Sentences with phrase «of changes in lapse rate»

Satellite data only goes back about 30 years and is in rough agreement with the surface analysis and model expectations of changes in the lapse rate.

Most of the moisture is found below about 10,000 feet, so that is where the effect of changes in lapse rate will be felt, and the effect of an increase in moisture is to decrease the near - surface lapse rate, potentially resulting in an important negative feedback on radiative forcing.

Not exact matches

It has been argued that the land amplification is associated with lapse rate changes (not represented in the UVic model), and it is certain that drying of the land can play a role (not reliable in the UVic model since diffusing water vapor gives you a crummy hydrological cycle, especially over land).

The models can't reproduce the rapid climate change at the end of the Younger Drys, nor can the models reproduce the lapse rate in the tropics measured by radiosondes and MSUs.

So for all this discussion of changing lapse rates, the data's right in front of our noses, isn't it?

Indeed, there is a clear physical reason why this is the case — the increase in water vapour as surface air temperature rises causes a change in the moist - adiabatic lapse rate (the decrease of temperature with height) such that the surface to mid-tropospheric gradient decreases with increasing temperature (i.e. it warms faster aloft).

In both models and data there is the expected enhancement of the variability in the lower - troposhere (based simply on the expected changes in the moist adiabatic lapse rate as the surface temperature changesIn both models and data there is the expected enhancement of the variability in the lower - troposhere (based simply on the expected changes in the moist adiabatic lapse rate as the surface temperature changesin the lower - troposhere (based simply on the expected changes in the moist adiabatic lapse rate as the surface temperature changesin the moist adiabatic lapse rate as the surface temperature changes).

Temperature tends to respond so that, depending on optical properties, LW emission will tend to reduce the vertical differential heating by cooling warmer parts more than cooler parts (for the surface and atmosphere); also (not significant within the atmosphere and ocean in general, but significant at the interface betwen the surface and the air, and also significant (in part due to the small heat fluxes involved, viscosity in the crust and somewhat in the mantle (where there are thick boundary layers with superadiabatic lapse rates) and thermal conductivity of the core) in parts of the Earth's interior) temperature changes will cause conduction / diffusion of heat that partly balances the differential heating.

In our simple picture, feedback processes affect changes in the height of the level where most heat loss takes place, the slope of the lapse rate, and heating at the surface (and hence the emission temperatureIn our simple picture, feedback processes affect changes in the height of the level where most heat loss takes place, the slope of the lapse rate, and heating at the surface (and hence the emission temperaturein the height of the level where most heat loss takes place, the slope of the lapse rate, and heating at the surface (and hence the emission temperature).

In principle, T ′ should account for changes in the temperature of the surface and the troposphere, and since the lapse rate is assumed to be known or is assumed to be a function of surface temperature, T ′ can be approximated by the surface temperature.&raquIn principle, T ′ should account for changes in the temperature of the surface and the troposphere, and since the lapse rate is assumed to be known or is assumed to be a function of surface temperature, T ′ can be approximated by the surface temperature.&raquin the temperature of the surface and the troposphere, and since the lapse rate is assumed to be known or is assumed to be a function of surface temperature, T ′ can be approximated by the surface temperature.»

With one band (along with the convective lapse rate below the tropopause) establishing the atmospheric temperature profile, adding some other band of absorption may result in some different pattern of temperature change.

The issue with the Mauritsen and Stevens piece is that it tries to go well beyond a «what if» modeling experiment, and attempts to make contact with a lot of other issues related to historical climate change (the hiatus, changes in the hydrologic cycle, observed tropical lapse rate «hotspot» stuff, changes in the atmsopheric circulation, etc) by means of what the «iris» should look like in other climate signals.

