Sentences with phrase «with increased water vapour»

Global warming could correlate with increased water vapour, methane too, but CO2 as well.

Not exact matches

In a warming world, atmospheric water vapour content is expected to rise due to an increase in saturation water vapour pressure with air temperature.

In addition, around the tropopause the air is close to saturation with water and a small increase of vapour from aircraft can create wide expanses of thin cirrus clouds that cause even stronger warming.

Total column water vapour has increased over the global oceans by 1.2 ± 0.3 % per decade from 1988 to 2004, consistent in pattern and amount with changes in SST and a fairly constant relative humidity.

Observational evidence indicates that the frequency of the heaviest rainfall events has likely increased within many land regions in general agreement with model simulations that indicate that rainfall in the heaviest events is likely to increase in line with atmospheric water vapour concentration.

So we've nailed the Arctic after a fashion & Rondonia for three months of the year, both instances with quite extreme increases in water vapour.

Indeed, there is a clear physical reason why this is the case — the increase in water vapour as surface air temperature rises causes a change in the moist - adiabatic lapse rate (the decrease of temperature with height) such that the surface to mid-tropospheric gradient decreases with increasing temperature (i.e. it warms faster aloft).

Furthermore natural global temperature swings alter the natural background greenhouse effect constantly as water vapour held in the atmosphere increases and decreases naturally with changing global temperatures.

The observed regional changes are consistent in pattern and amount with the changes in SST and the assumption of a near - constant relative humidity increase in water vapour mixing ratio.

Empirical data show clearly that the IPCC's deterministic models overestimate the amount of warming associated with increases in water vapour (see paper summaries in NIPCC - II, Chapter 1).

We have far more data about increasing CO2 than increasing water vapor, hence if we want to test this hypothesis by looking for a correlation between global warming and the combined effect of CO2 and H2O, a correlation with CO2 alone is more feasible than one involving water vapour.

I'm puzzled why it is that people don't get excited by the apparent probability that the evaporative cooling / latent heat transfer should provide a major negative feedback with any T increase / increased water vapour.

«The pervasive increase in water vapour changes the intensity of precipitation events with no doubt whatsoever,» Kevin Trenberth of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research told a meeting in January.

For instance if a 1 degree increase in T leads to lets say a further 3 degree increase through positive feedback with water vapour then shouldn't this 3 degree increase lead to a further 9 degree increase and then a 27 degree increase etc..

The amount of water vapour can stay the same or on some occasions, rise with increasing temperatures.

A slight change of ocean temperature (after a delay caused by the high specific heat of water, the annual mixing of thermocline waters with deeper waters in storms) ensures that rising CO2 reduces infrared absorbing H2O vapour while slightly increasing cloud cover (thus Earth's albedo), as evidenced by the fact that the NOAA data from 1948 - 2008 shows a fall in global humidity (not the positive feedback rise presumed by NASA's models!)

Further evidence for forced changes arises from widespread melting of the cryosphere, increases in water vapour in the atmosphere and changes in top - of - the atmosphere radiation that are consistent with changes in forcing.

It is my contention (and that of many others) that in fact this is the default null hypothesis and until proponents of the anthropogenic global warming hyothesis come up with some better evidence to back up their claims of imminent dangerous warming driven by co2 and a water vapour feedback to its increasing levels, the null hypothesis is the best one we have.

Simulations with GCMs by Stevenson et al. (2000) and Grewe et al. (2001) for the 21st century indicate a decrease in the lifetime of tropospheric ozone as increasing water vapour enhances the dominant ozone sink from the oxygen radical in the 1D excited state (O (1D)-RRB- plus water (H2O) reaction.

They combined simple energy balance considerations with a physical assumption for the way water vapour is transported, and separated the contributions of surface heating from solar radiation and from increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to obtain the two sensitivities.

The water vapour content of the air has been roughly constant since more than 50 years but the humidity of the upper layers of the troposphere has been decreasing: the IPCC foretold the opposite to assert its «positive water vapour feedback» with increasing CO2.

Truth n ° 10 The water vapour content of the air has been roughly constant since more than 50 years but the humidity of the upper layers of the troposphere has been decreasing: the IPCC foretold the opposite to assert its «positive water vapour feedback» with increasing CO2.

So, that's 1.2 degrees C for the basic physics of added greenhouse effect of a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; coupled with a further increase of a similar magnitude from changes in atmospheric water vapour that come about as a direct consequence.

Or what the possible role of increasing / decreasing water vapour content in increasing / decreasing the radiative forcing with multi-decadal oscillations?

Based on chemical transport model studies, the RF from the increase in stratospheric water vapour due to oxidation of CH4 is estimated to be +0.07 [± 0.05] W m — 2, with a low level of scientific understanding.

«The logic is clear: when temperatures increase there is more evaporation and the atmosphere has a greater capacity to absorb water vapour, with the result that its energy content is higher.

We calculate an escape time of the order of 108 — 109 years even with the increased stratospheric water vapour and temperature at 16 × CO2.

Hence, even as the potential for heavier precipitation results from increased water vapour amounts, the duration and frequency of events may be curtailed, as it takes longer to recharge the atmosphere with water vapour.

Basic theory, climate model simulations and empirical evidence all confirm that warmer climates, owing to increased water vapour, lead to more intense precipitation events even when the total annual precipitation is reduced slightly, and with prospects for even stronger events when the overall precipitation amounts increase.

A warming of 16 — 24 °C produces a moderately moist greenhouse, with water vapour increasing to about 1 % of the atmosphere's mass, thus increasing the rate of hydrogen escape to space.

Bear in mind that the representation of clouds in climate models (and of the water vapour which is intimately involved with cloud formation) is such as to amplify the forecast global warming from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide — on average over most of the models — by a factor of about three (5).

The resulting warming due to the water vapour is in fact larger than the initial warming due to the CO2 that forced it to happen, and this is the point of the Lacis paper - yes, water vapour is a more important greenhouse gas than CO2, but water vapour doesn't change systematically with time UNLESS CO2 is changing and initiating a warming that sets into motion the surface and atmospheric processes that allow water vapour to systematically increase.

The increase is broadly consistent with the extra water vapour that warmer air can hold.

However, that equilibrium state — given the changes in water vapour, clouds and increases in surface temperature happens to absorb more LW than you started with.

Conceptually wise, it may be a mistake to say that when GW takes effect the air will be drier, but rather water vapour density increases with temperature and relative humidity will drop accordingly, it is perhaps this is what the models are calculating.

The link between heat and Hurricane intensity is unquestionable, as atmospheric water vapour density increases with higher temperatures, the energy source is likewise augmented, same goes for cyclones.

Now, given that your hypothesis «Increased water vapour = > clouds = > net cooling effect» is in conflict with its own building blocks «cloudless nights are colder», maybe you ought to reconsider.

They claimed a CO2 increase would cause a temperature increase and higher evaporation with more water vapour in the atmosphere.