Sentences with phrase «which increases the water vapor»

goodsprk: It relies on not simply CO2, but on feedback from increased CO2 raising the temperature which increases the water vapor in the atmosphere which the alarmist assume will actually breaking up the low level clouds and forming high level cirrus clouds that will trap more heat.

It relies on not simply CO2, but on feedback from increased CO2 raising the temperature which increases the water vapor in the atmosphere which the alarmist assume will actually breaking up the low level clouds and forming high level cirrus clouds that will trap more heat.

Venus succumbed early to a «runaway water vapor greenhouse,» in which the increased water vapor content arising from increased temperature reached an end state with much of the ocean evaporated into the atmosphere.

There is growing evidence that this has already occurred31 through more evaporation from the ocean, which increases water vapor in the lower atmosphere32 and autumn cloud cover west and north of Alaska.33

Not exact matches

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.

Rising temperatures would put more water vapor into the atmosphere, which then rains out, increasing the amount of dissolved carbon dioxide that chemically interacts with the rocks.

Of course, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is also affected by another potent greenhouse gas — methane — which has unexpectedly failed to increase in recent years.

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

Increase the global temperature a bit, however, and there could be a bad feedback effect, with water evaporating faster, freeing water vapor (a potent greenhouse gas), which traps more heat, which drives carbon dioxide from the rocks, which drives temperatures still higher.

And more water vapor worldwide is related to the atmosphere being warmer — we have about 7 percent more water vapor in the atmosphere now than we did in the 1950s, which is directly linked to the increase in heavy precipitation events.

For every 1 °F increase in temperature, the atmosphere can hold around 4 percent more water vapor, which leads to heavier rain and increases the risk of flooding of rivers and streams.

Now if we add water vapor to the atmosphere it increases the greenhouse effect in the spectral regions that are not saturated not opaque, which means in the atmospheric window.

Another process knows as a «runaway greenhouse» occurs due to the increased greenhouse effect of water vapor in the lower atmosphere, which further drives evaporation and more warming.

... The Earth's atmospheric methane concentration has increased by about 150 % since 1750, and it accounts for 20 % of the total radiative forcing from all of the long - lived and globally mixed greenhouse gases (these gases don't include water vapor which is by far the largest component of the greenhouse effect).

It also increases the water vapor in the air slightly — which takes another bite out of the IR spectrum.

There is a clear impact on global temperature, too, though the mechanisms are complex: heat released from the oceans; increases in water vapor, which enhance the greenhouse effect, and redistributions of clouds.

[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?)

Global warming also leads to increases in atmospheric water vapor, which increases the likelihood of heavier rainfall events that may cause flooding.

The higher temperatures associated with climate change near the surface are resulting in increased evaporation, leading to more water vapor in the stratosphere which chemically reacting with the ozone — resulting in ozone depletion.

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.

The surface heat capacity C (j = 0) was set to the equivalent of a global layer of water 50 m deep (which would be a layer ~ 70 m thick over the oceans) plus 70 % of the atmosphere, the latent heat of vaporization corresponding to a 20 % increase in water vapor per 3 K warming (linearized for current conditions), and a little land surface; expressed as W * yr per m ^ 2 * K (a convenient unit), I got about 7.093.

Bye the way physics guy, increased CO2 warms earth some, leading to more water vapor which has a greater greenhouse effect than the CO2 as such.

@zebra I think the extreme weather factor is all about the increasing lower - tropospheric water vapor content, which plays out in storms as a latent heat issue.

But then there's feedbacks within the stratosphere (water vapor), which would increase the stratospheric heating by upward radiation from below, as well as add some feedback to the downward flux at TRPP that the upward flux at TRPP would have to respond to via warming below TRPP.

Warming must occur below the tropopause to increase the net LW flux out of the tropopause to balance the tropopause - level forcing; there is some feedback at that point as the stratosphere is «forced» by the fraction of that increase which it absorbs, and a fraction of that is transfered back to the tropopause level — for an optically thick stratosphere that could be significant, but I think it may be minor for the Earth as it is (while CO2 optical thickness of the stratosphere alone is large near the center of the band, most of the wavelengths in which the stratosphere is not transparent have a more moderate optical thickness on the order of 1 (mainly from stratospheric water vapor; stratospheric ozone makes a contribution over a narrow wavelength band, reaching somewhat larger optical thickness than stratospheric water vapor)(in the limit of an optically thin stratosphere at most wavelengths where the stratosphere is not transparent, changes in the net flux out of the stratosphere caused by stratospheric warming or cooling will tend to be evenly split between upward at TOA and downward at the tropopause; with greater optically thickness over a larger fraction of optically - significant wavelengths, the distribution of warming or cooling within the stratosphere will affect how such a change is distributed, and it would even be possible for stratospheric adjustment to have opposite effects on the downward flux at the tropopause and the upward flux at TOA).

