Sentences with phrase «n't increased water vapor»

In the interest of full disclosure, my «sense» is that such a small temperature increase would not increase water vapor significantly enough to cause a statistically significant increase in numbers and / or severity of extreme events, especially since most of the warming has reportedly been in the high northern latitudes where temperatures are well below 0C where the water vapor saturation value vs temperature curve is pretty flat.

Not exact matches

«This increase in water vapor has contributed to increasing total precipitation in the fall season, but does not necessarily mean an increase in extreme precipitation events,» she added.

Now if we add water vapor to the atmosphere it increases the greenhouse effect in the spectral regions that are not saturated not opaque, which means in the atmospheric window.

... The Earth's atmospheric methane concentration has increased by about 150 % since 1750, and it accounts for 20 % of the total radiative forcing from all of the long - lived and globally mixed greenhouse gases (these gases don't include water vapor which is by far the largest component of the greenhouse effect).

For starters, one simply can not equate the positive feedback effect of melting ice (both reduced albedo and increased water vapor) from that of leaving maximum ice to that of minimum ice where the climate is now (and is during every interglacial period).

[1] CO2 absorbs IR, is the main GHG, human emissions are increasing its concentration in the atmosphere, raising temperatures globally; the second GHG, water vapor, exists in equilibrium with water / ice, would precipitate out if not for the CO2, so acts as a feedback; since the oceans cover so much of the planet, water is a large positive feedback; melting snow and ice as the atmosphere warms decreases albedo, another positive feedback, biased toward the poles, which gives larger polar warming than the global average; decreasing the temperature gradient from the equator to the poles is reducing the driving forces for the jetstream; the jetstream's meanders are increasing in amplitude and slowing, just like the lower Missippi River where its driving gradient decreases; the larger slower meanders increase the amplitude and duration of blocking highs, increasing drought and extreme temperatures — and 30,000 + Europeans and 5,000 plus Russians die, and the US corn crop, Russian wheat crop, and Aussie wildland fire protection fails — or extreme rainfall floods the US, France, Pakistan, Thailand (driving up prices for disk drives — hows that for unexpected adverse impacts from AGW?)

Since Milankovitch factors are excluded as small, BUT they do exist and by ignoring them you are introducing an increasing underestimation of the incoming solar radiation (& its impact on solar irradiance and on water vapor etc feedbacks), then why is there not an uncertainty estimate for this or better yet an actual estimate of what the under estimation is?

Whether consistent or not, the putative increase in water vapor due to GHG warming has a separate hypothesized cause (rooted simply in the Clausius - Clapeyron relationship).

Boiling occurs in your kitchen because the water vapor escapes and can't build up so as to increase the surface pressure.

Although data are not complete, and sometimes contradictory, the weight of evidence from past studies shows on a global scale that precipitation, runoff, atmospheric water vapor, soil moisture, evapotranspiration, growing season length, and wintertime mountain glacier mass are all increasing.

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).

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.

Re 9 wili — I know of a paper suggesting, as I recall, that enhanced «backradiation» (downward radiation reaching the surface emitted by the air / clouds) contributed more to Arctic amplification specifically in the cold part of the year (just to be clear, backradiation should generally increase with any warming (aside from greenhouse feedbacks) and more so with a warming due to an increase in the greenhouse effect (including feedbacks like water vapor and, if positive, clouds, though regional changes in water vapor and clouds can go against the global trend); otherwise it was always my understanding that the albedo feedback was key (while sea ice decreases so far have been more a summer phenomenon (when it would be warmer to begin with), the heat capacity of the sea prevents much temperature response, but there is a greater build up of heat from the albedo feedback, and this is released in the cold part of the year when ice forms later or would have formed or would have been thicker; the seasonal effect of reduced winter snow cover decreasing at those latitudes which still recieve sunlight in the winter would not be so delayed).

The water vapor feedback (a generally positive feedback)-- there is an roughly exponential increase in saturation water vapor pressure with increasing temperature, and the relative humidity (at a given vertical level) overall tends not to change a lot globally, though there will be different regional trends associated with shifting precipitation patterns.

Their results were not global and the did not show a total increase in ghg concentration b / c the omitted water vapor, the strongest and most abundant ghg!

goodsprk: It relies on not simply CO2, but on feedback from increased CO2 raising the temperature which increases the water vapor in the atmosphere which the alarmist assume will actually breaking up the low level clouds and forming high level cirrus clouds that will trap more heat.

An increase in surface temp will increase water vapor pressure at the surface: that will likely increase the rate of evaporation at the surface, which may or may not increase cloud cover.

It relies on not simply CO2, but on feedback from increased CO2 raising the temperature which increases the water vapor in the atmosphere which the alarmist assume will actually breaking up the low level clouds and forming high level cirrus clouds that will trap more heat.

