Sentences with phrase «as water vapor absorbs»

Well, strictly speaking, as water vapor absorbs throughout the longwave spectrum there will be a very slight effect.

Not exact matches

Careful analysis of what frequencies are absorbed, and by how much, can directly reveal the presence of water vapor and other compounds, and can divulge climate parameters, such as temperature and pressure, that determine if liquid water is sustainable.

The heat absorbed by water vapor and carbon dioxide is shared with all the nitrogen, oxygen and argon, because the latter molecules are always bumping into water vapor and carbon dioxide as they mix in the atmosphere.

«If you leave the lid off of it, that sugar starts to get clumpy after a while because it's absorbing water from the atmosphere,» he explains, the reason being that sugar is what's known as a hygroscopic material (one that readily absorbs water vapor from the air).

[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?)

CO2, in contrast, strongly absorbs wavelengths > 13 times longer than O2 does, as well as other bands around 2 - 3 and 4 - 5 microns, while water vapor absorbs strongly from around 5 - 8 microns.

• albedo decreases as ice melts (ice is perhaps 80 % reflective, while ocean albedo can be as low as 3.5 %) • increased water vapor in a warmer climate • warmer oceans absorb less carbon dioxide • warmer soils release carbon dioxide and methane • plants in a hotter climate are darker

That doens» t affect the equilibrium increase in the upward flux at TRPP in response, though it may change how much of that is absorbed by the stratosphere (perhaps a reduction due to shielding of water vapor and CO2 wings in the stratosphere by increased tropospheric water vapor (as it would by an increase in clouds, particularly higher clouds)-- PS feedbacks also change the baseline spectral flux in the vicinity of the CO2 band.

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).

Each incremental addition of CO2 has a smaller effect as well, because it absorbs in a spectrum bands that are mostly blocked out by water vapor already, and the existing CO2.

1) Scientists have long known that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere — such as carbon dioxide, methane, or water vapor — absorb certain frequencies of infrared radiation and scatter them back toward the Earth.

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.

This acts as a positive feedback on the surface warming, because water vapor itself is a powerful greenhouse gas that, like CO2, absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation back to the surface.

The heat caused by infrared radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases such as water vapor, carbon dioxide, ozone and methane, which slows its escape from the atmosphere.

Different substances absorb different frequencies of IR, and the different parts of the planet differ wildly in how much IR is being emitted (based as it is on surface temperature) and how much cloud and water vapor there is at that location (carbon dioxide is very well mixed).

Water vapor is indeed a shock absorber as you describe but it isn't neutral.

The added carbon dioxide of course will continue to absorb but the reduction of water vapor will keep total absorption constant and as a result this absorption by CO2 is unable to cause any warming.

The lack of» water vapor» is, because: it was more water in Arctic ocean without ice cover as» insulation» - > water absorbed extra coldness and the currents brought extra coldness in North Atlantic = above the ocean is colder = less evaporation - > less water vapor produced - > less moisture going west from central Atlantic.

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

GREENHOUSE EFFECT Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (such as water vapor and carbon dioxide) absorb most of the Earth's emitted longwave infrared radiation, which heats the lower atmosphere.

CO2 absorbs IR radiation primarily at 12 to 15 microns, inside what is known as the «Water Vapor Window».

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 levelAs 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 levelas 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 levelas net LW actually increases with increasing GH gas levels:

Furthermore, water vapor absorbs at all the same wavelengths as CO2 except one.

It absorbs 1 / 7th as much IR, heat energy, from sunlight as water vapor which has 188 times as many molecules capturing 1200 times as much heat making 99.9 % of all «global warming.»

As a result, it would be more accurate to represent about half of the CO2 absorption (bar width) as being absorbed by water vapoAs a result, it would be more accurate to represent about half of the CO2 absorption (bar width) as being absorbed by water vapoas being absorbed by water vapor.

Methane is not the only absorber around 3.3 µm as water vapor is also absorbing at those wavelengths.

While methane can act as a greenhouse gas, the IR spectrum it absorbs in is already saturated by water vapor.

They are overwhelmed when water turns to vapor or to ice, releasing and absorbing vast amounts of heat energy as CO2 can not possibly do.

Fortunately, as depicted in Figure 2 (orange «thermal down surface» arrow), some of this energy does stay in the atmosphere, where it is sent back toward Earth by clouds, released by clouds as they condense to form rain or snow, or absorbed by atmospheric gases composed of three or more atoms, such as water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4).

As a greenhouse gas, water vapor absorbs longwave radiation through a wide spectral range — and therefore pulls the longwave radiation down.

The additional water vapor, acting as a greenhouse gas, absorbs energy that would otherwise escape to space and so causes further warming.

Gases that absorb and trap this IR radiation, such as water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) are known as «greenhouse gases».

The shape of the CO2 band is such that, once saturated near the center over sufficiently small distances, increases in CO2 don't have much affect on the net radiative energy transfer from one layer of air to the other so long as CO2 is the only absorbing and emitting agent — but increases in CO2 will reduce the LW cooling of the surface to space, the net LW cooling from the surface to the air, the net LW cooling of the atmosphere to space (except in the stratosphere), and in general, it will tend to reduce the net LW cooling from a warmer to cooler layer when at least one of those layers contains some other absorbing / emitting substance (surface, water vapor, clouds) or is space)

The VUV (< 200 nm) absorption due to the O2 Schuman Runge bands essentially wipe out all of the radiation that would be absorbed by methane / CO2 and water vapor as discussed in the here and here.

As I understand AGW, the theory goes that added CO2 combines with an energy photon (ie the greenhouse effect) to warm the world, & heat the air which results in more water vapor which absorbs more photons which results in Man caused warming feedback.

Doesn't that then mean that there are no more photons to be absorbed by the added water vapor produced as a result of the added heat from the CO2 associated warming?

The caveat is that these molecules can weakly absorb sunlight in the near IR and visible on combination and overtone bands, mostly of water vapor, and on weakly absorbing forbidden transitions such as the Chappius bands of ozone, and for very low concentrations of dimers.

So if you add GHGs water vapor will not be blocked from absorbing as much radiation as it could without these GHGs.

There's some warming from above such as ozone absorbing solar UV and water vapor or clouds absorbing solar near - infrared.

If you additional GHGs to the atmosphere then the water vapor in the atmosphere will be blocked from absorbing as much radiation as it could without those GHGs.

Because of the different intramolecular forces between water molecules as vapor in air, water, and ice, the wavelengths of emission and absorption are shifted; some of the radiation from the water / ice droplets at the top of a cloud can escape to space because the atmosphere above it is transparent at its wavelengths, whereas the same radiation from droplets at the bottom of a cloud will be absorbed and re-emitted in random directions from the droplets above, including back down to the originating droplets.

I can imagine two explanations: 1) Scotty is beaming water molecules into the attic every morning and beaming them back out every afternoon at the exact rates to mimic a capacitance charge - discharge curve; 2) or, more likely but less entertaining, the water molecules are going from the ad and absorbed state in the exposed porous materials into the attic air in morning as the sun hits the roofing materials and drives water vapor out of the sheathing, rafters, open cell foam into the attic air.