First, for changing just CO2 forcing (or CH4, etc, or for a non-GHE forcing, such as a change in incident solar radiation, volcanic aerosols, etc.), there will be other GHE radiative «forcings» (feedbacks, though in the context of measuring their radiative effect, they can be described as having radiative forcings of x W / m2 per change in surface T), such as water vapor feedback, LW cloud feedback, and also, because GHE depends on the vertical temperature distribution, the lapse rate feedback (this generally refers to the tropospheric lapse rate, though changes in the position of the tropopause and changes in the stratospheric temperature could also be considered lapse - rate feedbacks for forcing at TOA; forcing at the tropopause with stratospheric adjustment takes some of that into account; sensitivity to forcing at the tropopause with stratospheric adjustment will generally be different from sensitivity to forcing without stratospheric adjustment and both will generally be different from forcing at TOA before stratospheric adjustment; forcing at TOA after stratospehric adjustment is identical to forcing at the tropopause after stratospheric adjustment).

Another interesting detail from the Romps et al lightning flash modeling was the modeling of the change in CAPE that would accompany a change in the moist lapse rate.

confuses the question as the main driver of the «thermal» structural changes in the upper troposphere is not the lapse rate changes as such, it is the water vapour itself.

3) In the examination of the model for the GHE above, the initial radiation balance, plus the adiabatic - lapse rate, is what has set the structure of the temperature profile; and then the addition of more GHG to the temperature field causes a radiative imbalance that changes the temperature profile until the imbalance goes away.

And I change my mind about convection in this GHG - free case: I have to remember that the adiabatic lapse rate only sets an upper limit of the temperature decline with altitude; in fact conditions of temperature inversion, in which the temperature is constant or rises with altitude, are also stable.

... Cloud formation is influenced by countless processes... the presence of cloud condensation nuclei, the temperature lapse rate and temperature inversions, wind shear, the presence of fronts, changes in ocean upwelling, to name a few.

Using the equation of state, the first law of thermodynamics, and the hydrostatic equation we can find that the rate of adiabatic temperature change in an ascending air parcel (also termed the adiabatic lapse rate and denoted Γd) is constant:..»]

As Frank pointed out in a comment at Science of Doom, the change in downwelling longwave radiation is only redistributing energy, contributing to some warming at the surface, perhaps with some effect on ocean overturning, and changing the lapse rate.

This change results in the column of fluid being out of thermodynamic equilibrium and results in an isentropic profile defined by a temperature lapse rate.

«A recent report of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) identified a «potentially serious inconsistency» between modelled and observed trends in tropical lapse rates.»

The modification of all feedback parameters results in changes of the sum of all feedbacks (water vapour, cloud, lapse rate and albedo), spanning a minimum — maximum range of 71 % (63 %) of the mean value for the correlated (uncorrelated) ensemble.

But wet lapse rate isn't about weight of atmosphere [in terms weight it's slightly lighter due lower density gas] but it's about an increase of energy [there is both kinetic and potential - but it's concerning change phase of water from gas to liquid - so kinetic energy which affects the pressure.

Alternative title: temperature lapse rate Lapse rate, rate of change in temperature observed while moving upward through the Earth's atmosphere.

Satellites show that OLR from clear skies increases less than about 1 W / m2 less than expected per degC of warming from changes in water vapor and lapse rate (two of your response channels).

The lapse rate, strictly speaking, applies to elevation above ground level (which is strongly affected by local atmospheric conditions such as absolute humidity and the rate of change of the absolute humidity in space and time) and this should be considered when making certain kinds of comparisons.

Changes in the opacity of the atmosphere or the lapse rate make those calculations invalid.

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.

One resolves in this manner the short - term components of the climate response, such as hydrological perturbations associated with changes in lapse rate.

Simply changing the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere by 30 percent has major impacts in the adiabatic lapse rate and the rate at which radiated heat is passed from the planet.

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.

This difference reflects the respective changes in the rate of temperature decrease with altitude (or lapse rate), which is in turn influenced by the amount of moisture in the atmosphere.

As I understand it, you expect overall more atmospheric warming mainly because of changes in the moist adiabatic lapse rate.

The models do predict a change in lapse rate... They predict that, overall, the lapse rate will DECREASE (mainly because of the decrease in lapse rate in the tropics... You know, the so - called «hot spot» that in a post above you claimed is missing).

