Sentences with phrase «do with water vapor»

According to Klotzbach et al. (2010), which the Watts paper references, there should be an amplification factor of ~ 1.1 between surface and lower troposphere temperatures over land (greater atmospheric warming having to do with water vapor amplification).

«This has to do with water vapor, which is the fuel for explosive deep convection in the atmosphere.

Not exact matches

Combined with a decrease in atmospheric water vapor and a weaker sun due to the most recent solar cycle, the aerosol finding may explain why climate change has not been accelerating as fast as it did in the 1990s.

The researchers do know that the presence of certain aerosols plays a large role in the formation of ice that leads to precipitation, but they also need to tease out the importance of that with other factors, like the amount of available water vapor and vertical storm winds.

The team suspects it has to do with photosynthesis, which leads to more water vapor in the air.

What does happen is that the sound field interacts with any small gas bubble that may exist in the water and causes the bubble to grow dramatically during the passage of the negative pressure portion of the sound field — the water essentially «boils» — because the pressure is below the vapor pressure.

The cause of the present flood has to do with the mass of water vapor in the air, which is partly the result of higher air temperature.

He notes that DMF could rapidly replace ethanol, because it not only provides more energy but also has a higher boiling point (allowing DMF to blend more easily with gasoline) and it does not react with water (ethanol absorbs atmospheric water vapor, which degrades its potency).

Using data of tau Boo b collected with the Near Infrared Echelle Spectrograph (NIRSPEC) instrument at the W. M. Keck Observatory in Hawai'i, the researchers were able to compare the molecular signature of water to the light spectrum emitted by the planet, confirming that the atmosphere did indeed include water vapor.

However, heat leakage would be inevitable, and if you allow that, you find that you don't get a runaway even if you force the tropics to be saturated with water vapor.

It is entirely possible that water vapor feedback has very little to do with non — condensable GHGs.

All I am highlighting is the possibility that water vapor feedback may have very little to do with non — condensable GHGs.

Shifting between states is a vital part of solving the various puzzles, and with the exception of vapor to water (think precipitation) you can only do so at specific locations, so plan carefully.

First, re the California state legislature legislating that water vapor is not a greenhouse gas: Well, politicians will be often be silly but in this case I don't have a big problem with what they did (at least from what you say).

@Paul, # 155 Do you have a reference for this statement «combined with 4 % more water vapor in the atmosphere (compared to 3 decades ago) is leading to much more extremes in weather.

And yes, in order to do a complete «mass balance», where the total mass «in» equals the total mass «out», you'd need to include all ingredients going into the process (including air) and all ingredients coming out (including water vapor, which is also a key product of the process along with the CO2).

I disagree with aspects of this statement because it does not consider the effects of inversions and the complex processes involving water vapor.

However, heat leakage would be inevitable, and if you allow that, you find that you don't get a runaway even if you force the tropics to be saturated with water vapor.

Peter (11:57:58) said: The fatal flaw here is the assumption that it takes the warming from CO2, or any other greenhouse gas with the exception of water vapor to trigger the warming but, once this is done, the temperature increase from water vapor keeps the» spiral» going.

The fatal flaw here is the assumption that it takes the warming from CO2, or any other greenhouse gas with the exception of water vapor to trigger the warming but, once this is done, the temperature increase from water vapor keeps the «spiral» going.

For instance, perfect initialization of the state of the Atlantic ocean, a correct simulation of the next 10 years of the solar cycle, a proper inclusion of stratospheric water vapor, etc may be important for whether the next 5 years are warmer than the previous 5, but it has nothing to do with climate sensitivity, water vapor feedback, or other issues.

The water vapor cooled the Earth, the snow cooled the atmosphere with resulting increase in surface albedo which does reflect radiative heat, meaning the Earth gets less warm, not colder because of it.

Doesn't waters vapor pressure increase with temperature?

This is how the climate models seem to represent it — they multiply the effect of CO2, and they do this with a degree of certainty regarding CO2 NOT matched by a similar degree of certainty regarding water vapor (the most abundant greenhouse gas of all).

Even if the climate community suddenly embraced the notion that water vapor does not increase with warming, the CMIP5 models runs are complete.

Atmospheric water vapor definitely has a lot to do with it, with or without CO2 theories attached.

