Sentences with phrase «much more water vapor»

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).

It is also because there is much more water vapor in the atmosphere than CO2 and, since the amount of climate forcing goes approximately logarithmically with concentration that means the concentration of water vapor has to change by a significantly larger ABSOLUTE amount to produce the same effect.

Yes, it is the most abundant «gas,» but there is much more water vapor (water as a gas) in the atmosphere than CO 2.

But note, I haven't measured clear sky temp on a warm day, it is suppose to be much closer to surface temp, but at warmer temps there's much more water vapor in the air.

I guess my question now is why CO2 trumps water vapor as the prime greenhouse gas even though there is so much more water vapor in the atmosphere relative to CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

Both places have just exactly the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere but one has much more water vapor.

1) Prove that the atmosphere could hold much more water vapor than it does.

The atmosphere could hold much more water vapor than it does.

So the rising trend in the lower curve is going to represent much more water vapor added to the atmosphere than the declining top curve represents as leaving it.

Not exact matches

An artist's impression shows extrasolar planet HD 189733b, where scientists say they've found water vapor, closely orbiting its much more massive star.

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.

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.

There's also a number of interesting applications in the evolution of Earth's atmosphere that branch off from the runaway greenhouse physics, for example how fast a magma - ocean covered early Earth ends up cooling — you can't lose heat to space of more than about 310 W / m2 or so for an Earth - sized planet with an efficient water vapor feedback, so it takes much longer for an atmosphere - cloaked Earth to cool off from impact events than a body just radiating at sigmaT ^ 4.

Away from the dense network of heat absorbing (daytime) then heat radiating (nighttime) structures which is the Urban Heat Island and above the air with high water vapor content trapped by the valley along the river, not to mention the pall of coal dust over the city, morning low temps were much more like what the natural countryside would experience.

Simple physics dictates that with less sea ice there is magnified warming of the Arctic due to powerful albedo feedback; this in turn reduces the equator to pole temperature gradient which slows the jet stream winds causing them to become more meridional; this combined with 4 % more water vapor in the atmosphere (compared to 3 decades ago) is leading to much more extremes in weather.

There is no proof that increasing GHGs, in the presence of so much water vapor, without a corresponding increase in the sun's energy in these adsorptive wavebands for these gases, will actually increase warming to any significant degree, i.e. more than a couple of degrees.

@Paul, # 155 Do you have a reference for this statement «combined with 4 % more water vapor in the atmosphere (compared to 3 decades ago) is leading to much more extremes in weather.

Re 9 wili — I know of a paper suggesting, as I recall, that enhanced «backradiation» (downward radiation reaching the surface emitted by the air / clouds) contributed more to Arctic amplification specifically in the cold part of the year (just to be clear, backradiation should generally increase with any warming (aside from greenhouse feedbacks) and more so with a warming due to an increase in the greenhouse effect (including feedbacks like water vapor and, if positive, clouds, though regional changes in water vapor and clouds can go against the global trend); otherwise it was always my understanding that the albedo feedback was key (while sea ice decreases so far have been more a summer phenomenon (when it would be warmer to begin with), the heat capacity of the sea prevents much temperature response, but there is a greater build up of heat from the albedo feedback, and this is released in the cold part of the year when ice forms later or would have formed or would have been thicker; the seasonal effect of reduced winter snow cover decreasing at those latitudes which still recieve sunlight in the winter would not be so delayed).

Water Vapor is limited by temperature and pressure, but the atmosphere supports the water as water drops and ice crystals and supports much more water than can be supported with just vWater Vapor is limited by temperature and pressure, but the atmosphere supports the water as water drops and ice crystals and supports much more water than can be supported with just vVapor is limited by temperature and pressure, but the atmosphere supports the water as water drops and ice crystals and supports much more water than can be supported with just vwater as water drops and ice crystals and supports much more water than can be supported with just vwater drops and ice crystals and supports much more water than can be supported with just vwater than can be supported with just vaporvapor.

He found that gases and vapors whose molecules had three or more atoms, such as water vapor and CO2, absorbed much more of the thermal radiation passing through the tube than did two - atom molecules such as oxygen and nitrogen.

I'm with righwing and find it hard to believe that a major greenhouse gas like water vapor is at the mercy of a minor greenhouse gas like CO2 it is much more likely that what ever warming we maybe see from CO2 gets offset by water vapor.