So, if you «try» to change the temperature structure of the atmosphere by changing the heat flows between the surface and atmosphere, the atmosphere just responds by altering the convection to cancel out most of this change and you end up with basically the same temperature structure you started with (modulo the issues involving the moist adiabatic lapse rate... i.e., the fact that the adiabatic lapse rate changes some with heating, which genuinely does cause a change in the temperature structure and leads to the lapse rate feedback, a negative feedback already included in all of the climate models).

Presence of condensation processes / water vapor does change the lapse rate to the wet adiabatic, but changes in CO2 have a trivial effect on the wet or dry adiabatic lapse rate, and the dry adiabatic lapse rate exists even without the primary GHG water vapor.

However, the large difference in dry vs wet lapse rate is not due to the presence of water vapor changing the average Cp, but instead due to the progressive condensation of vapor to liquid or solid at altitude (heat of condensation being released).

Because the basics of anthropogenic global warming are fairly straightforward — CO2 is a greenhouse gas, because of the lapse rate water vapor condenses or freezes out in the troposphere and acts mainly to amplify the effect of CO2, humans are burning a lot of fossil C and increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere, the surface of the earth is warming, the cryosphere is retreating, the climate that supports civilization is rapidly changing, and consequently we are facing an uncertain future — but the details are complex, it's easy to «misunderestimate» the way climate works in detail.

A greenhouse effect governed by scattering of IR light would also not be sensitive to a cloud temperature (or the lapse rate in general) wheras the temperature change with altitude is the key behind the existence of the traditional absorption / emission GHG effect on Earth.

To return to an earlier point I raised that a linear lapse rate mathematically translates a temperature change at any altitude to other altitudes including the surface, I remain interested in observational data on linearity is terms of a flux - weighted global average.

The relationship of changes at the tropopause to surface changes does depend on the linearity or non-linearity of lapse rate (but not to changes in lapse rate, which are part of the feedback).

I have found him to be very helpful in response to such questions (e.g. concerning his calculation of lapse rate changes in response to altered radiative forcing).

I guess the bigger point is that if the tropical lapse rate changes in such a way as to destabilize the tropical atmosphere a lot (which I am still skeptical of), this says that we are missing something important, the implications of which are hard to predict until we understand it.

To what extent would a reduction in RH affect the change in the moist adiabatic lapse rate as a function of warming?

However, if you're considering a universal life policy, it's important to know your policy may either lapse or fail to accumulate cash value due to a number of factors, including administrative costs, poor investment performance, a change in mortality rates, or insufficient premiums.

In spite of the recent increase in no lapse guarantee life insurance premiums, a long overdue adjustment, life insurance rates have gone down steadily for the last 20 years and life insurance underwriting has advanced along with scientific and medical breakthroughs that have changed the mortality picture of most diseaseIn spite of the recent increase in no lapse guarantee life insurance premiums, a long overdue adjustment, life insurance rates have gone down steadily for the last 20 years and life insurance underwriting has advanced along with scientific and medical breakthroughs that have changed the mortality picture of most diseasein no lapse guarantee life insurance premiums, a long overdue adjustment, life insurance rates have gone down steadily for the last 20 years and life insurance underwriting has advanced along with scientific and medical breakthroughs that have changed the mortality picture of most diseases.

Posted in guaranteed level premium, insurance, life insurance, long term guarantee, no lapse guarantee, term insurance, universal life Tagged 25 year term life insurance, 30 year term life insurance, bold statements, discontinue 30 year term life, fiscally sound, future of term products, ING Relistar, insurance, life insurance, long term guarantee, long term life insurance, no lapse guarantee, rate changes, rate changes from stronger companies, term life insurance 1 Response

Prudential is just the most recent in a string of companies that have changed their no lapse guarantee universal life and term insurance rates.

Highlights of the changes, required under the Biggert - Waters Flood Insurance Reform Bill that passed in 2012, include revised premium rates, a new Reserve Fund assessment, updated rates for non-primary residences, exclusion of certain properties from receiving subsidized premium rates and no extesnions of subsidy to new policies or lapsed policies.