Sentences with phrase «of increasing water vapour»

Precipitation patterns of increased water vapour in clouds are generating massive water dumps and prolonged precipitation.

Not exact matches

One of the most interesting findings was that stomatal pores on the surface of the leaf (small holes that control the uptake of CO2 for photosynthesis and the loss of water vapour) increase in number after multi-generation exposure to future CO2.

The result is that when water vapour processes are correctly represented, the sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of carbon dioxide — which will occur in the next 50 years — means we can expect a temperature increase of at least 4 °C by 2100.

In addition, around the tropopause the air is close to saturation with water and a small increase of vapour from aircraft can create wide expanses of thin cirrus clouds that cause even stronger warming.

At temperate latitudes in the northern hemisphere, air traffic has increased the amount of water vapour in the lower stratosphere by about 10 per cent over the past thirty years.

This is a function of the increase in fractionation as water vapour is continually removed from the air.

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...

I would assume that the increase in stratospheric water vapour would make for a thicker vail of sulfuric acid given a large volcanic eruption.

And that additional water vapour would in turn cause further warming - this being a positive feedback, in which carbon dioxide acts as a direct regulator of temperature, and is then joined in that role by more water vapour as temperatures increase.

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.

2) In a confined volume, an increase in evaporation will result in an increased vapour pressure of H2O in the atmosphere above the water surface.

Source: Lyman 2010 The reaction of the oceans to climate change are some of the most profound across the entire environment, including disruption of the ocean food chain through chemical changes caused by CO2, the ability of the sea to absorb CO2 being limited by temperature increases, (and the potential to expel sequestered CO2 back into the atmosphere as the water gets hotter), sea - level rise due to thermal expansion, and the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere.

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 increase in water vapour as the surface warms is key, but so might be changes in boundary layer stability, rossby wave generation via longitudinally varying responses at the surface, impacts of the stratopshere on the steering of the jet, and the situation is completely different again for tropical storms.

1998 was so warm in part because of the big El Niño event over the winter of 1997 - 1998 which directly warmed a large part of the Pacific, and indirectly warmed (via the large increase in water vapour) an even larger region.

So we've nailed the Arctic after a fashion & Rondonia for three months of the year, both instances with quite extreme increases in water vapour.

Alastair notes that increased water vapour will carry more energy to the surface of the glaciers, likewise these increased water flows over, through and under the glaciers is also transferring vast amounts of energy into the ice.

Given the lower temperatures and lower water vapour content at higher altitudes and a need for high supercooling to initiate condensation (in the absence of sufficient normal CCN), wouldn't an increased source of nuclei, in the form of GCRs, enhance high - and middle - altitude cloud formation?

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).

As I understand all models they all predict a water vapour based forcing caused by increased temperatures leading to increased levels of water vapour and hence an increased greenhouse effect.

Other feedbacks include forests, and most importantly, water vapour, which as the temperature of the atmosphere rises increases in the atmosphere (think tropical rain forest), and water vapour is a potent greenhouse gas (but it is not the «controller» of our climate because it does not accumulate in the atmosphere, only gases like CO2, methane and nitrous oxide do this) See Skeptical Science https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

For reference, the amplification is related to the sensitivity of the moist adiabat to increasing surface temperatures (air parcels saturated in water vapour move up because of convection where the water vapour condenses and releases heat in a predictable way).

and first mention of «global warming» on pg xi The main greenhouse gas, water vapour, will increase in response to global warming and further enhance it»

(c) The level of water vapour depends on the global temperature, so it is roughly fixed until something else warms the atmosphere when it increases in amount producing more warming.

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.

[10] All of the models used by the IPCC assume that this increase in water vapour will result in a positive feedback in the order of 3 - 4 times the increase in temperature that would be caused by the increase in CO2 alone.

The increased water vapour blocks long wave radiation which causes an increase in temperature of tropical troposphere at around 8K and an increase in long wave radiation, a portion of which is emitted back down to the surface of the planet to amplify the CO2 forcing.

The observed regional changes are consistent in pattern and amount with the changes in SST and the assumption of a near - constant relative humidity increase in water vapour mixing ratio.

Much of the warming feared by the alarmists relies upon a positive feedback involving increased water vapour exaggerating any CO2 warming effect.

Higher modelled temperature in the troposphere enables the general circulation model to assume there is more water vapour in the troposphere which amplifies the CO2 forcing by increasing the amount of water vapor in troposphere.

Empirical data show clearly that the IPCC's deterministic models overestimate the amount of warming associated with increases in water vapour (see paper summaries in NIPCC - II, Chapter 1).

We have far more data about increasing CO2 than increasing water vapor, hence if we want to test this hypothesis by looking for a correlation between global warming and the combined effect of CO2 and H2O, a correlation with CO2 alone is more feasible than one involving water vapour.

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.

If an increase of 5 % in CO2 results in an increase of 1 % in water vapour, and if water vapour has say 30x the influence of CO2 on heat trapping, then a 1 % increase in CO2 will result in an increase of 30/5 = 6 % in the heat trapping impact of water vapour.

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 IPCC's AR5 indicates that, apart from the Water Vapour Increase feedback, permafrost melt and the other main feedbacks were viewed as being insignificant to the outcome of the RCP scenarios.

Moreover, the study excluded the direct reinforcements of the rate of melting by all other feedbacks and its delayed reinforcement by all but the Water Vapour Increase feedback.

Ocean Heating & Acidification — of which the heating component has to have preceded the raised surface air temperature around 1800 that drove the first water vapour increase.

The sum of the warming potential of all gases emitted (including CO2, methane and water vapour) which influence the energy balance of the atmosphere leading to increased average temperatures.

The atmosphere now holds 4 % more water vapour than it did 40 years ago as a result of increasing temperatures.

It is noteworthy that the influence of warmer temperatures and increased water vapour in the atmosphere (Section 2.5.3) are not independent events, and are likely to be jointly related to increases in heavy and extreme precipitation events.

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.

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.

Here's a study which highlights the importance of increased tropospheric humidity (water vapour) in amplifying a warming effect during the afforementioned Paleocene — Eocene Thermal Maximum — ttp: / / www.nature.com/nature/journal/v432/n7016/full/nature03115.

«The pervasive increase in water vapour changes the intensity of precipitation events with no doubt whatsoever,» Kevin Trenberth of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research told a meeting in January.

While what I have described is a bit simplistic, it gives the gist of why the CO2 emissions are significant: not only is CO2 a greenhouse gas, but its effect causes other significant changes to take place, such as increased uptake of water vapour into the atmosphere.

To date, while various effects and feedbacks constrain the certainty placed on recent and projected climate change (EG, albedo change, the response of water vapour, various future emissions scenarios etc), it is virtually certain that CO2 increases from human industry have reversed and will continue to reverse the downward trend in global temperatures that should be expected in the current phase of the Milankovitch cycle.

This temp increase will eventually cause more water vapour to be released and so you have a runaway effect (assuming of course that the water vapour can cause a larger increase in temp then the original forcing).