Sentences with phrase «more water vapor into»

According to this scenario, warming temperatures heat up the surface of the oceans, increasing evaporation and putting more water vapor into the atmosphere.

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.

Certainly, somebody has done a study about this effect, which should be an expected resullt of the introduction of more water vapor into a previously - arid hot climate.

Rising temperatures would put more water vapor into the atmosphere, which then rains out, increasing the amount of dissolved carbon dioxide that chemically interacts with the rocks.

Not exact matches

«Fueled with mostly ethanol, these race cars burn more fuel cleanly and release mainly carbon dioxide and water vapor into the air,» said Mathur.

«Lightning is caused by charge separation within clouds, and to maximize charge separation, you have to loft more water vapor and heavy ice particles into the atmosphere,» he said.

If the energy delivered to Earth by the Sun or by impacts (or both) were 40 % greater, the Earth would experience a runaway greenhouse.3 That is, more water would evaporate from Earth's surface, so too much heat trying to escape into outer space would be blocked by water vapor in the atmosphere.

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

Two more upcoming flybys will dive back into the water vapor plumes at the south pole and measure how much heat is emanating from the tiny moon's interior.

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.

So as more CO2 gets pumped into the atmosphere the temperature rises, which causes more water to evaporate (as you accurately state), increasing the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere — which heats the atmosphere even more, causing even more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.

The loss of ice cover not only means that more open water will be around to directly warm the air into the Arctic night, but that more water vapor will be around to hold heat in.

When petroleum is burned, some energy is required to separate the molecules into individual atoms, but much more energy is given back as the carbon and hydrogen atoms combine with oxygen to give carbon dioxide and water vapor.

As with petroleum, some energy is required to separate the molecule into separate atoms, but the energy is more than returned when the carbon and hydrogen burn to form carbon dioxide and water vapor respectively.

And current climate change trends could easily increase the chance of bad flooding — there's more water vapor in the atmosphere now (ready to condense into storm clouds and precipitation), for example, than there was 70 years ago.

Well warmer ocean temperatures generally means more water vapor gets into the air, and that means more and / or bigger storms, flooding, a warmer Arctic, etc..

AGW climate scientists seem to ignore that while the earth's surface may be warming, our atmosphere above 10,000 ft. above MSL is a refrigerator that can take water vapor scavenged from the vast oceans on earth (which are also a formidable heat sink), lift it to cold zones in the atmosphere by convective physical processes, chill it (removing vast amounts of heat from the atmosphere) or freeze it, (removing even more vast amounts of heat from the atmosphere) drop it on land and oceans as rain, sleet or snow, moisturizing and cooling the soil, cooling the oceans and building polar ice caps and even more importantly, increasing the albedo of the earth, with a critical negative feedback determining how much of the sun's energy is reflected back into space, changing the moment of inertia of the earth by removing water mass from equatorial latitudes and transporting this water vapor mass to the poles, reducing the earth's spin axis moment of inertia and speeding up its spin rate, etc..

This snowpack accumulation near the poles, which gets its water via the Arctic and Antarctic oceans, that in turn rob it from equatorial latitudes of our oceans, also results in a reduction in the earth's spin axis moment of inertia and causes the spin rate to increase as evidenced in the recent history of the rate at which Leap Seconds are added to our calendar (see Wysmuller's Toucan Equation for more on this evidence that during this warm time with much greater polar humidity, earlier seasonal, later seasonal and heavier snows are beginning to move water vapor from the oceans to the poles to re-build the polar ice caps and lead us into a global cooling, while man - made CO2 continues to increase http://www.colderside.com/faq.htm).

On the other hand, by taking into account the mean free path length of photons through the troposphere and the mass fraction of each absorbent gas, water vapor interferes with photons 84 % more frequently than carbon dioxide, at any waveband you choose.

And constantly inserting distractors like «what about water vapor» into your arguments is also very useful given that we are discussing the validity of Jelbring, not the question of whether nor not a DALR exists in a dry atmosphere under certain non-equilibrium conditions that permit one to more or less ignore thermal conductivity.

