Sentences with phrase «because water vapour»

In many GCMs, sensitivity is negative in the deep tropics: net outgoing radiation goes down when surface temperature increases, because water vapour and cloud feedbacks are so strongly positive there.

RHumidity increases in winter because water vapour density decreases hence more clouds.....

More DLR increases Evaporation and that increases the amount of latent heat required and also increases upward Convection because water vapour is lighter than air.

You can show that it does by illustrating water vapour as being very «thick» at the bottom of the graph and very «thin» at the top because water vapour declines with temperature which declines with altitude.

Note that evaporation is a net cooling process but it still causes uplift because water vapour is lighter than air.

If this assumption is only slightly wrong, it completely changes the expected response of increasing CO2 because water vapour is such a dominant greenhouse gas.

Now the argument against this is the effects of water are temporary because water vapour is quickly absorbed but carbon dioxide isn't.

Now, all clean pure rain is carbonic acid, because water vapour and carbon dioxide have a strong yen for each other, water vapour in the atmosphere will pick up whatever carbon dioxide is around and bring it down to earth in rain.

Rain that is more acidic than normal because water vapour has condensed ion to particles of sulphate or nitrogen oxide.

This is how we get clouds, because water vapour lighter than air rises, its called evaporation, when heated that is speeded up.

Here's how: because water vapour is itself a greenhouse gas, the extra moisture traps more energy (D).

Indeed enhanced evaporation of water vapour into the atmosphere is conventionally regarded as an aggravating factor because water vapour is itself a greenhouse gas (see below about that).

Additionally, the distortions of the lapse rate in ascent are greater than for CO2 because water vapour is lighter than air and contains more energy in latent form which heats the air around it when condensation occurs during uplift.

Not exact matches

If carbon dioxide melts the Arctic sea - ice the change in water vapour will be catastrophic, because it produces a positve feedback.

Water Vapour is not included because it's a feedback apparently.

In the paper you cited, it showed how the water vapour was giving the extra boost to the temperature, but they could not explain it because their models were using the logarithmic relationship rather than the linear one.

Water undergoes a change of state from gas to liquid under these conditions, because cooler air can hold less water vapour than warmerWater undergoes a change of state from gas to liquid under these conditions, because cooler air can hold less water vapour than warmerwater vapour than warmer air.

Reasoning that, because it fluctuated daily, water vapour was continually recycling itself in and out of the atmosphere, he turned his attention to carbon dioxide, a gas resident for a long time in the atmosphere whose concentration was only (at that time) dramatically changed by major sources such as volcanoes or major drawdowns such as unusual and massive episodes of mineral weathering or the evolution of photosynthetic plants: events that occur on very long, geological timescales.

[Response: There is a fundamental difference btw the stratosphere and the troposphere because of the presence of massive amounts of water vapour — implying that the LW absorption is far more (spectrally) widespread than in the stratosphere.

He will not glean any disunity because the contributors to this forum are by and large scientists who understand the psychics behind global warming as thoroughly and well as; why does ice expand when heated; or why can warm atmosphere hold more water vapour than cold.

The enhanced CO2 will also have a direct effect where the air is humid because its absorption spectrum does not completely overlap the water vapour.

That happens because the density of the air is «diluted» by the addition of water vapour with a molecular weight of only 18 compared to air with a molecular weight of 29.

1998 was so warm in part because of the big El Niño event over the winter of 1997 - 1998 which directly warmed a large part of the Pacific, and indirectly warmed (via the large increase in water vapour) an even larger region.

Fortunately, because with constant absolute water vapour, relative humidity would be some 5 × 7 % = 35 % higher than today, and the last glacial maximum would be (counter to what we think we know) a foggy, soggy place...

I've been discussing climate change with lots of people at campaign stalls recently, and it has opened my eyes as to how far this «balanced» climate sceptic reporting is shaping the thinking of even those people who are concerned and want to see some action («I am aware that flying might make climate change worse, but I'll still do it because the warming may just be part of a natural cycle — I would stop if I was more certain»; «I am worried, but I have also heard that it is just water vapour which makes us warmer, so we just don't kow if this CO2 thing is true, everybody seems to have a different agenda» etc.).

But since it is linear, if the temperature rises then the water vapour will run away, because the higher temperature leads to more water vapour which causes more greenhouse warming which leads to higher temperatures.

[Response: These feedbacks are indeed modelled because they depend not on the trace greenhouse gas amounts, but on the variation of seasonal incoming solar radiation and effects like snow cover, water vapour amounts, clouds and the diurnal cycle.

