Sentences with phrase «water vapor changes»

This is one of the reasons why there has been such discussion about the height of water vapor changes over the last 20 years.

With progress on these fronts, we will have a much clearer concept of how atmospheric water vapor determines the Earth's climate and how changes in climate are linked to water vapor changes.

I'll then back the 15 % warming influence from stratospheric water vapor changes since 1980 out of the «corrected» data in Figure 2.

When going up - slope over Greenland the air expands, cools, and water vapor changes to solid.

«The reason for the water vapor change is the temperature drop at the interface between the troposphere and the stratosphere over the tropics.

The combination of both higher sensitivity and greater aerosol fluctuation mimics what I would expect with water vapor change (spatially) due to internal oscillations.

If they had forced the model with a water vapor change, it would have done the same thing.»

We later went on to demonstrate this very point by forcing the model with a water vapor change by instantaneously doubling (and zeroing out) water vapor in a couple of GCM runs.

Upper atmosphere water vapor is important because as reported in a previous guest post https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/06/nasa-satellite-data-shows-a-decline-in-water-vapor/ «A water vapor change in the 300 - 200 mb layer has 81 times the effect on OLR than the same change in the 1013 - 850 mb near - surface layer.»

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).

Not exact matches

Combined with a decrease in atmospheric water vapor and a weaker sun due to the most recent solar cycle, the aerosol finding may explain why climate change has not been accelerating as fast as it did in the 1990s.

New Zealand experienced an extreme two - day rainfall in December 2011; researchers said 1 to 5 percent more moisture was available for that event due to climate change, which is increasing the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.

«We found that there was a surface temperature impact due to changes in water vapor in a fairly narrow region of the stratosphere,» explains research meteorologist Karen Rosenlof of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Aeronomy Laboratory, one of the authors of the study.

And climate change has led to more water vapor in the atmosphere, which increases rainfall totals.

The conclusion that limiting CO2 below 450 ppm will prevent warming beyond two degrees C is based on a conservative definition of climate sensitivity that considers only the so - called fast feedbacks in the climate system, such as changes in clouds, water vapor and melting sea ice.

Such physical changes to the atmosphere might last only hours or days, he notes, but any subtle chemical changes — including those resulting from the extra hydrogen added to the air when ultraviolet light breaks down the water vapor — would persist much longer.

The theory of dangerous climate change is based not just on carbon dioxide warming but on positive and negative feedback effects from water vapor and phenomena such as clouds and airborne aerosols from coal burning.

While the ECS factors in such «fast» feedback effects as changes in water vapor — water itself is a greenhouse gas, and saturates warm air better than cold — they argued that slow feedbacks, such as changes in ice sheets and vegetation, should also be considered.

These customary phase transitions manifest as an abrupt change in the state of matter such as ice melting to water, or water boiling to vapor, at some critical temperature.

«Our analysis confirmed that the Planck Response plays a dominant role in restoring global temperature stability, but to our surprise we found that it tends to be overwhelmed locally by heat - trapping positive energy feedbacks related to changes in clouds, water vapor, and snow and ice,» Brown said.

The UCLA team's conclusions about temperature changes in the region also imply that there have been major fluctuations in the volume of water vapor in the atmosphere there.

Even models that correctly capture cloud behavior may fail to fully account for other climate feedbacks from factors like changing snow and sea ice cover, atmospheric water vapor content, and temperature.

«It can essentially change from one crystal structure to another when we slightly change the temperature or introduce a little water vapor.»

For instance, water ice plays the role of relatively inert rock or dirt on Pluto because it's usually too cold to change form into liquid or vapor.

The research, published yesterday in Nature Climate Change, outlines a counterintuitive side effect of climate change: As higher temperatures drive plants and trees into areas now inhospitable to them, their new distribution speeds up temperature rise via natural processes such as releases of heat - trapping water vapor into thChange, outlines a counterintuitive side effect of climate change: As higher temperatures drive plants and trees into areas now inhospitable to them, their new distribution speeds up temperature rise via natural processes such as releases of heat - trapping water vapor into thchange: As higher temperatures drive plants and trees into areas now inhospitable to them, their new distribution speeds up temperature rise via natural processes such as releases of heat - trapping water vapor into the air.

