Sentences with phrase «water vapor concentrations in»

Better yet if natural conditions are the controlling factor of water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere at all levels of the atmosphere this would also put AGW theory in deep trouble, especially if the climate should cool (which I think it may) due to prolonged minimum solar conditions.

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).

Current state - of - the - art climate models predict that increasing water vapor concentrations in warmer air will amplify the greenhouse effect created by anthropogenic greenhouse gases while maintaining nearly constant relative humidity.

Not exact matches

It would provide important insight into how much SRM would reduce radiative heating, the concentration of water vapor in the stratosphere, and the processes that determine water vapor transport — which affects the concentration of ozone.

The image charts water vapor in the atmosphere, with highest concentrations in white; note the cyclone approaching India.

So the fact that we have this very strong drying in the tropics during glaciation would argue for a strong feedback of water vapor concentration to the global climate during glacial - interglacial cycles.»

«The maximum concentration of (invisible) water vapor which can occur in air decreases to extremely low values at very cold temperatures.

Above the treetops, he checks a cluster of instruments that analyze the lush canopy as a collection of numbers: the amount of carbon being inhaled from the atmosphere, the concentration of water vapor in the air and the precise mix of hues the leaves exhibit.

With JWST, a few hours of integration time will be enough to detect Earth - like levels of water vapor, molecular oxygen, carbon dioxide and other generic biosignatures on planets orbiting a white dwarf; beyond that, observing the same planet for up to 1.7 days will be enough to detect the two CFCs in concentrations of 750 parts per trillion, or 10 times greater than on Earth.

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.

Misra adds that a previous study has already noted that warmer temperatures in cities result in higher water vapor concentration.

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

[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?)

1) Even though CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere has gone up by 30 % over the last 200 years or so (compared to being stable for 400 000), I have a hard time to comprehend how an increase from 0.028 % to 0.038 % of CO2 by volume can have any effect on the thermal mass of the atmosphere considering that water vapor by volume is 50x greater and has higher thermal coefficients.

So as more CO2 gets pumped into the atmosphere the temperature rises, which causes more water to evaporate (as you accurately state), increasing the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere — which heats the atmosphere even more, causing even more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.

increase in the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere as the atmosphere warms as indicated by the Clausius - Clapeyron equation.

(In the global time average, diffusion of latent heat is in the same direction as sensible heat transport, but latent heat will tend to flow from higher to lower concentrations of water vapor (or equilibrium vapor pressure at the liquid / solid water surface), and regionally / locally, conditions can arise where the latent heat and sensible heat fluxes are oppositely directedIn the global time average, diffusion of latent heat is in the same direction as sensible heat transport, but latent heat will tend to flow from higher to lower concentrations of water vapor (or equilibrium vapor pressure at the liquid / solid water surface), and regionally / locally, conditions can arise where the latent heat and sensible heat fluxes are oppositely directedin the same direction as sensible heat transport, but latent heat will tend to flow from higher to lower concentrations of water vapor (or equilibrium vapor pressure at the liquid / solid water surface), and regionally / locally, conditions can arise where the latent heat and sensible heat fluxes are oppositely directed.)

(I think that an anomalously warm ocean surface heated from below would lead to more evaporation, and the additional water vapor would give a positive greenhouse effect that would partially offset the effect of a drop in greenhouse gas concentrations.)

Of course, though some of the flux up at the tropopause escapes directly to space, and some is absorbed by CO2 (over the whole stratosphere in the wings of the CO2 band, concentrated towards the base of the stratosphere for larger optical thicknesses), some is absorbed by ozone (with variable concentration), and some by water vapor.

Their results were not global and the did not show a total increase in ghg concentration b / c the omitted water vapor, the strongest and most abundant ghg!

Therefore in water vapor absorption bands IR optical depth, as given by average water vapor concentration, only provides an upper bound to actual average IR optical depth, the latter being pretty independent of the former one otherwise.

Specifically, as global temperatures have steadily increased at their fastest rates in millions of years, it's directly affected things like water vapor concentrations, clouds, precipitation patterns, and stream flow patterns, which are all related to the water cycle.

No, I don't agree that the Hansen B scenario is what applies, because from my understanding, Hansen was talking about CO2 levels specifically, not GHG (including water vapor) concentrations, and there was no CO2 limitation or reduction in the period covered.

But the boiling point of heavy water, as well as heavy oxygen water (H2O ^ 18 rather than H2O ^ 16) are higher than that of normal water, and are found in water vapor in the atmosphere at lower concentrations when the global temperature is low.

The convective heat / mass transfer due to water dwarfs any radiative forcing; besides — just on optical depth alone, any re-radiated LWIR from atmospheric CO2 would be IMMEDIATELY absorbed by the much higher concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere (aka clouds!)

