientists in the field to speak out about the consequences and rebuke the spin offered by pundits who «have denigrated suggestions that business - as - usual greenhouse gas emissions may cause a sea level rise of the order of meters.»

As I understand AGW, the theory goes that added CO2 combines with an energy photon (ie the greenhouse effect) to warm the world, & heat the air which results in more water vapor which absorbs more photons which results in Man caused warming feedback.

Doesn't that then mean that there are no more photons to be absorbed by the added water vapor produced as a result of the added heat from the CO2 associated warming?

The satellite observations of temperature and water vapor are reasonably consistent with the model results (Figure 1), making us more confident that we can calculate their trends correctly.