Sentences with phrase «of atmospheric water vapour»

(SW - CLR is related to the distribution of atmospheric water vapour and aerosol which has a close link to the model dynamical processes).

In view of the much larger quantities and absorbing power of atmospheric water vapour it was concluded that the effect of carbon dioxide was probably negligible.»

However, human activities have only a small direct influence on the amount of atmospheric water vapour.»

Not exact matches

Combining observations from satellites and ground stations with climate models, they evaluated different factors that affect telescope vision, such as the amount of water vapour, wind speeds and atmospheric turbulence.

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 climate sensitivity classically defined is the response of global mean temperature to a forcing once all the «fast feedbacks» have occurred (atmospheric temperatures, clouds, water vapour, winds, snow, sea ice etc.), but before any of the «slow» feedbacks have kicked in (ice sheets, vegetation, carbon cycle etc.).

Recent studies have shown a doubling of stratospheric water vapour, likely from increasing atmospheric heights due to global warming, overshooting thunderstorm tops from stronger tropical cyclones and mesoscale convective systems etc...

Initial data from the Cassini - Huygens spacecraft, which began exploring the Saturnian system in 2004, show that methane is indeed a minor atmospheric constituent but a very important one, possibly playing a role analogous to that of water vapour in Earth's troposphere.

His research interests are the basic physics of the atmospheric response to climate change, particularly the water vapour feedback.

Observational evidence indicates that the frequency of the heaviest rainfall events has likely increased within many land regions in general agreement with model simulations that indicate that rainfall in the heaviest events is likely to increase in line with atmospheric water vapour concentration.

Simulations and observations of total atmospheric water vapour averaged over oceans agree closely when the simulations are constrained by observed SSTs, suggesting that anthropogenic influence has contributed to an increase in total atmospheric water vapour.

This heat leads to great quantities of water vapour introduced in the atmospheric circulation.

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.

The climate sensitivity classically defined is the response of global mean temperature to a forcing once all the «fast feedbacks» have occurred (atmospheric temperatures, clouds, water vapour, winds, snow, sea ice etc.), but before any of the «slow» feedbacks have kicked in (ice sheets, vegetation, carbon cycle etc.).

If the enhanced atmospheric warming from a CO2 - induced temperature rise of 1 oC results in enhanced water vapour that gives an additional warming of say x oC, the overall warming (doubled CO2 + water vapour feedback; leaving out other feedbacks for now) will be something like 1.1 * (1 + x + x2 + x3...) or 1.1 / (1 - x)-RSB-.

However, calculation of the radiative forcing is again a job for the line - by - line codes that take into account atmospheric profiles of temperature, water vapour and aerosols.

The rise of CO2 from 270ppm to now over 400ppm, the extent of equatorial and sub tropical deforestation, the soot deposits on the polar ice caps, the increase in atmospheric water vapour due to a corresponding increase in ocean temps and changes in ocean currents, the extreme ice albedo currently happening in the arctic etc, etc are all conspiring in tandem to alter the climate as we know it.

And the other sort of latent heat, a decrease in atmospheric water vapour is also the stuff of fantasy requiring a change of 50,000 cu km when the atmosphere only contains (and only can contain) ~ 13,000 cu km without crazy temperature increases.

In GCMs, the global mean evaporation changes closely balance the precipitation change, but not locally because of changes in the atmospheric transport of water vapour.

All that said, we can draw the conclusion that the theoretical effects of CO2 do in fact exist, they have been measured over a 10 cm path length, and from this we can extrapolate that a still higher sensitivity would be arrived at once the entire atmospheric scale and the change in water vapour concentration from bottom to top of that scale is taken into account.

Thus a change of water vapour, sky radiation and tempcrature is corrected by a change of cloudiness and atmospheric circulation, the former increasing the reflection loss and thus reducing the effective sun heat.

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.

The identified atmospheric feedbacks including changes in planetary albedo, in water vapour distribution and in meridional latent heat transport are all poorly represented in zonal energy balance model as the one used in [7] whereas they appear to be of primary importance when focusing on ancient greenhouse climates.

To claim that the entire system of atmospheric temperature moderation has been described by the fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 content while excluding the other obvious factors such as atmospheric water vapour content, solar flux and orbital mechanics is just nonsense.

The so - called water vapour feedback, caused by an increase in atmospheric water vapour due to a temperature increase, is the most important feedback responsible for the amplification of the temperature increase.

Why do you believe that water vapour can make clouds under the right atmospheric conditions, yet water vapour that comes out of a jet exhaust shouldn't do the same?

Since then, satellite reading of temperatures and the occlusion of numerous infrared bands, ground based, aircraft and balloon measurements of same, and an ever - increasing data base of the optical properties of CO2 (and other gases, like water vapour), have helped refine radiation calculations towards determining the atmospheric heat budget.

The second factor is the insulating effect of the atmosphere of which well over 90 % results from atmospheric water in the form of clouds and water vapour with the remaining 10 % due primarily from CO2 and ozone with just a slightly detectable effect from methane and a trivial effect from all the other gases named in tyhe Kyoto Accord that is so small it can't even be detected on measurements of the Earth's radiative spectrum.

