Sentences with phrase «far more water vapor»

I guess this initial condition is rather remote from the final state; what does a change in column weight between these states then mean, since in the beginning, there was far more water vapor present than would be realistic?

Not exact matches

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.

Further, more fires would mean fewer trees and that could mean that less water vapor transpired into the air, resulting in drier conditions.

That would suggest CO2 is far from «weak», however, I would suggest that it is no more important than water vapor in the role it plays in past ice cycles (look at the numbers!).

More water vapor from rising temperatures will further increase the temperature rise.

--- ignorance about atmospheric chemistry really shows here...... snip --- «Moreover, the CO2 that is supposedly causing «catastrophic» warming represents only 0.00035 of all the gases in the atmosphere (1.25 inches out of a 100 - yard football field), and proposals to control this vital plant nutrient ignore a far more critical greenhouse gas: water vapor.»

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).

• Water vapor in the troposphere increases with warming and in turn «absorbs more heat and further raises the Earth's temperature,» McPherson reports.

That 1 C in ocean temperature gives the atmosphere 7 % more water vapor, which increases the GHG effect to about 1.7 C which gives more water vapor increasing it further in a series that converges to near 3 C.

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.

We have far more data about increasing CO2 than increasing water vapor, hence if we want to test this hypothesis by looking for a correlation between global warming and the combined effect of CO2 and H2O, a correlation with CO2 alone is more feasible than one involving water vapour.

By comparison, water vapor, a far more potent greenhouse gas, on average would occupy on average one floor and at times, especially in the tropics, up to four floors.»

They do so because within these models the far more important radiative substances, water vapor and clouds, act to greatly amplify whatever an increase in carbon dioxide might do.

radiation and water vapor — but climate science is about far more than this.

The overlap with the pure - rotational band of water vapor eliminates most of the response from the lower band edge, and IR from clouds further reduces the response to more CO2.

Climatologists have been spending far too much of their grant moneys toying around with models that include fudge factors for water vapor and clouds that are little more than guesses, making the models almost cartoons, instead of tackling the «toughest part» of the project.

We know further, from laboratory work, that CO2, and more importantly water vapor, in the atmosphere serves to keep the Earth warmer than it would be in their absence.

Tropical Water Vapor and Cloud Feedbacks in Climate Models: A Further Assessment Using Coupled Simulations, Sun et al, 03/2009; read more here.

And in the midst of this, the whole process is controlled by a complex vapor - water - cycle that is far more powerful than the contribution CO2 makes.

As this process accelerates, the ice caps melt, releasing more water vapor into the atmosphere via evaporation, further compounding the effect caused by unregulated carbon dioxide emissions.

Why didn't the water vapor feedback escalate far more?

Still more persuasive to scientists of the day was the fact that water vapor, which is far more abundant in the air than carbon dioxide, also intercepts infrared radiation.

(And I still can't see how a newly open and increasingly warm summer Arctic Ocean won't produce more water vapor, vapor whose GHG properties will further accelerate Arctic warming — or is that completely offset by increased cloud formation??)

Water vapor is FAR more efficient at absorbing long wave radiation than CO2.

Although less common than carbon dioxide and water vapor, each molecule is far more powerful and potentially as significant for global warming.

Also the reason water vapor is ignored in the attacks on GHG is the fact that H2O is naturally far more common in the atmosphere than CO2.....

Water vapor is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, so its potential strength as a feedback mechanism is high.