If a doubling of CO2 resulted in a temperature increase of approximately 1 K before any non-Planck feedbacks (before water vapor, etc.), then assuming the same climate sensitivity to the total GHE, removing the whole GHE would result in about a (setting the TOA / tropopause distinction aside, as it is relatively small relative to the 155 W / m2 value) 155/3.7 * 1 K ~ = 42 K. Which is a bit more than 32 or 33 K, though I'm not surprised by the difference.

Water vapor also tends to reduce net LW cooling at the surface, which would force increased convection from the surface.

Re 9 wili — I know of a paper suggesting, as I recall, that enhanced «backradiation» (downward radiation reaching the surface emitted by the air / clouds) contributed more to Arctic amplification specifically in the cold part of the year (just to be clear, backradiation should generally increase with any warming (aside from greenhouse feedbacks) and more so with a warming due to an increase in the greenhouse effect (including feedbacks like water vapor and, if positive, clouds, though regional changes in water vapor and clouds can go against the global trend); otherwise it was always my understanding that the albedo feedback was key (while sea ice decreases so far have been more a summer phenomenon (when it would be warmer to begin with), the heat capacity of the sea prevents much temperature response, but there is a greater build up of heat from the albedo feedback, and this is released in the cold part of the year when ice forms later or would have formed or would have been thicker; the seasonal effect of reduced winter snow cover decreasing at those latitudes which still recieve sunlight in the winter would not be so delayed).

The first is the paper «Anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback increase temperature in Europe» by Rolf Philipona et al. (GRL, 2005, subscription required for full text), which has attracted a certain amount of media attention.

However, at the same time, there's been the steady increase in subtropical ocean surface temperatures in the Atlantic Warm Pool, leading to record water temperatures off the US east coast in winter, which tends to fuel more extreme storms (via the increase in water vapor pressure over the warmer ocean).

This increased water vapor appears to be participating in the generation of PSCs which also affect the ztratospheric ozone layer with the introduction of denitritification (the formation of NAD and NAT) which reduces both the ozone content and reduces the removal of chlorine in the polar regions.

Because as the temperature did drop (through increased cloudiness), water vapor would also decrease, which in turn would cause cloudiness to decrease, which would lessen the amount of cooling...

I make you angry: -RCB- It shows CO2's absorption in the longwave IR band, CO2 slows longwave radiation lost to space which increases temperature which increases evaporation, increasing water vapor in the atmosphere.

An increase in temperature because of CO2, or other greenhouse gases, causes more water vapor, which increases the temperature, which causes more water vapor, which increases the temperature.....

An increase in surface temp will increase water vapor pressure at the surface: that will likely increase the rate of evaporation at the surface, which may or may not increase cloud cover.

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.

This build up of energy increases the temperature of the atmosphere, which then causes water vapor to increase as the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is a function temperature.

It can also be responsible for transporting water vapor and creating cloudiness that increases the Earth's albedo which reduces the net solar energy absorption.

That 1 C in ocean temperature gives the atmosphere 7 % more water vapor, which increases the GHG effect to about 1.7 C which gives more water vapor increasing it further in a series that converges to near 3 C.

The water vapor cooled the Earth, the snow cooled the atmosphere with resulting increase in surface albedo which does reflect radiative heat, meaning the Earth gets less warm, not colder because of it.

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.

I can certainly see that SOME CO2 level would do that, but everything I have read so far about Antarctic says that in a somewhat warmer climate, which we will have in Antarctica soon, Antarctic as a whole will get more snowfall, hence more retention of ice, because warmer air holds more water vapor, even if the increase in warmth is merely from minus 40 C to minus 35 C.

Too much CO2 could even cool it, due to increased proportions of CO2 which is less effective than water vapor as a heat - trapping gas.

Disputes within climate science concern the nature and magnitude of feedback processes involving clouds and water vapor, uncertainties about the rate at which the oceans take up heat and carbon dioxide, the effects of air pollution, and the nature and importance of climate change effects such as rising sea level, increasing acidity of the ocean, and the incidence of weather hazards such as floods, droughts, storms, and heat waves.

The notion of an H2O positive feedback (which probably is present on a clear day) is squashed by this process.While warmer air can hold exponentially more water vapor, presumably increasing greenhouse effects (an process the IPCC hangs its collective hat on), it is also this exact same property that vastly improves the chances of convective and phase change heat transport by thunderstorms.

Then I found that CO2 is not considered the actual greenhouse gas, but rather it is water vapor, which is supposed to increase due to the increase of heat caused by an original heating of the CO2, by an effectual ration of 19 to 1.

Second, you have to account for the energy cost of separating out water vapor, which would probably substantially increase the actual amount of LN2 needed.

Its warming effect, however, is simultaneously amplified and dampened by positive and negative feedbacks such as increased water vapor (the most powerful greenhouse gas), reduced albedo, which is a measure of Earth's reflectivity, changes in cloud characteristics, and CO2 exchanges with the ocean and terrestrial ecosystems.

Dan Pangborn: The still - rising water vapor (WV) is rising at 1.5 % per decade which is more than twice as fast as expected from water temperature increase alone (feedback, engineering definition).

Hence heating the atmosphere by increasing the CO2 will increase water vapor, another greenhouse gas, which in turns heats the atmosphere even more.