Sentences with phrase «more evaporation takes»

As carbon dioxide emissions have increased and the Earth's temperature as risen, more evaporation takes place.

Not exact matches

Only about 40 % of the water reaches the crops, while evaporation in the hot sun takes more than two metres of water a year from the reservoirs - a total of around 300m cubic metres from Elephant Butte alone.

More importantly, as I've said several times now, in assessing the claim that the climate is hotter and drier you also have to take account of evaporation, which is now exacerbating droughts to the point that inflows to the Murray - Darling for 2006 are the lowest on record.

More importantly, as Iâ $ ™ ve said several times now, in assessing the claim that the climate is hotter and drier you also have to take account of evaporation

Evaporation is probably a lot faster than sublimation, but sublimation takes more energy per mass.

LIA wasn't GLOBAL cooling; but colder in Europe, north America — because Arctic ocean had less ice cover - > was releasing more heat / was accumulating - > radiating + spreading more coldness — currents were taking that extra coldness to Mexican gulf — then to the Mediterranean — because Sahara was increasing creation of dry heat and evaporating extra water in the Mediterranean — to top up the deficit — gulf stream was faster / that was melting more ice on arctic also as chain reaction — Because Mediterranean doesn't have enough tributaries, to compensate for the evaporation deficit.

The result of putting more carbon into the atmosphere than can be taken out of it is a warmer climate, a melting Arctic, higher sea levels, improvements in the photosynthetic efficiency of many plants, an intensification of the hydrologic cycle of evaporation and precipitation, and new ocean chemistry.

sensitivity be assumed for DLR which hardly penetrates the oceans at all and has a greater proportion of it's energy taken up in evaporation (I believe but could be wrong), is radiated back to space and elseware more quickly and therefore likely has a much smaller turnaround time in the ocean?

The skin layer does get warmer with more DLR but at the same time the interacting layer above it gets cooler because of the deficit created by increased evaporation taking place in that interacting layer.

Consequently, as air warms, for whatever reason, more evaporation may take place and the concentration of water vapor may increase.

Increased DLR - > warming of the knudsen (or evaporation) layer - > evaporation that takes more energy than the DLR provides - > flux of energy upwards from skin layer and below - > cooling of the bulk ocean.

So if they must be kept seperate, as they must, is it not obvious that the DLR takes care of itself, disappears completely in more evaporation and radiation and providing for the evaporative energy deficit that it causes itself with no knock on effect on anything?

Evaporation of water takes out of the local environment (but it stays in the system in latent form) 4 times more energy than the sensible energy required to heat the same amount of water to 100C.

Somehow you have determined that whatever increase in DLR takes places actually causes more heat to leave the ocean via evaporation.

The initial melting does take more energy from the air than is lost in evaporation but that energy then becomes latent energy in the water and so the air is cooled but the remaining ice is not cooled.

However, volunteer temperature observers were also asked to take precipitation measurements from rain gauges, and starting around 1960 the U.S. Weather Service requested that observers start taking their measurements in the morning (between 7 and 9 AM), as that would minimize the amount of evaporation from rain gauges and result in more accurate precipitation measurements.

This «S» shape goes away at night not because evaporation is less powerful, but rather because the input (solar) has gone away and the natural rising takes on a more logarithmic shape by depth where output is the only variable.