Sentences with phrase «without water vapor feedback»

You are on the same order of magnitude as CO2 without water vapor feedback.

In other words, if I increase substance X by 1 % in the atmosphere, what is the effective change in radiative forcing (or temperature), either with or without water vapor feedbacks?

Not exact matches

First, for changing just CO2 forcing (or CH4, etc, or for a non-GHE forcing, such as a change in incident solar radiation, volcanic aerosols, etc.), there will be other GHE radiative «forcings» (feedbacks, though in the context of measuring their radiative effect, they can be described as having radiative forcings of x W / m2 per change in surface T), such as water vapor feedback, LW cloud feedback, and also, because GHE depends on the vertical temperature distribution, the lapse rate feedback (this generally refers to the tropospheric lapse rate, though changes in the position of the tropopause and changes in the stratospheric temperature could also be considered lapse - rate feedbacks for forcing at TOA; forcing at the tropopause with stratospheric adjustment takes some of that into account; sensitivity to forcing at the tropopause with stratospheric adjustment will generally be different from sensitivity to forcing without stratospheric adjustment and both will generally be different from forcing at TOA before stratospheric adjustment; forcing at TOA after stratospehric adjustment is identical to forcing at the tropopause after stratospheric adjustment).

The 0.9 degr.C for 2xCO2 is from the Modtran program, carefully composed from laboratory measurements, where line by line absorption characteristics were measured and implemented for different air pressures (heights), water, CO2 and CH4 levels, for different parts of the globe and with or without clouds, rain,... That is a basic «model», without any real life feedbacks (except water vapor, which may be included in different ways).

Without a strong positive feedback from water vapor (as assumed in the models), Human - made climate forcing becomes insignificant.

One can't arbitrarily choose feedbacks for water vapor, ice / albedo, clouds, etc., without looking to see how these phenomena are actually behaving — e.g., what are the radiative properties of water vapor, how is relative humidity changing, what is happening to low cloud cover, high cloud cover, and the high / low cloud ratios, etc.?.

You figure out how that tiny water vapor feedback can help CO2 do something to the climate without models yet??

The direct CO2 radiative forcing is the change in infrared radiative fluxes for a doubling CO2 (typically from 287 to 574 ppm), without any feedback processes (e.g. from changing atmospheric water vapor amount or cloud characteristics.)