This remains to be seen, of course, but it's important to point out that the trospospheric amplification prediction does not originate in the models but in the basic physics of radiative transfer in combination with the Clausius - Clapeyron relationship describing the change in atmospheric water vapor as a function of temperature.

Dew doesn't really fall, though — rather, dew is water condensing out from the water vapor mixed in with cooling air.

A third issue I have with the ICCP is the fact they do not list water vapor as being a greenhouse gas on their list of such gases (see their web site).

Note 1 — The total amount of water vapor, TPW (total precipitable water), is obviously something we want to know, but we don't have enough information if we don't know the distribution of this water vapor with height.

If they had forced the model with a water vapor change, it would have done the same thing.»

Then they go on to explain the effects of water vapor and clouds but with the most incredibly shallow and frankly bizarre propaganda style, leaving out the details on what else the water cycle does.

You can then add in water vapor and so on with my complete blessing, as long as you do not assert that gravity can do any net, continuous work even in the dynamic case in an atmosphere with a more or less static density profile.

I like it, and it really doesn't conflict with Broecker's earlier idea that atmospheric water vapor levels changed (presumably secondary to an atmospheric cellular circulation change).

Just to let you know how stupid the global warming activists are, I've been to the south pole 3 times and even there, where the water vapor is under 0.2 mm precipitable, it's still the H2O that is the main concern in our field and nobody even talks about CO2 because CO2 doesn't absorb or radiate in the portion of the spectrum corresponding with earth's surface temps of 220 to 320 K. Not at all.

Soden et al. have challenged these data as has Dessler, since they indicate a negative water vapor feedback, which does not agree with orthodox hypothesis.

dude I don't think the observed reduction in relative humidity with rising temperature implies a negative water vapor feedback, just a less strongly positive water vapor feedback than has been otherwise postulated.

Water vapor content has little do with whether a region or hemisphere will have more or less snow.

In the report (PDF), which recants many of the popular skeptical arguments regarding climate change, Schwartz claims that [Al] «Gore's brand of over-the-top climate hysteria has nothing to do with reality,» and that «Most of the greenhouse effect is natural and is due to water vapor naturally in the atmosphere, as well as natural levels of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and a few other greenhouse gases.»

It's easier just to stick with the known, 0.8 to 1.6 C per doubling, WM - GHGs only, since water vapor is going to do what water vapor wants to do.

Spengler et al. (2011) did the following: they took a normal column of air with an observable quantity of the water vapor and then imagined, in a thought experiment, that all vapor between 2 and 4 km in the atmosphere suddenly condenses, the latent heat is released in the sensible form and warms the atmosphere.

Once in the stratosphere the SO2 did slowly mix with water vapor to form H2SO4 (sulfuric acid), but in the stratosphere there is no precipitation to allow for it to be quickly removed.

But if the atmosphere is NOT warming how does that fit with the narrative of blaming severe weather events on the extra water vapor in a warming atmosphere?

If you want to claim that warmer air doesn't hold more water vapor before condensing, then you need to go back to the 1800s and duke it out with scientists from back then.

Putting these additional warming biases (conservative estimates) into context like you have done with the ones above (Corrections to the «Observed» Record, water vapor and black soot) would be incredibly helpful and informative.

Cointegration indicates that internal climate variability and / or the omission of some components of radiative forcing (e.g., stratospheric water vapor, black or organic carbon, nitrite aerosols, etc.) do not impart a stochastic or deterministic trend that would interfere with the interpretation of temperature changes at the subdecadal scale (SI Appendix).

However, just because a warmer atmosphere CAN hold more water vapor — where it is in equilibrium with liquid water — doesn't mean that it DOES hold more water where there is no reason to assume that equilibrium exiDOES hold more water where there is no reason to assume that equilibrium exists.

So you're saying climate change science has nothing to do with cosmic rays, the sun and water vapor and that nothing but CO2 is of any consequence, according to the consensus.

Of course it does not agree with IPCC, who is selling us the message that specific humidity increases in march - step with temperature according to Clausius - Clapeyron to essentially maintain a constant relative humidity (thereby resulting in a major positive feedback from water vapor with warming).

The reasons why the Arctic is warming so quickly — a phenomenon known as Arctic amplification — has to do with factors that are unique to the Arctic environment, involving feedbacks between sea ice, snow, water vapor and clouds.