Sentences with phrase «enough water vapor»

When the convective processes of the atmosphere remove enough water vapor from the oceans to drop sea levels and build polar ice caps, as has happened many times before, the top 35 meters of the oceans where climate models assume the only thermal mixing occurs, must heat up cold ocean water that comes from depths below the original 35 meter depth, removing vast more amounts of heat from the earth's surface and atmosphere.

These areas usually bring cloudy weather, and if there is enough water vapor, precipitation.

In a runaway greenhouse, enough water vapor evaporates from the ocean to keep the surface at saturation, and even if there weren't any contribution to surface pressure from the rest of the atmosphere, this would prevent boiling.

Today, there is only enough water vapor in Venus» atmosphere to cover the planet with 3 centimeters (1.2 inches) of water, if the vapor were an ocean.

Chinese scientists have found evidence that our airless, dry - as - a-bone satellite actually contains enough water vapor to complicate the operations of some telescopes.

Not exact matches

Measurements of the water vapor and of other molecules, such as carbon monoxide, suggest there is enough gas to feed the black hole until it grows to about six times its size.

Here is what scientists think is happening: when Ceres swings through the part of its orbit that is closer to the sun, a portion of its icy surface becomes warm enough to cause water vapor to escape in plumes at a rate of about 6 kilograms (13 pounds) per second.

Areas cold enough to have snow can expect more from a carbon - rich atmosphere containing more water vapor.

Unfortunately, no one was sure whether interstellar clouds held enough water to do the trick — the water vapor in our own atmosphere makes it difficult for ground telescopes to measure whatever water the clouds may contain.

With JWST, a few hours of integration time will be enough to detect Earth - like levels of water vapor, molecular oxygen, carbon dioxide and other generic biosignatures on planets orbiting a white dwarf; beyond that, observing the same planet for up to 1.7 days will be enough to detect the two CFCs in concentrations of 750 parts per trillion, or 10 times greater than on Earth.

The eruptions, they found, were intense enough that gases would have been spewed out of the surface faster than they could escape into space, forming a temporary atmosphere relatively rich in water vapor, that ensconced the Moon for about 70 million years.

As such a pulse of water vapor won't stay in the atmosphere long enough to raise the temperature significantly and the original equilibrium (prior to the pulse) will be quickly re-established.

The warming due to water vapor helps the air hold water, but in the Earth's orbit, it is not actually sufficient to keep the air warm enough to keep the water it already has — so you go into the death spiral, with a bit of cooling, less water, then more cooling, and so on to Snowball.

The water vapor feedback overwhelms the Planck response and provided you have enough solar insolation, equilibrium is never established until the water vapor feedback is terminated (i.e., when the oceans are gone)

First, there was the 2017 Honda Clarity Fuel Cell, which converts gaseous hydrogen and air (oxygen) into water vapor plus enough electrons to drive the motor 366 miles.

(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.

The water vapor drops enough, and the lack of greenhouse gas cools the planet.

At some point the clouds caused by increased water vapor reflect enough sunlight that the incoming energy goes down... and then...

I think that they will find that with a long enough path length, atmospheric water vapor tends to regulate the energy absorbed at and around the ocean thermocline layer at about 100 meters.

The fact that we sit at +15 C and not -15 C is definitive proof that water vapor is not removed from the atmosphere fast enough to not have an appreciable global warming / climate change effect.

On the question of hurricanes, the theoretical arguments that more energy and water vapor in the atmosphere should lead to stronger storms are really sound (after all, storm intensity increases going from pole toward equator), but determining precisely how human influences (so including GHGs [greenhouse gases] and aerosols, and land cover change) should be changing hurricanes in a system where there are natural external (solar and volcanoes) and internal (e.g., ENSO, NAO [El Nino - Southern Oscillation, North Atlantic Oscillation]-RRB- influences is quite problematic — our climate models are just not good enough yet to carry out the types of sensitivity tests that have been done using limited area hurricane models run for relatively short times.

Just the opposite, evidence shows that CO2 provides the building block for the terrestrial greenhouse effect, both because it absorbs strongly near the peak emission for Earth, and because it allows Earth to be warm enough to sustain a powerful water vapor greenhouse effect.