The water vapor, lapse - rate and ice - albedo feedbacks in isolation enhance the global warming that would result from increasing CO2 concentrations alone to around +2.2 °C.

If, for instance, CO2 concentrations are doubled, then the absorption would increase by 4 W / m2, but once the water vapor and clouds react, the absorption increases by almost 20 W / m2 — demonstrating that (in the GISS climate model, at least) the «feedbacks» are amplifying the effects of the initial radiative forcing from CO2 alone.

The only greenhouse gas present on Water World is water vapor and it's concentration is determined by thermodynamic balances in the atmospWater World is water vapor and it's concentration is determined by thermodynamic balances in the atmospwater vapor and it's concentration is determined by thermodynamic balances in the atmosphere.

There has never been anything that has ever shown the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is dependent on the CO2 concentration.

«What our study shows is that observed water vapor concentrations are high enough and temperatures are low enough over the U.S. in summertime to initiate the chemistry that is known to lead to ozone losses,» said Harvard atmospheric scientist David Wilmouth, one of the paper's co-authors, in an email.

But J. Philip Peterson is right — water vapor is a stronger IR absorber, and is usually present in much higher concentrations than carbon dioxide.

The concentration of water vapor varies from a maximum of 40,000 ppmv (Hong Kong) to the lowest measured value of 4 ppmv in the upper stratosphere.

AGW is a hypothesis that makes sense, namely: — GHGs absorb outgoing radiation, thereby contributing to warming (GH theory)-- CO2 is a GHG (as is water vapor plus some minor GHGs)-- CO2 concentrations have risen (mostly since measurements started in Mauna Loa in 1959)-- global temperature has risen since 1850 (in ~ 30 - year warming cycles with ~ 30 - year cycles of slight cooling in between)-- humans emit CO2 and other GHGs — ergo, human GHG emissions have very likely been a major contributor to higher GHG concentrations, very likely contributing to the observed warming

Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major contributor to climate change.Direct human impact is through changes in the concentration of certain trace gases such as carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor, known collectively as greenhouse gases.

As the concentration of gaseous water (water «vapor») in the atmosphere is on the order of 3o, 000 to 40,000 ppm, this trace greenhouse gas really * is * the invisible 800 lb gorilla in the room even if we ignore the phase change effects.

It only becomes significant in the models by assuming that water vapor concentration increases in response to the slight warming produced by CO2 increases and therefore constitutes a powerful positive feedback effect which triples the effect of CO2 by itself.

The parameterization is intended for application in large - scale atmospheric and cloud models that can predict 1) the supersaturation of water vapor, which requires a representation of vertical velocity on the cloud scale, and 2) concentrations of a variety of insoluble aerosol species.

However, climate variables, such as temperature and concentration of water vapor in the Earth's atmosphere, are noisy and subject to seasonal and interannual variabilities.

Also, while we have good atmospheric measurements of other key greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, we have poor measurements of global water vapor, so it is not certain by how much atmospheric concentrations have risen in recent decades or centuries, though satellite measurements, combined with balloon data and some in - situ ground measurements indicate generally positive trends in global water vapor.»

Water vapor then reacts to this increased absorption, its concentration in air diminishes, its share of IR absorption goes down, and atmospheric transmittance is restored to its nominal 15 percent again.

3 Further complicating the response of the different atmospheric levels to increases in greenhouse gases are other processes such as those associated with changes in the concentration and distribution of atmospheric water vapor and clouds.

Forced changes in irradiance are not only affected by changing concentrations of constituents or other external sources, but also by changes in water vapor and clouds.

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.

If we were to increase the level of water vapor in the atmosphere and leave everything else unchanged, the water vapor would fairly quickly condense out as rain, snow, frost or dew and there would be no lasting effect on global temperatures Carbon dioxide comes second after water vapor and its concentration in the atmosphere is heavily affected by burning of fossil fuels.

Water vapor, on the other hand, can vary wildly in concentration by locale.

This heat - trapping, warming influence of the blanket of air over the Earth's surface is called the greenhouse effect, and it will become even stronger as greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and water vapor increase in concentration.

Water vapor is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 and its concentration in the air is between 25 and 50 times greater than CO2.

For more than 10 years (I forgot how much more), upper tropospheric water vapor has not increased in response to significant increases in CO2 atmospheric concentrations.

Cloud condensation nuclei: Aerosol particles that provide a platform for the condensation of water vapor, resulting in clouds with higher droplet concentrations and increased albedo.

The reverse process is also happening all the time: Water vapor collides with the surface of liquid water and rate of entry depends on the concentration of water vapor in theWater vapor collides with the surface of liquid water and rate of entry depends on the concentration of water vapor in thewater and rate of entry depends on the concentration of water vapor in thewater vapor in the air.