Sentences with phrase «water feedback given»

It may indicate that it is the water content but that I can not see how that could be a directly used to in the calculation of the water feedback given the units of the kernel.

Not exact matches

The problem is, like drinking enough water, we don't give enough feedback every day and we certainly don't get enough feedback.

«We are committed to providing opportunities for local communities to bring forward suggestions for use of environmental water and we encourage them to give us feedback or advice.»

Sure, there might be a few papers that take climate sensitivity as a given and somehow try to draw conclusions about the impact on the climate from that... But, I hardly think that these are swamping the number of papers trying to determine what the climate sensitivity is, studying if the water vapor feedback is working as expected, etc., etc..

Once ready to go, our Star Surf instructors join you in the water to help you catch your first waves and to give you direct feedback on your personal surf style.

With the most intensive surf teaching possible, our instructors stay in the water with you and give you the surf feedback you need.

At all times our surf instructors are in the water with you, helping you catching waves and give you feedback on how to improve your surf technique.

[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?)

Specific humidity content of the air has increased, as expected as part of the conventional water vapor feedback, but in fact relative humidity also increased between 1950 and 1990, indicating a stronger water vapor feedback than given by the conventional assumption of fixed relative humidity.

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-.

Alternatively, more direct observations of that radiative imbalance would be nice, or better theoretical and observational understanding of the water vapor and cloud feedbacks, or more paleoclimate data which can give us constraints on historical feedbacks, but my guess is that ocean heat content measurements would be the best near term bet for improving our understanding of this issue.

Reconstruction of the temporal changes in the oxic - anoxic interface (chemocline) in the water column forms a key step in the identification of the external drivers and internal feedbacks that contribute to anoxia and euxinia in a given system.

of anthropogenic CO2 releases that have been taken out of the atmosphere (over and above the amount taken out of the atmosphere that balances the natural additions to the atmosphere), perhaps mainly as a direct biogeochemical feedback (increased CO2 favoring more rapid biological fixation of C, net flux of CO2 into water until equilibrium for the given storage of other involved chemical species in the upper ocean) fairly promptly.

It was a good deed to give Dennis Schmitt a forum to respond to Patrick Michaels since Michaels doesn't offer one, we need to see less of the tug of war and more of the real evolving science as scientists strive to fill in gaps in data and missing links in climate models, and to understand feedbacks and the coupled dynamics of land, air and water.

Corresponding time for surface + tropospheric equilibration: given 3 K warming (including feedbacks) per ~ 3.7 W / m2 forcing (this includes the effects of feedbacks): 10 years per heat capacity of ~ 130 m layer of ocean (~ heat capacity of 92 or 93 m of liquid water spread over the whole globe)

Charney sensitivity refers to the climate sensitivity when fast - reacting feedbacks (Planck response is a given — also, water vapor, clouds,... I think sea ice, seasonal snow) occur but with other things (land - based ice sheets,... vegetation -LRB-?)-RRB-

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.

The exposed open water caused by the wind divergence may absorb some additional sunlight and melt more ice than usual over the next few weeks (temperature - albedo feedback)[related NASA animation], but given that the sun is well on its way to setting for the winter, I think this effect will be fairly minimal.

Given the sensible & latent heat transport # s above, it doesn't seem very plausible for convection & conduction to play a role comparable to radiation (especially because latent heat transport also puts more moister in the upper atm, and that water vapor feedback traps more radiation).

The fact that is being overlooked is that the main positive feedback effect is thought to be, «more water vapour gives more temperature which gives more water vapour».

Given your background it is probably evident that with only the GHG model input and the resulting «water vapor feedback» controlled, the GCM functions as a noise generator with a variable bias.