«What our study shows is that observed water vapor concentrations are high enough and temperatures are low enough over the U.S. in summertime to initiate the chemistry that is known to lead to ozone losses,» said Harvard atmospheric scientist David Wilmouth, one of the paper's co-authors, in an email.

I believe it (including water vapor clouds) is the the 800 pound gorilla in the room that AGW climate science can't understand because AGW climate science focuses on unvalidated model results and not enough on the actual physics of natural processes involved in the complex climate change process.

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.

So clearly the total water vapor in a vertical section through the atmosphere isn't going to tell us enough (see note 1).

As if sweltering heat weren't bad enough, Europeans also suffered through a higher - than - normal number of days with dangerous smog levels that year.6 Smog — with ground - level ozone as the main component — forms when sunlight reacts with chemicals such as volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and water vapor.

When any molecule of water vapor loses enough energy this way it condenses and warms the air a whole buttload in the process.

IOW we have both the magnitude and the sign of water vapor feedback still in question (except, of course, by the IPCC orthodoxy, which assumes positive feedback at a rate high enough to essentially maintain constant relative humidity in lockstep with Clausius - Clapeyron).

What was the source of water vapor large enough to build such ice sheets?

Conversely, if you add heat to the system, two things will happen, the water will warm and the rate of evaporation will increase until the water vapor partial pressure gets high enough so that the rate of condensation again equals the rate of evaporation.

The water vapor pressure is below the saturation value of 101325 Pa at 373.15 K (that isn't quite right either, but close enough) so there will be net evaporation of water from the surface as it warms from absorption of radiation and conduction from the water vapor.

Empirical evidence shows water vapor cools and you can not produce any study showing it warms by nearly 30 degrees as the IPCC want you to be gullible enough to believe.

In the interest of full disclosure, my «sense» is that such a small temperature increase would not increase water vapor significantly enough to cause a statistically significant increase in numbers and / or severity of extreme events, especially since most of the warming has reportedly been in the high northern latitudes where temperatures are well below 0C where the water vapor saturation value vs temperature curve is pretty flat.

that described that warming in the arctic would lead to more snow (more water vapor, and though warmer, not warm enough so it would not snow, but instead snow more) later springs and the reversal of the very pattern that was warming, Such things take decades and centuries.

I believe it boils down to (pun intented) statistics and at any one time there's just a statistical chance a water molecule will rob enough energy from its neighbors to peel off from the surface as vapor.

The end result is there's virtually no heating beyond the first few micrometers and the molecules near the surface just keep picking up more and more energy as latent heat until they have enough energy to vaporize and then they leave the surface and quickly convect upwards because water vapor is lighter than air.

Dave Springer says: ``... the molecules near the surface just keep picking up more and more energy as latent heat until they have enough energy to vaporize and then they leave the surface and quickly convect upwards because water vapor is lighter than air.

It seems to go without saying enough, though, that all the while our water vapor clouds are moving the heat from the oceans to a place near you, CO2 sits there with it's thumb up it's butt, useless for shade or reflecting heat.

Because CO2's ability to absorb IR increases linearly at low concentrations (under 100ppm) a minimal amount even absent most water vapor serves to keep the earth just warm enough to prevent a snowball earth episode most of the time.

(Admittedly, a given FRACTIONAL change in water vapor concentration is more potent than the same FRACTIONAL change in CO2 concentration but this difference is not large enough to offset the larger difference due to their relative concentrations in the atmosphere.)

(eg water in the ocean) Specifically I contend that there is not enough photon energy available so that ALL added CO2 or water vapor (in the case of feedback) WILL absorb a photon to contribute to the GHE.

The quantity of water vapor and CO2 are all small enough so that the average Cp is not changed.

The effect of an increase in water vapor is not strong enough to create a runaway loop, but amplifiers increase the level of a signal without going to their limits either.

I know about the report to LBJ from the Presidential Science Advisory Committee in 1965 (and its Appendix Y4) and the 1958 booklet from the NAS that talked about CO2 and water vapor being greenhouse gases, but it's never been clear to me exactly when it would be reasonable to say that the evidence was not just strong enough but also widely accepted enough by scientists that the rest of us should have taken notice and done something other than buy more cars and bigger houses.