Other feedbacks include forests, and most importantly, water vapour, which as the temperature of the atmosphere rises increases in the atmosphere (think tropical rain forest), and water vapour is a potent greenhouse gas (but it is not the «controller» of our climate because it does not accumulate in the atmosphere, only gases like CO2, methane and nitrous oxide do this) See Skeptical Science https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

Perhaps this isn't an issue because it would take an impossibly large amount of CO2 [and water vapour] for the emission altitude to reach the tropopause, but it's an aspect of this sort of explanation that I haven't been able to work out in my head.

For reference, the amplification is related to the sensitivity of the moist adiabat to increasing surface temperatures (air parcels saturated in water vapour move up because of convection where the water vapour condenses and releases heat in a predictable way).

[Response: Water vapour is differently distributed than CO2 (and all other «well - mixed» gases) because it has sinks in the atmosphere (i.e. clouds and rain).

In GCMs, the global mean evaporation changes closely balance the precipitation change, but not locally because of changes in the atmospheric transport of water vapour.

I will consider only water vapour here because it is so important for the thermal stability of Earth's climate system.

they claim the tropospheric hot spot exists because more water vapour should exists in that region (raising of the upper troposphere), and small fractional changes make a larger change in the temperature anomaly because GHGs are in the lower part of the log scale rather that the higher saturated state.

For example, even though the volcanic effect is short - lived it will still have an impact on the water cycle - less evaporation because it's cooler therefore less water vapour, lowering temperature a bit more.

Such a small change in stratospheric water vapour can have such a large effect precisely because the stratosphere is already dry.

This is because the top of the troposphere is normally very cold, causing ascending water vapour to freeze into ice crystals that drift and fall, rather than continuing up into the stratosphere.

Water has a residence time of 8 - 10 days in the atmosphere, so whenever it rains carbon dioxide is being washed out of the atmosphere, because, water (vapour, liquid, solid) in the atmosphere attracts all carbon dioxide in the vicinity — together forming carbonic acid which gives all natural unpolluted rain its pH of around 5.6Water has a residence time of 8 - 10 days in the atmosphere, so whenever it rains carbon dioxide is being washed out of the atmosphere, because, water (vapour, liquid, solid) in the atmosphere attracts all carbon dioxide in the vicinity — together forming carbonic acid which gives all natural unpolluted rain its pH of around 5.6water (vapour, liquid, solid) in the atmosphere attracts all carbon dioxide in the vicinity — together forming carbonic acid which gives all natural unpolluted rain its pH of around 5.6 - 8.

Watervapour has an enhancement effect, because the warmer the world getsas a result of other factors, the more water vapour is held in theatmosphere, resulting in even more...

Carbon dioxide actually has a minuscule cooling effect, nowhere near as much as water vapour though That's genuine science because it is based on the laws of physics that are well proven over the centuries.

CO2 plays a minuscule cooling role because it also radiates like water vapour, but you won't detect it because its cooling effect is less than 1 % of water vapour's, so why waste time looking?

This energy is carried aloft by convection where the remainder of the atmosphere is essentially transparent to the emitted radiation largely because there is next to no water vapour, which is the larger absorber, in the stratosphere and above.

Put the Water Cycle back in and there is no Greenhouse Effect of «greenhouse gases heating the Earth 33 °C from -18 °C, because, and please listen carefully, water vapour the main greenhouse gas actually cools the atmosphere by 5Water Cycle back in and there is no Greenhouse Effect of «greenhouse gases heating the Earth 33 °C from -18 °C, because, and please listen carefully, water vapour the main greenhouse gas actually cools the atmosphere by 5water vapour the main greenhouse gas actually cools the atmosphere by 52 °C.

So called greenhouse gases (mostly water vapour, of course) do not raise the temperature of the lower troposphere and cool the upper troposphere because, if they did, the wet adiabatic lapse rate would be steeper than the dry one — the opposite of reality.

Bur because we are talking about ENSO dynamics involving wind, cloud, temperature, water vapour and cloud — the use of the all sky flux as used by SB11 is more appropriate when looking at a suite of changes and not simply cloud.

Sensitivity is low because more water vapour leads to more clouds which more than makes up for the alleged extra GHE.

«Trends in observed atmospheric water vapour are hampered by inhomogeneities in data records, which occur when measurement programmes are discontinued because of, for example, the limited lifespans of satellite missions or insufficiently documented or understood changes in instrumentation.

But methane (in your «humble start» link) like water vapour, lowers the temperature gradient (as we see in the Uranus troposphere) because of its radiating properties.

(Carbon dioxide molecules are not as effective as water vapour molecules in doing this because of their limited range of frequencies).

You can get any invalid «sensitivity» you wish if you start with invalid assumptions that the atmosphere would have been isothermal without WV and GHG Without WV the surface would have been around 300K, but water vapour reduced the gradient (as does carbon dioxide to a minuscule extent because it radiates in far fewer frequencies than WV) and so each has a cooling effect.