Sentences with phrase «more water vapour so»

The increased warmth causes the atmosphere to evaporate and condense more water vapour so that total energy flow through the system increases.

Warmer air holds more water vapour so that warmer air will extract more vapour from the ocean surface thereby cooling the ocean surface..

The increased warmth allows the atmosphere to hold more water vapour so that total atmospheric density increases and the atmospheric greenhouse effect strengthens.

Not exact matches

Or increased water content (so that energy is more efficiently transported by ferrying vapour up to condense, release the energy and rain out).

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.).

Water vapour partial pressure is an exponential function of temperature: it just amplifies the CO2 effect — more or less independent of where you are (It requires careful spectral analysis to say so — part of all model codes).

(c) The level of water vapour depends on the global temperature, so it is roughly fixed until something else warms the atmosphere when it increases in amount producing more warming.

Re # 36 Lawrence, your cousin is correct that the greenhouse effect of water vapour, and even more so clouds are much larger (x 2 — x 4) than that from CO2.

To do so, you'd need a study such as mine which shows water vapour cools and more moist regions have lower mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures than drier regions at similar latitudes and altitudes.

Although the surface is now cooler again, the skies are also clear which again allows more sun through to warm the seas which produces more water vapour which rises to form clouds, and so on and so on.

This temp increase will eventually cause more water vapour to be released and so you have a runaway effect (assuming of course that the water vapour can cause a larger increase in temp then the original forcing).

These effects are relatively well understood in the lowest level of the atmosphere, the troposphere, where increased warming leads to greater evaporation, causing more water vapour and so further warming, although this is offset to some extent through the formation of clouds that reflect incoming sunlight back into space.

BH: Some of them are talking about climate sensitivity at 1.2 C, at 1.5 C. I think this is completely implausible because the basic energetics of the climate system responding to the additional greenhouse gas emissions almost from simple physics, has to be at least 1.2 C and possibly more before you begin to take into account any of the feedbacks in the system from water vapour in clouds and so on.

Air containing water in vapour form will rise higher than dry air because it is lighter so when the vapour is removed it must fall back to its «correct» height but because of the air around it becoming warmer as it descends it will remain too dense for its height until it reaches the ground and receives more energy from the irradiated surface.

This is because more warmth in Antarctica would allow the air to hold more water vapour, leading to increased precipitation and so a thickening of the snow cover.

The theory is that heating from increased CO2 will warm the earth, sea and atmosphere and so produce more water vapour, the foremost greenhouse gas in total effect, which in turn warms the system further and releases both more vapour and CO2 from the seas.

Methane only has an effect at the 7.7 micron range and this is a very low energy portion of the Earth's radiative spectrum which is already saturated by water vapour so even a hundred fold increase in methane would be incapable of any more than a tenth of a degree C of further warming.

1) CO2 is not rising significantly compared to earlier in the 20th century (Beck, Segalstad, Jaworowski) 2) OK, so CO2 is rising, but human sources are but a minor player (Howard Hayden, Spencer on WUWT) 3) OK, so human CO2 is significant, but its temperature effect is nonexistant (Heinz Hug) 4) OK, so CO2 has a temperature effect, but it is dwarfed by water vapour (Lindzen, Reid Bryson, Tim Ball 5) OK, so the CO2 temperature effect is not completely dwarfed by water vapour, but the sun is much more important (Svensmark, Shaviv, many others) 6) OK, so the solar output has been flat since the 50ies, but there are no net positive feedback (Lindzen again, Spencer again) 7) Actually, there has been no significant global warming (Watts, Singer + more), 8) Hey, all this warming is a) unstoppable anyway (Singer again) b) good for humanity (Michaels).