Sentences with phrase «as more water vapor»

As more water vapor enters the atmosphere, that in turn absorbs more SW radiation, and, as this recent MIT study has shown, we might actually see that we have a seemingly paradoxical effect of the bulk of the warming then being in the SW, even as net LW actually increases with increasing GH gas levels:

Not exact matches

MORE medicated breathing aid, such as VICKS Steam Vapor, to the water to help alleviate your baby's suffering.

But by the same token, as global temperatures rise, the atmosphere can hold more water vapor.

2 If there's more water vapor than places for it to condense, already - formed ice crystals can also serve as seeds.

Prior to an eruption, gases — water vapor, carbon dioxide, and sulfur dioxide — bubble out of the magma as it rises, adding more pressure to the volcanic system, she explains.

Ever since 2005, when NASA's Cassini orbiter found plumes of water vapor spilling out of cracks in the south pole of Saturn's icy moon Enceladus, researchers have sought to learn more about the moon's mysterious interior as a possible abode for extraterrestrial life.

They pointed to a warmer atmosphere, which carries more water vapor to worsen rainstorms, as well as to higher ocean surface temperatures, which intensify hurricanes.

What goes up, must come down and, more and more, that water vapor is coming down in extreme precipitation events — defined in North America as more than 100 millimeters of rainfall (or the equivalent in snow or freezing rain) falling in 24 hours — according to new research also published February 17 in Nature that examines such events in the Northern Hemisphere.

They strengthen over warm water, such as that around Florida, and rising temperatures create more water vapor in the atmosphere, intensifying rainfall.

To heat that boiler, the damp, crumbly brown coal known as lignite — which is even more polluting than the harder black anthracite variety — burns in the presence of pure oxygen, a process known as oxyfuel, releasing as waste both water vapor and that more notorious greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO2).

It also would be far easier to get a water sample from Enceladus, which has plumes of water vapor, ice and particles shooting more than 300 miles off its surface, than from other moons, such as Jupiter's Europa, where a massive ocean is believed to be buried beneath a thick icy crust.

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.

Simultaneously, as the average liquid droplet becomes smaller through evaporation, the vapor's density increases, so more vapor molecules merge at a faster rate to become microscopic liquid droplets, and more water molecules are ionized.

It includes topics and vocabulary such as evaporation, condensation, water vapor, precipitation and more!

That is the main source of more water vapor and energy (as latent heat) in the air, and consequently weather trouble.

So the rising trend in the lower curve is going to represent much more water vapor added to the atmosphere than the declining top curve represents as leaving it.

As the atmosphere warms it can hold more water; that additional water vapor provides more of the warming than is directl caused by CO2.

(PS regarding Venus — as I have understood it, a runaway water vapor feedback would have occured when solar heating increasing to become greater than a limiting OLR value (Simpson - Kombayashi - Ingersoll limit — see http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2010/08/23/climate-feedbacks-part-1/ — although I should add that at more «moderate» temperatures (warmer than today), stratospheric H2O increases to a point where H escape to space becomes a significant H2O sink — if that stage worked fast enough relative to solar brightening, a runaway H2O case could be prevented, and it would be a dry (er) heat.

I have read more than one paper on the topic, and my assessment is that cloud cover and other water vapor effects are widely recognized as among the biggest unknowns going forward.

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.

peak above that standard (supersaturation)-- after the peak, it declines, which means that now as the droplets grow, the necessary relative humidity to maintain them declines (which allows them to take more water from the vapor phase).

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.

So a local spike in precipitation releases a lot of heat — but as the heat increases, this negatively affects the vapor - > water transition (precipitation, or raindrop formation), since warm air holds more water then cool air — and so the limit on precipitation vis - a-vis the radiative balance of the atmosphere appears.

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.

16 (DBB) If more water vapor leads to more precipitation then water vapor will act as a negative feedback on rising global temperature.

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).

Is less poleward transport of heat by the Gulf Stream as the AMOC weakens a positive feedback for global warming, since that energy will escape more slowly in the humid (higher water vapor GHG effect) tropics than near the poles?

Even if you take the convective flux as 24 +78 W m - 2 (including latent) you need better than a 2:1 change in convection, and some way to explain away the radiative effect of moving more water vapor up.

So while the monsoon winds might weaken the precipitation nonetheless increases (more bang for the buck) as a weaker circulation carries more water vapor (and latent energy).

Physically, the Stefan - Boltzmann feedback becomes more negative and the water vapor feedback becomes less positive as the temperature increases.»

I think it's more a matter of the physics of the situation, and the sky is just too big a lab and the experiment still ongoing to get exact results and there are these pesky «internal» feedbacks — such as water vapor and clouds.

Warmer air holds more water vapor than colder air, so the amount of water vapor in the lower atmosphere increases as it is warmed by the greenhouse effect.

Water Vapor is limited by temperature and pressure, but the atmosphere supports the water as water drops and ice crystals and supports much more water than can be supported with just vWater Vapor is limited by temperature and pressure, but the atmosphere supports the water as water drops and ice crystals and supports much more water than can be supported with just vVapor is limited by temperature and pressure, but the atmosphere supports the water as water drops and ice crystals and supports much more water than can be supported with just vwater as water drops and ice crystals and supports much more water than can be supported with just vwater drops and ice crystals and supports much more water than can be supported with just vwater than can be supported with just vaporvapor.

You have mentioned a MGT feedback loop of diminishing water vapor as the only thing that explains the hiatus well but it could also occur with increasing water vapor as clouds might reflect more sunlight back restoring the new system to its temperature mean.

As warmer air can hold more water vapor, which is also a greenhouse gas, this will amplify the effect.

He found that gases and vapors whose molecules had three or more atoms, such as water vapor and CO2, absorbed much more of the thermal radiation passing through the tube than did two - atom molecules such as oxygen and nitrogen.

The Clausius - Clapeyron equation specifies that as the temperature of the air rises the ability of the air to hold more water vapor rises exponentially.

when there are so many other gases such as methane and water vapor that are equally or more important and forget the input by the sun and ocean currents

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.

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).

If in the radiosonde data water vapor amount has declined it the past 60 years globally (as the 2010 paper Fig 9 shows), this might also mean that more water in the air is there in clouds as ice.

Then more water evaporates (as an avid student of 50 + years of scientific literature, you must know that the water vapor is the worst greenhouse gas of all), thus potentially exacerbating the warming.

In turn, temperature change affects atmospheric water vapor as well as the more dynamical components of equator - to - pole insolation and of temperature gradients that vary on timescales of decades to hundreds of years.

The theory states that as the Earth warms, more water vapor will be in the air.

Water vapor is more difficult to measure than the other greenhouse gases and scientists are uncertain as to the exact part that it plays in global warming.

Water is a more complex issue even as vapor but in particular as clouds.

When petroleum is burned, some energy is required to separate the molecules into individual atoms, but much more energy is given back as the carbon and hydrogen atoms combine with oxygen to give carbon dioxide and water vapor.

So the water vapor feedback is as much or more dependent of the available moisture of the land mass being warmed or cooled.

As with petroleum, some energy is required to separate the molecule into separate atoms, but the energy is more than returned when the carbon and hydrogen burn to form carbon dioxide and water vapor respectively.