It contributes to the water vapor continum in the window and this is similar to the ozone, producing a flux change that can be seen from above as from the surface.

I guess I am surprised that with better understanding of the importance of water vapor feedback, sulfate aerosols, black carbon aerosols, more rapid than expected declines in sea ice and attendant decreases in albedo, effects of the deposition of soot and dust on snow and ice decreasing albedo, and a recognition of the importance of GHGs that were probably not considered 30 years ago, that the sensitivity has changed so little over time.

Water droplets, ice crystals and water vapor are constantly changing and able to co-exist only when air in a cloud is constantly moWater droplets, ice crystals and water vapor are constantly changing and able to co-exist only when air in a cloud is constantly mowater vapor are constantly changing and able to co-exist only when air in a cloud is constantly moving.

They compared two simulations, present and future, of atmospheric rivers determined from the vertically integrated water vapor flux to quantify the changes in atmospheric rivers that make landfall over western North America.

In one sentence: Researchers at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory found that when miniscule particles of airborne dust, thought to be a perfect landing site for water vapor, are modified by pollution, they change cloud properties via ice crystal number concentration and ice water content.

as a consequence of a physical change (condensation and precipitation remove water vapor from the atmosphere).

Ozone amounts change with the seasons on the planet, as its presence relies on water vapor, which destroys ozone.

Thousands of studies conducted by researchers around the world have documented changes in surface, atmospheric, and oceanic temperatures; melting glaciers; diminishing snow cover; shrinking sea ice; rising sea levels; ocean acidification; and increasing atmospheric water vapor.

Sohn, B. - J., and J. Schmetz, 2004: Water vapor - induced OLR variations associated with high cloud changes over the tropics: a study from Meteosat - 5 observations.

He also conveniently ignores positive feedbacks (e.g. increased water vapor) and most of the actual physics of climate change.

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).

We call this the Charney climate sensitivity, because it is essentially the case considered by Charney (1979), in which water vapor, clouds and sea ice were allowed to change in response to climate change, but GHG (greenhouse gas) amounts, ice sheet area, sea level and vegetation distributions were taken as specified boundary conditions.

This empirical fast - feedback climate sensitivity allows water vapor, clouds, aerosols, sea ice, and all other fast feedbacks that exist in the real world to respond naturally to global climate change.

The changes in forcing brought about by these greenhouse gas changes (including water vapor) are a feedback on the initial forcing of the proximate cause.

The water vapor just makes the Planck response less effective, so you need a higher temperature change for the same perturbation than in a no feedback case.

If a positive feedback amplifies a signal, and the resulting change attributable to water vapour feedback is greater than the initial signal, then any further perturbations will be competing with the change attributable to water vapor.

That is clearly the Milankovitch cycles that initiate the process — and CO2 and water vapor (along with changes in albedo due to snow and vegetation) are both feedbacks.

Together with fast feedbacks processes, via changes of water vapor, clouds, and the vertical temperature profile, these slow amplifying feedbacks were responsible for almost the entire glacial - to - interglacial temperature change [59]--[62].

Previous studies suggested that stratospheric water vapor might contribute significantly to climate change.

Calculations suggest that feedback with water vapor could make the climate acutely sensitive to changes in CO2 level.

Energy from the sun changes water to water vapor.

A reduction in the variance of tire pressure due to temperature change since there is no water vapor concentration

In addition, since the global surface temperature records are a measure that responds to albedo changes (volcanic aerosols, cloud cover, land use, snow and ice cover) solar output, and differences in partition of various forcings into the oceans / atmosphere / land / cryosphere, teasing out just the effect of CO2 + water vapor over the short term is difficult to impossible.

However, the Management and Guest Contributors at WUWT accept the basic truth that CO2, water vapor, and other «greenhouse gases» are responsible for an ~ 33ºC boost in mean Earth temperature, that CO2 levels are rising, partly due to our use of fossil fuels, that land use has changed Earth's albedo, and that this human actvity has caused additional warming.

I wonder what would happen if the same approach was applied to other climate metrics, like sea surface temperature, water vapor feedback strength, and precipitation - evaporation changes.