As the logic — and science — goes, a cooler, geoengineered planet
means less evaporation, and thus less rainfall.
Not exact matches
The weaker temperature gradient would have
meant less rainfall and more
evaporation in the midlatitude North Pacific.
Evaporation from the soil
means that plants will have
less water.
I don't think he's just talking about
less evaporation meaning less ocean heat loss.
Part way there, but no quantitation yet: of the 3.77 W / m ^ 2 radiated back dowwnard, most goes to increased rate of
evaporation of the water at the surface, and much
less goes to increased
mean temp increase at the surface; hence increased rate of non-radiative transfer of heat from surface to upper atmosphere, slight increase in rainfall as hydrological cycle is faster, and slight increase in cloud cover.
which in turn
means more
evaporation, which in turn creates more clouds trapping the heat allowing
less heat to be radiated off into space
The tired old alarmist argument goes something like this: CO2 levels increase, which in turn increases temperature, which in turn
means more
evaporation, which in turn creates more clouds trapping the heat allowing
less heat to be radiated off into space.
Those effects include more rainfall that occurs in heavy downpours,
meaning less is absorbed into the earth and more becomes runoff; more rain and
less snowfall in the mountains, which
means less melting snow to feed rivers in the spring and summer; and higher temperatures causing more
evaporation.
Global warming
means hotter temperatures, which lead to
less snow and more
evaporation.