«Arctic Amplification» form CO2 was not primarily from the (theorectical) loss - of - ice / increase in albedo meme so often used, but ratehr it began from the relative amounts of GHG's in the warmer, more water - vapor laden equatorial climates to the very dry Arctic regions.

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?

If water vapor increased as expected, that would make the impact easier to measure, but it is not.

The water vapor cooled the Earth, the snow cooled the atmosphere with resulting increase in surface albedo which does reflect radiative heat, meaning the Earth gets less warm, not colder because of it.

Is it not also therefore true that the polar areas of least water vapor, where a greater temperature increase from doubling of Co-2 would have the most effect, has the least W / sq - m percentage of both incoming S - W and outgoing L - W radiation due to the incident angle of incoming Sun light, the high reflectivity of the snow and ice, and the greatly reduced outgoing L - W radiation due to this?

Doesn't waters vapor pressure increase with temperature?

Is it not also therefore true that the polar areas of least water vapor, where a greater temperature increase from doubling of Co-2 would have the most effect, has the least percentage of both incoming S - W and outgoing L - W radiation due to the incident angle of incoming Sun light, the high reflectivity of the snow and ice, and the greatly reduced outgoing L - W radiation due to this?

To me, the proper «prior» for climate sensitivity analysis is the base CO2 - doubling sensitivity — ~ 1.2 C. Water vapor enhancement isn't proven because additional WV can both increase (GH effect) and decrease (reflective clouds and increased convection rate) the sensitivity.

I certainly never said individual positive feedbacks don't exist, and even mentioned some related to climate, such as ice albedo and increases in water vapor in air.

Basically Miskolczi has looked at the thermodynamics of water vapor and CO2 and found that they interact such that, as CO2 rises, absolute humidity decreases, creating a relatively constant heat - trapping effect, if not a decreased effect with an increasing proportion of CO2.

Even if the climate community suddenly embraced the notion that water vapor does not increase with warming, the CMIP5 models runs are complete.

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.

«Since the Earth's atmosphere is not lacking in greenhouse gases [water vapor], if the system could have increased its surface temperature it would have done so long before our emissions.

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.

In just a few dozen pages, Dubner and Levitt manage to repeat the myth that the scientific consensus in the 1970s predicted global cooling (quite untrue), imply that climatologists are unaware of the existence of water vapor (no, they're quite aware), and traffic in the elementary misconception that CO2 hasn't historically driven temperature increases (RealClimate has a good article to help with their confusion).

Then I found that CO2 is not considered the actual greenhouse gas, but rather it is water vapor, which is supposed to increase due to the increase of heat caused by an original heating of the CO2, by an effectual ration of 19 to 1.

According to Ray Pierrehumbert's «Principles of Planetary Climate» water vapor increases at a supra - linear rate in the modern climate, but not much supra.

At this point, the GCMs increase clouds because clouds also produce a GHE, but the GCMs don't use the increased water vapor and clouds to increase cloud cover, thereby increasing cloud albedo, the mitigating reaction in nature.

Increased evaporation is a necessary step for increased water vapor and the positive feedback, but he didn't consider tIncreased evaporation is a necessary step for increased water vapor and the positive feedback, but he didn't consider tincreased water vapor and the positive feedback, but he didn't consider that part.

So, stating rising CO2 increases water vapor, which increases temperature — isn't this the equivalent of the tail wagging the dog?

The increase in water vapor from 1 % to 4 % does not result in global warming, so does the increase in CO2 by 0.01 % (a change from 0.028 % to 0.038 %) in the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

Some of the mid-latitude increase of stratospheric water vapor (1 % per year) over the period of 1980 - 2006 can be explained by the increase of atmospheric methane, but not all.

Re: ««However, this increase of water vapor, at least in recent years is either not occurring or is very muted from the predictions made by the IPCC multi-decadal global model predictions.

Now that they can not find the hot spot, the hot spot itself has been down graded in importance but without the increase in water vapor where does all the warming come from?

The Hot Spot does not exist because water vapor in the upper troposphere declines, whereas the models predict water vapor should increase.

Climate sensitivity to water vapor which somehow could increase itself because CO2 goes up, that is NOT simple physics, more like voodoo.

This greenhouse equilibrium mechanism doesn't care if an initial increase of greenhouse gases was water vapor or CO2.

In Lubos's case, since water vapor isn't blocking those lines (though clouds are when present), no amount of water vapor can prevent increasing CO2 from blocking increasingly many of those lines.

Because CO2 does not condense out it has a lasting effect which is amplified by the ensuing increase in water vapor.

But even if it doesn't increase at all (the more likely situation), that won't stop the heating effect of increasing CO2, even if there's a thousand times as much water vapor as CO2.

On that site Lubos repeats the fallacy that because water vapor dominates CO2 in absolute quantity, increasing CO2 can't have any effect.

So I am not including any significant increase in water vapor - but which few would assume is rapid response [less than 10 years] in any case.