Sentences with phrase «variations of water vapor»

The challenge is how best to merge the available information on water vapor distribution into an improved description of the time and space variations of water vapor to enhance climate studies.

Through horizontal averaging, variations of water vapor and temperature that are related to the horizontal transport by the large - scale circulation will be largely removed, and thus the water vapor and temperature relationship obtained is more indicative of the property of moist convection, and is thus more relevant to the issue of water vapor feedback in global warming.

«A Comparison of Modeled and Observed Relationships between Interannual Variations of Water Vapor and Temperature.»

Sun, D. - Z., and I.M. Held, 1996: A comparison of modeled and observed relationships between interannual variations of water vapor and temperature.

Not exact matches

First of all, simplify by imagining a box with orbital forcing as input and an (unobserable) temperature as output; the water vapor feed back is inside and is effectively instaneous on the scale of millennia appropriate for considerring ice age variations.

The distribution of water sources on the surface was derived by observing variations in the water signal during the dwarf planet's nine - hour rotation period, which suggested that almost all of the water vapor was coming from just two spots on the surface.

The study, described in an article today in The Times, finds that poorly understood variations in water vapor concentrations in the stratosphere were probably responsible for a substantial wedge of the powerful warming trend in the 1990s and a substantial portion of «the flattening of global average temperatures since 2000 ″ (to anyone who hates talk of plateaus and the like, those are the authors» words, not mine).

Different climates have different vertical temperature profiles (aside from horizontal and temporal temperature variations), which affects the radiative forcing that an amount and arrangement of greenhouse agents (CO2, CH4, etc, also, water vapor and clouds) will have.

Variations are due to variations in the optical thicknesses already provided by water vapor and clouds, and variation of the Planck function over theVariations are due to variations in the optical thicknesses already provided by water vapor and clouds, and variation of the Planck function over thevariations in the optical thicknesses already provided by water vapor and clouds, and variation of the Planck function over the spectrum.

Thus there is convection within the troposphere that (to a first approximation) tends to sustain some lapse rate profile within the layer — that itself can vary as a function of climate (and height, location, time), but given any relative temperature distribution within the layer (including horizontal and temporal variations and relationship to variable CSD contributors (water vapor, clouds)-RRB-, the temperature of the whole layer must shift to balance radiative fluxes into and out of the layer (in the global time averae, and in the approximation of zero global time average convection above the troposphere), producing a PRt2 (in the global time average) equal to RFt2.

There will be Regionally / locally and temporal variations; increased temperature and backradiation tend to reduce the diurnal temperature cycle on land, though regional variations in cloud feedbacks and water vapor could cause some regions to have the opposite effect; changes in surface moisture and humidity also changes the amount of convective cooling that can occur for the same temperature distribution.

«Arrhenius and Chamberlain saw in this [variations in carbon dioxide] a cause of climate changes, but the theory was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long - wave radiation absorbed by CO2 is also absorbed by water vapor.

Cloud variations are obviously an important element on a global scale, but the effects of Arctic ice melting are important locally and also a non-trivial fraction of global albedo feedbacks, which are a contributor to total feedback that is smaller than those from water vapor and probably from cloud feedbacks, but not insignificant.

The Sun, Jupiter, gravitational moment of the remaining planets, Earth angular orbit variations of all kinds, galactic rays, motion of the solar system through the galaxy and dust clouds, the Moon, atmospheric water vapor, ocean currents, configuration of the tectonic plates and continental drift, volcanic activity, the natural biosphere, human urban development, human alteration of the greenhouse water cycle (dam's, rivers etc),,... human produced CO2.

Since water vapor contributes 95 % of the wrongly named «greenhouse effect» and since the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has a logarithmic and declining effect, the variation in temperature at the surface must be vanishingly small.

The world's climate is way too complex... with way too many significant global and regional variables (e.g., solar, volcanic and geologic activity, variations in the strength and path of the jet stream and major ocean currents, the seasons created by the tilt of the earth, and the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere, which by the way is many times more effective at holding heat near the surface of the earth than is carbon dioxide, a non-toxic, trace gas that all plant life must have to survive, and that produce the oxygen that WE need to survive) to consider for any so - called climate model to generate a reliable and reproducible predictive model.

req'd), «Water - vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003 — 2008» analyzed recent variations in surface temperature and «the response of tropospheric water vapor to these variations.&rWater - vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003 — 2008» analyzed recent variations in surface temperature and «the response of tropospheric water vapor to these variations.&rwater vapor to these variations.»

In my opinion, these images clearly show that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere is totally insignificant, mainly because the natural variation in water vapor is so much larger than the amount of CO2 added by humans.

Many believe that increased water vapor, solar variations in radiation and magnetic flux, our relative position in the solar system, the tilt of our planet's axis, the clearing of our atmosphere of pollutants which allows more sunlight to reach the ground, or our position in the Milky Way galaxy that affects the amount of radiation reaching our atmosphere and affecting cloud formation, are also important and are not (and can not be yet) adequately considered in the computer models used by the IPCC consensus.

This rapid turnover, combined with the variation of temperature with height and geography, causes water vapor to be distributed unevenly in the atmosphere, not only horizontally but vertically as well.

Compared to those problems (bias and random variation), here is a large unknown: a 2 % increase in cloud cover would prevent the warming effect of increased CO2; will a 7 % increase in water vapor pressure, or 12 % increase in lightning ground strike rate, or a 2 % — 7 % increase in rainfall rate be accompanied by a 2 % increase in cloud cover?

Certainly the recent time trends are dominated by the El Nino event of 1998 and the integrated water vapor reanalyzed data do have large spatial and annual variations.

-- It seems perfectly reasonable to me that if we imagine the surface never emits that energy in the first place, - energy that is stored in the surface and just below, i.e. oceans, lakes, rivers, ground, and air, — just to mention a few, then any surface temperature change would be completely reliant on variations in Solar irradiation and advection mainly by Water Vapor (WV) but also by other GHGs that have the ability to contain more heat than the rest of the atmospheric gases.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me that if we imagine the surface never emits that energy in the first place, - energy that is stored in the surface and just below, i.e. oceans, lakes, rivers, ground, and air, — just to mention a few, then any surface temperature change would be completely reliant on variations in Solar irradiation and advection mainly by Water Vapor (WV) but also by other GHGs that have the ability to contain more heat than the rest of the atmospheric gases.

In the lower atmosphere, the available data points to increasing water vapor content, but because of large variations in local humidity from day to night, from day to day, and from season to season, no - one currently knows exactly how much more water vapor is going into the air (IPCC Working Group 1 Assessment Report 4, Chapter 3, «Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change», page 273).

Moreover, the model - simulated rates of radiative damping are consistent with those obtained from satellite observations and are indicative of a strong positive correlation between temperature and water vapor variations over a broad range of spatiotemporal scales.

Figure 1: Antarctic (Vostok) ice core records of temperature, CO2 (upper) and CH4 (lower) including time - scale adjustment to account for ice - gas age difference associated with the time for air bubbles to be sealed (Petit et al. 1999) and corrected for variations of climate in the water vapor source regions (Vimeux et al. 2002) as described in Supporting Text of Hansen and Sato (2004).

To account for the variations in clouds, humidity and temperature, Myhre and Stordahl took the approach of using temperature and water vapor from the ECMWF analyses, climatological ozone data, and ISCCP cloud data; if I were designing this experiment, I would have made the same choices.

It is probable that even a 1 % variation in atmospheric water vapor equals or exceeds all the effects of human sourced CO2.