[7][8] A warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor, feeding more precipitation into all storms including hurricanes, significantly amplifying extreme rainfall and increasing the risk of flooding.

What basis would that have: We're pumping more energy (forcing) and water vapor (feedback) into a system that is already oscillating chaotically; as a result, oscillation amplitude and chaos are reduced?

This fabric will block liquid water from ever getting into your walls just like any other weather barrier, but it has a higher PERM rating, meaning it is going to «breathe» better and allow water vapor to flow more freely.

Warmer water means more water vapor rises up into the air, and what goes up must come down.

This means that the more sea ice there is and the smaller the area of open water, the less water vapor is lifted into the atmosphere.

in addition another thought they do not bring up is under sea volcanic activity may heat up the oceans, increasing the amounts of water vapor put into the atmosphere which could result in more snowfall and eventual glaciation.

For example, in a warmer climate, more water vapor is evaporated into the atmosphere and since water vapor is a greenhouse gas in the sense of absorbing IR radiation, this is a positive feedback, in essence increasing the W / m ^ 2 from that due to CO2 alone.

However, a vicious cycle exists with water vapor, in which as more CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere and the Earth's temperature rises, more water evaporates into the Earth's atmosphere, which increases the temperature of the planet.

When temperatures rise there may be more water vapor evaporated into the Atmosphere and that may result in more clouds and, if clouds have a net cooling effect (as I think they do) that may reduce the rate of incoming shortwave radiation and thus reduce incoming energy rates such that the temperatures will not rise as high.

As the climate warms, more water vapor is put into the atmosphere, which enhances the greenhouse effect.

It's kind of like considering water vapor as a gas expanding into more space that it is given when it is warmer because the condensation level rises higher.

They don't take into account that the land and Arctic will warm faster at first and the oceans will warm more slowly and contribute most of the water vapor feedback later.

It seems to me in the last year / few years we are seeing more papers shed light on «new» positive feedback mechanisms coming into play on the planetary scale, whether it is the MacDougall paper mentioned in the article, or the recent paper on warmer and higher vapor pressure vegetation and trees losing water to a warmer atmosphere, or many others.

In light of trends showing a likely 3 °C or more global temperature rise by the end of this century (a figure that could become much higher if all feedback processes, such as changes of sea ice and water vapor, are taken into account) that could result in sea level rises ranging from 20 to 59 cm (again a conservative estimation), Hansen believes it is critical for scientists in the field to speak out about the consequences and rebuke the spin offered by pundits who «have denigrated suggestions that business - as - usual greenhouse gas emissions may cause a sea level rise of the order of meters.»

In the lower atmosphere, the available data points to increasing water vapor content, but because of large variations in local humidity from day to night, from day to day, and from season to season, no - one currently knows exactly how much more water vapor is going into the air (IPCC Working Group 1 Assessment Report 4, Chapter 3, «Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change», page 273).

In recent years, the idea of pulling water vapor from the air and condensing it into drinking water is getting a whole lot more attention, and not just in off - grid areas and in the developing world, but also right here in suburbia and urban areas as well.

Water comes into play because CO2 driven warming will put more water vapor in the atmosphere, because greater heat will vaporize more wWater comes into play because CO2 driven warming will put more water vapor in the atmosphere, because greater heat will vaporize more wwater vapor in the atmosphere, because greater heat will vaporize more waterwater.

I can imagine two explanations: 1) Scotty is beaming water molecules into the attic every morning and beaming them back out every afternoon at the exact rates to mimic a capacitance charge - discharge curve; 2) or, more likely but less entertaining, the water molecules are going from the ad and absorbed state in the exposed porous materials into the attic air in morning as the sun hits the roofing materials and drives water vapor out of the sheathing, rafters, open cell foam into the attic air.

So guilt from my carbon and climate footprint aside, I'm looking forward to more insights into the role of water vapor in climate and climate change over the coming week.

1 W / m2 of GHG forcing could translate into more water vapor thus increasing the net effect.