In weather systems, convergence of increased water vapor leads to more intense precipitation and the risk of heavy rain and snow events, but may also lead to reductions in duration and / or frequency of rain events, given that total amounts do not change much.

In terms of GHG effect, water vapor is a considerably larger factor, much more powerful than CO2.

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.

So the water vapor feedback is as much or more dependent of the available moisture of the land mass being warmed or cooled.

So, although much of the greenhouse warming is directly due to water vapor, the temperature «set point» is more strongly affected by the more stable and well - distributed CO2.

Once again water vapor (H2O) does exactly the same thing; only moreso than carbon dioxide; and it is also much more abundant in the atmosphere; even over the most arid deserts.

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).

Early in the paper they explained that pre-1973 values of water vapor were more problematic than post-1973 and therefore much of the analysis would be presented with and without the earlier period.

Water vapor on the other hand is a much more potent climate driver since there is a much larger content with a large variation, from under one percent (10,000 ppm) to close to 10 percent (100,000 ppm).

Climatologists have been spending far too much of their grant moneys toying around with models that include fudge factors for water vapor and clouds that are little more than guesses, making the models almost cartoons, instead of tackling the «toughest part» of the project.

So while water vapor is suggested to warm the equatorial water more than before, the water can move to where the path to the TOA is much easier.

In my opinion, these images clearly show that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere is totally insignificant, mainly because the natural variation in water vapor is so much larger than the amount of CO2 added by humans.

But even if it doesn't increase at all (the more likely situation), that won't stop the heating effect of increasing CO2, even if there's a thousand times as much water vapor as CO2.

The argument which say there would a more dramatic effect, would include the idea that if one had such increase in CO2, one would get also get a significant increase in water vapor and such increase in water vapor is considered a much stronger effect than merely increase in CO2.

You are probably also aware already that water vapor is as much if not more of a so called greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide is and there is a lot of evaporating ocean water on the planet not to mention clouds and high tropical humidity because hot air provides added space in the atmosphere for water vapor gas to become a major component of air.

The «rules of physics» tell us that warmer air holds more water vapor, yes, and how much water is in the troposphere is mostly controlled by this rule.

For more than 10 years (I forgot how much more), upper tropospheric water vapor has not increased in response to significant increases in CO2 atmospheric concentrations.

Lindzens» idea requires reduced cirrus formation in the tropics, which in turn requires a reduction in water vapor in the upper troposphere as heat is added, the idea being that some sort of balance point is quickly reached where more forcing from additional greenhouse gases will cease to have much of an effect.

That increased atmospheric water vapor will also affect cloud cover, though impacts of changes in cloud cover on climate sensitivity are much more uncertain.

But it is not — water vapor is much more important and they both simultaneously absorb OLR, the out - going long - wave radiation.

Water vapor is much more dominant and has been decreasing with warming not increasing..

Temperature greatly influences how much water vapor air can hold, he explained, and «there are multiple indications that moisture falls in more extreme events as the planet warms.

Water vapor is much more nonlinear than CO2, so missing the initial conditions blows that approximation out of the water:) So «sensitivity» is much more sensitive than the no feedback «sensitivity&raWater vapor is much more nonlinear than CO2, so missing the initial conditions blows that approximation out of the water:) So «sensitivity» is much more sensitive than the no feedback «sensitivity&rawater:) So «sensitivity» is much more sensitive than the no feedback «sensitivity».

A simple example, increased water vapor [a GHG], leading to much more clouds and greater albedo means that more energy will be reflected to space meaning that the effective heat source drops in intensity hence the temperature must fall back or as Lucia would put it, fails to go up any more [She does not believe feedbacks can be ultimately negative].

Water vapor, which is a greenhouse gas, albeit short lived, and a component of and response to weather conditions — but not, being so ephemeral, a driver of much longer term weather patterns (or climate)-- and due to it's heavy prevalence the greenhouse gas that is on average responsible for more re ra - radiated heat than any other, in fact is not warming, but cooling.

Interestingly, H2O absorbs much more of that relatively near - IR, which makes me wonder whether increasing water vapor has a bit of an effect along the lines you suggest.

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.»

Or put another way, if there is so much water vapor around (3 % vs only 390ppm for CO2), and more GHGs means more warming, why does the GHE stop at 33C instead of continuing until all the water vapor absorbs a photon OR asked another way, who says that all the water vapor caused by the added CO2 will absorb a photon to cause more GHE warming?