Sentences with phrase «how water vapour»

«The observed temporal trends in stratospheric water vapour are poorly understood and this demonstrates our lack of understanding of how water vapour enters the stratosphere.

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.

Elisabetta Pierazzo of the Planetary Science Institute in Tucson, Arizona, and colleagues used a global climate model to study how water vapour and sea salt thrown up from an impact will affect ozone levels for years after the event.

Not exact matches

The way spaceships vent urine and water may be a good stand - in for studying how jets of vapour escape the hidden ocean on one of Saturn's icy moons

«From the area where the HCO + molecule has been dissolved by water vapour we can now calculate how bright the young star has been.

However, ozone reponses to climate changes are quite sensitive to the initial base state (how much stratospheric water vapour was there?

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.).

However, ozone reponses to climate changes are quite sensitive to the initial base state (how much stratospheric water vapour was there?

This knowledge is not new; the same year as Charles Darwin published «The Origin of Species», John Tyndall, an Irish scientist, published a paper in 1859 describing how he measured the absorption of infrared radiation in his laboratory, finding that CO2 and water vapour absorbed the radiation, whereas nitrogen and oxygen, the main gases in the atmosphere, do not.

What other things in the Earth system will change when it warms up that will affect how much SW radiation is reflected back into space [eg ice - albedo feedback, cloud changes] or affect what proportion of emitted LW radiation is allowed to escape to space [eg Water Vapour, cloud changes].

And what part of the SW of incoming sunlight is absorbed by water vapour, and how much (W / m2)?

Global warming deniers however, as you have said, are obsessed by water vapour and good information is needed to show them how they are fooling themselves.

But to get a simple overview, it is useful to keep in mind that the optical depth is sensitive to how much water vapour (humidity) there is in the air, and that the lapse rate is sensitive to the composition of the atmosphere (i.e. humidity).

It all depends on how much, and a t what altitudes, latitudes and times of day that water is in the form of a gas (vapour) or a liquid (clouds).

In the past no tipping point has ever been known to have occurred as a result of runaway warming from extra water vapour so how have we been persuaded to fear it so much?

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

I tried to clarify that the buoyancy of water vapour is a distinct effect, and how the two effects work.

Stuart L I am a stupid layman, but wonder about the effects of water vapour (clouds) when I lived in the UK cloud conditions would cause the temps to be milder (warmer) here in Philippines cloud causes cooler conditions, how can one calculate the overall effect on the earths surface?.

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

How can you hold water vapour constant while examining a reduction in temperature?

Roy Spencer rightly points out that as well as CO2, Water Vapour has a huge impact on the climate system, but how much good data on water vapour worldwide on climatic timescales is there at the moWater Vapour has a huge impact on the climate system, but how much good data on water vapour worldwide on climatic timescales is there at the mVapour has a huge impact on the climate system, but how much good data on water vapour worldwide on climatic timescales is there at the mowater vapour worldwide on climatic timescales is there at the mvapour worldwide on climatic timescales is there at the moment?

As the air rises, it expands and cools, and water vapour condenses, releasing even more heat,» much like how a hurricane frees energy by drawing warm humid air from its base (usually tropical sea water) and then releasing cold, wet air 7 miles (12 kilometers) up in the troposphere.

Warmer temperatures do not necessarily translate to more water vapour in an air - water vapour mixture, Chris please explain how «warmer the oceans and the atmosphere» equate to «more greenhouse effect from water vapour in the atmosphere.»

And tudddaaaa using simple logic clouds become a positive feed back and for all those that do nt know, gaseous water vapour is where clouds come from but we have no idea how, when, where or why and neither do the models.

So John if CO2 is increasing but water vapour is decreasing how can water vapour be a + ve feed back?

Oooooops, so tell me again, how many GCMs have physics which match with the observed reduction in relative humidity with rise temperature and the consequent negative water vapour feedback?

If you are a scientist or engineer and believe the AGW part of climate change is well described by the models, then I will ask you to explain how the hypothesis is calculated and how independnently validated by others experiments, over the time periods predicted ex ante, not ex post, how the forcing variable from CO2 to water vapour was hypothesisied and then proven.

How CO2 and other gases and water vapour and clouds retain the suns heat is still to be established.

12 How the Hydrosphere Affects Climate (Page 274) The hydrosphere is the collective mass of water found on, under, and over the surface of Earth in the form of liquid water, ice, and water vapour.

One question, how would a paper which accepted the basic chain of human emissions - > more CO ₂ in the atmosphere - > warming - > positive feedbacks (water vapour, etc) but then proposed that there were large negative feedbacks which cancel out most of the effect be counted?

I recall one post on how Earth came out of a snowball, which explanation may be a possibility but then again there may be other explanations (eg., oceanic volcanos splitting in the ice and thereby releasing some water vapour, soot deposits changing albedo, even meteor collision — who knows given the lack of evidence).

In the case of atmospheric calculations with water vapour so dominant I'm not sure how much effect a correction would have.

But back then, it was concluded that Arrhenius was wrong and Ångström moved onto other research, despite Arrhenius publishing a paper critical of the experiments and explaining how in the dry upper atmospheric layers, the role of water vapour was of limited importance.

The models (and there are many) have numerous common behaviours — they all cool following a big volcanic eruption, like that at Mount Pinatubo in 1991; they all warm as levels of greenhouse gases are increased; they show the same relationships connecting water vapour and temperature that we see in observations; and they can quantify how the giant lakes left over from the Ice Age may have caused a rapid cooling across the North Atlantic as they drained and changed ocean circulation patterns.

Climate models encapsulate what we know about how the Sun's rays travel through the atmosphere and how heat from the surface of the Earth gets absorbed by clouds, water vapour and, of course, carbon dioxide.

Depending a bit how you weight the overlapping spectral absorptions of the different greenhouse gases the contribution of CO2 to the total greenhouse effect is about 20 % (with water vapour giving 50 % and 25 % for clouds, which we are sure that Allègre realises are made of condensate (liquid water and ice) and not vapour...).

A problem is the RH constant and vary T method does not change the amount of water vapour in each cell by the same amount so if w is water vapour amount (they just define it as water vapour) I can not see how their kernel is applied.