To point out just a couple of things: — oceans warming slower (or cooling slower) than lands on long - time trends is absolutely normal, because water is more difficult both to warm or to cool (I mean, we require both a bigger heat flow and more time); at the contrary, I see as a non-sense theory (made by some serrist, but don't know who) that oceans are storing up heat, and that suddenly they will release such heat as a positive feedback: or the water warms than no heat can be considered ad «stored» (we have no phase change inside oceans, so no latent heat) or oceans begin to release heat but in the same time they have to cool (because they are losing heat); so, I don't feel strange that in last years land temperatures for some series (NCDC and GISS) can be heating up while oceans are slightly cooling, but I feel strange that they are heating up so much to reverse global trend from slightly negative / stable to slightly positive; but, in the end, all this is not an evidence that lands» warming is led by UHI (but, this effect, I would not exclude it from having a small part in temperature trends for some regional area, but just small); both because, as writtend, it is normal to have waters warming slower than lands, and because lands» temperatures are often measured in a not so precise way (despite they continue to give us a global uncertainity in TT values which is barely the instrumental's one)-- but, to point out, HadCRU and MSU of last years (I mean always 2002 - 2006) follow much better waters» temperatures trend; — metropolis and larger cities temperature trends actually show an increase in UHI effect, but I think the sites are few, and the covered area is very small worldwide, so the global effect is very poor (but it still can be sensible for regional effects); but I would not run out a small warming trend for airport measurements due mainly to three things: increasing jet planes traffic, enlarging airports (then more buildings and more asphalt — if you follow motor sports, or simply live in a town / city, you will know how easy they get very warmer than air during day, and how much it can slow night - time cooling) and overall having airports nearer to cities (if not becoming an area inside the city after some decade of hurban growth, e.g. Milan - Linate); — I found no point about UHI in towns and villages; you will tell me they are not large cities; but, in comparison with 20-40-60 years ago when they were «countryside», many small towns and villages have become part of larger hurban areas (at least in Europe and Asia) so examining just larger cities would not be enough in my opinion to get a full view of UHI effect (still remembering that it has a small global effect: we can say many matters are due to UHI instead of GW, maybe even that a small part of measured GW is due to UHI, and that GW measurements are not so precise to make us able to make good analisyses and predictions, but not that GW is due to UHI).

If there was no greenhouse effect or if something were to block it any doubling of carbon dioxide would yield zero degrees warming and the water vapor feedback likewise would be zero, giving a climate sensitivity of exactly zero for this doubling.

The THS is a major fingerprint of AGW and what is not understood by idiots like NO is that a THS would be a product of water vapour feedback and is not a first order forcing; given that the lack of a THS is entirely consistent with the decline of water vapour levels in the mid to high troposphere.

Next, they assume a large (and unverified) water vapor / cloud / whatever feedback on top of that, to give the 0.9 number.

Judith Curry writes, «how [can] these models produce anything sensible given the temperature dependence of the saturation vapor pressure over water, the freezing temperature of water, and the dependence of feedbacks on temperature parameter space.»

That's all very interesting, but the new alarmism is that warm air holds more moisture, giving the required water vapor feedbacks in order to make the world scary hot, instead of the piddling little lukewarm, of a non feedback, co2 stand alone warming.

Water vapor appears to give negative, not positive, feedback.

28 Estimated Strength of Water Vapor Feedback Earliest studies suggest that if the absolute humidity increases in proportion to the saturation vapor pressure (constant relative humidity), this will give rise to a water vapor feedback that will double the sensitivity of climate compared to an assumption of fixed absolute humiWater Vapor Feedback Earliest studies suggest that if the absolute humidity increases in proportion to the saturation vapor pressure (constant relative humidity), this will give rise to a water vapor feedback that will double the sensitivity of climate compared to an assumption of fixed absolute hFeedback Earliest studies suggest that if the absolute humidity increases in proportion to the saturation vapor pressure (constant relative humidity), this will give rise to a water vapor feedback that will double the sensitivity of climate compared to an assumption of fixed absolute humiwater vapor feedback that will double the sensitivity of climate compared to an assumption of fixed absolute hfeedback that will double the sensitivity of climate compared to an assumption of fixed absolute humidity.

... your uneasiness might arise from wondering how these models produce anything sensible given the temperature dependence of the saturation vapor pressure over water, the freezing temperature of water, and the dependence of feedbacks on temperature parameter space.

Radiative feedbacks act the same way as radiative forcings, except that they themselves are dependent on temperature changes (the distinction depends on timescale and context; also, in some contexts the feedbacks» effects are described as radiative forcings — for example, the radiative forcing of the increase in water vapor that would occur for a given temperature increase).

Corrections: Del Genio et al. (1991); Raval and Ramanathan (1989) found that satellite infrared measurements gave «compelling evidence for the positive feedback between surface temperature, water vapour and the greenhouse effect; the magnitude of the feedback is consistent with that predicted by climate models;» similarly, Rind et al. (1991), p. 500; Sun and Held (1996); and the final nail in the coffin, Soden et.

Once the civilization reaches truly planetary scales, there has to be some feedback on the coupled planetary systems that gave it birth (air, water, rock).

This is quite different from the positive feedback that follows when Arctic ice — which reflects sunlight — melts and gives way to blue water which absorbs solar energy, thus accelerating the melting.

What is disputed is the how to calculate resulting surface temperature increase given a no - feedback (and no water as Lubos asserts) scenario.