The combinations of factors — ice, cloud, water vapour, atmospheric temperature — caused cooling in the first years of the century and a little warming since.

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.

[The paper was] the first proper computation of global warming and stratospheric cooling from enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations, including atmospheric emission and water - vapour feedback.

I wonder if these models recognize the loss of atmospheric water that has occurred since 1948 or do they ignore the reality and build in a water vapour feedback loop to boost the supposed backwelling radiation to the surface.

«Trends in observed atmospheric water vapour are hampered by inhomogeneities in data records, which occur when measurement programmes are discontinued because of, for example, the limited lifespans of satellite missions or insufficiently documented or understood changes in instrumentation.

The major GHG by far is water vapour and atmospheric humidity has declined slightly of recent.

One idea was that increased IR radiated from water vapour in these air masses could off - set expansion due to release of latent heat, and ad drive horizontal circulation This had to be attacked as it showed a role for radiative gases in atmospheric circulation.

Areas with very high (40,000 ppm) of water vapour can easily be compared to areas at the same latitude with very low (nearly 0 ppm) of water vapour and the net radiation across the atmospheric column is precisely opposite to what you insist your experiments prove.

After all CO2 is itself only a tiny portion of total greenhouse gases so that it can not have any significant long term effect when the water vapour primarily affecting atmospheric heat retention is in turn itself but a tiny proportion of global heat retaining capacity when one adds in the vastly greater oceanic heat retaining effect.

The role of convection and the subsequent condensation out of water vapour into clouds and then rainfall is currently incapable of quantification as a means of slowing or offsetting any atmospheric greenhouse effect but it certainly does those things.

So, that's 1.2 degrees C for the basic physics of added greenhouse effect of a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; coupled with a further increase of a similar magnitude from changes in atmospheric water vapour that come about as a direct consequence.

Methane is an important part of the anthropogenic radiative forcing Methane emissions have a direct GHG effect, and they effect atmospheric chemistry and stratospheric water vapour which have additional impacts natural feedbacks involving methane likely to be important in future — via wetland response to temperature / rain change, atmospheric chemistry and, yes, arctic sources There are large stores of carbon in the Arctic, some stored as hydrates, some potentially convertible to CH4 by anaerobic resporation [from wikianswers: Without oxygen.

Three analyses of the NASA NVAP satellite data show little or no empirical correlation between either surface temperature or atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, Solomon et al in fact shows a 10 % decrease in stratospheric water vapour in the decade pre-2000.

Motivated by findings that major components of so - called cloud «feedbacks» are best understood as rapid responses to CO2 forcing (Gregory and Webb in J Clim 21:58 — 71, 2008), the top of atmosphere (TOA) radiative effects from forcing, and the subsequent responses to global surface temperature changes from all «atmospheric feedbacks» (water vapour, lapse rate, surface albedo, «surface temperature» and cloud) are examined in detail in a General Circulation Model.

Humans have no direct control over atmospheric concentrations of water vapour, although it can act as an enhancer for any global warming.

The physics that must be included to investigate the moist greenhouse is principally: (i) accurate radiation incorporating the spectral variation of gaseous absorption in both the solar radiation and thermal emission spectral regions, (ii) atmospheric dynamics and convection with no specifications favouring artificial atmospheric boundaries, such as between a troposphere and stratosphere, (iii) realistic water vapour physics, including its effect on atmospheric mass and surface pressure, and (iv) cloud properties that respond realistically to climate change.

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.

Based on the understanding of both the physical processes that control key climate feedbacks (see Section 8.6.3), and also the origin of inter-model differences in the simulation of feedbacks (see Section 8.6.2), the following climate characteristics appear to be particularly important: (i) for the water vapour and lapse rate feedbacks, the response of upper - tropospheric RH and lapse rate to interannual or decadal changes in climate; (ii) for cloud feedbacks, the response of boundary - layer clouds and anvil clouds to a change in surface or atmospheric conditions and the change in cloud radiative properties associated with a change in extratropical synoptic weather systems; (iii) for snow albedo feedbacks, the relationship between surface air temperature and snow melt over northern land areas during spring and (iv) for sea ice feedbacks, the simulation of sea ice thickness.

Bear in mind that the representation of clouds in climate models (and of the water vapour which is intimately involved with cloud formation) is such as to amplify the forecast global warming from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide — on average over most of the models — by a factor of about three (5).

By shifting a higher proportion of the IR towards the atmospheric window, less is absorbed in the atmosphere and that has to be primarily water vapour side - bands.

The resulting warming due to the water vapour is in fact larger than the initial warming due to the CO2 that forced it to happen, and this is the point of the Lacis paper - yes, water vapour is a more important greenhouse gas than CO2, but water vapour doesn't change systematically with time UNLESS CO2 is changing and initiating a warming that sets into motion the surface and atmospheric processes that allow water vapour to systematically increase.

CO2 is irrelevant to atmospheric warming — after the first 120m of traverse of LWIR through the atmosphere water vapour absorbs the IR to extinction and there is nothing left for the CO2 bands to absorb.