Sentences with phrase «of water vapor seen»

The team found that equilibrium to be similar to levels of water vapor seen in the local universe.

Not exact matches

If the surface is very cold (below the freezing point of water) the condensed water vapor freezes, this is what we see as frost.

Walter sees the benefits of using methane as an energy source as twofold: «Not only does it prevent a potent greenhouse gas from entering the atmosphere by converting it to weaker greenhouse gases — water vapor and carbon dioxide — but using it on - site would also reduce the demand for other fossil - fuel sources.»

But hot water vapor in the atmosphere of brown dwarfs can not be easily seen from Earth's surface, due to the absorbing effects of water vapor in our own atmosphere.

Around the south pole of Enceladus — a 500 - kilometer - wide runt of a moon many expected to be rather inert and uninteresting — the orbiter saw tantalizing signs of activity — plumes of water vapor venting into space from fissures in the icy surface.

Water vapor seen at these infrared wavelengths is in the upper and middle levels of the troposphere, where the winds are ruled by large - scale air masses.

«All you can see is the water vapor, but you don't know where it comes from,» says Rong Fu, a climate scientist at the University of California, Los Angeles.

It took Herschel's far - infrared vision to see, finally, a clear spectral signature of the water vapor.

To our surprise, we found we can get as much water vapor as we see in our own galaxy,» says astrophysicist Avi Loeb of the Harvard - Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA).

On a related note, as I listened to NASA's press conference this afternoon, I couldn't help but reimagine Rutger Hauer's famous speech at the end of «Blade Runner»: «I've seen things you people wouldn't believe — attack ships on fire off the shoulders of Orion, water vapor erupting off the surface of Europa.»

Any water (liquid or ice) that close to the Sun would vaporize and be blown by the solar wind to the outer reaches of the solar system, a as we see happening with water vapor in the tails of comets.

Moreover, for temperatures similar to the present global mean, water vapor feedback actually cancels out some of the positive curvature from the fourth - power law (see Chapter 4 of my book, Principles of Planetary Climate).

The stratopsheric cooling may be caused by the tropospheric water vapor (see figure 3 of http://www.springerlink.com/content/6677gr5lx8421105/fulltext.pdf)-- but in that figure water vapor is fixed only above sigma = 0.14 (~ 140 hPa), so the cooling may also be caused by the increase in lower stratospheric water vapor.

This isn't news to top climate scientists around the world (see Hadley Center: «Catastrophic» 5 — 7 °C warming by 2100 on current emissions path) or even to top climate scientists in this country (see US Geological Survey stunner: Sea - level rise in 2100 will likely «substantially exceed» IPCC projections, SW faces «permanent drying») and certainly not to people who follow the scientific literature, like Climate Progress readers (see Study: Water - vapor feedback is «strong and positive,» so we face «warming of several degrees Celsius»).

Some climate scientists see compelling arguments for accumulating heat and added water vapor fueling the kinds of turbulent storms that spawn tornadoes.

We won't ever see much of this due to the over abundance of water vapor.

Note also that under hot conditions a stream of water vapor may not form clouds, but will instead act as an infrared blanket that amplifies the heat wave (this kind of heat wave is seen in California, fed by marine moisture from Baja).

But as we got into autumn, the upper level westerlies really picked up in strength, and you could see the tops of incipient TCs getting strongly sheared in the satellite images, with the water vapor blown aloft to the east of the cyclone resembling the trial left behind a comet.

First and foremost is I have yet to see a good discussion on how Global Warming effects your observation of a Northward movement of the apparent circulation of the ITCZ heat energy and water vapor distribution.

«Arrhenius and Chamberlain saw in this [variations in carbon dioxide] a cause of climate changes, but the theory was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long - wave radiation absorbed by CO2 is also absorbed by water vapor.

(This essay is supplementary to the core essay on The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect For the most important greenhouse gas, water vapor, see the essay on Simple Models of Climate.)

I can certainly see that SOME CO2 level would do that, but everything I have read so far about Antarctic says that in a somewhat warmer climate, which we will have in Antarctica soon, Antarctic as a whole will get more snowfall, hence more retention of ice, because warmer air holds more water vapor, even if the increase in warmth is merely from minus 40 C to minus 35 C.

The record warm sea surface and atmosphere held a never before seen excess of water vapor and moisture in suspension — primarily over the Equatorial Ocean zones.

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.

This remains to be seen, of course, but it's important to point out that the trospospheric amplification prediction does not originate in the models but in the basic physics of radiative transfer in combination with the Clausius - Clapeyron relationship describing the change in atmospheric water vapor as a function of temperature.

I would like to see the flag idea applied to the fundamental elements of global warming: co2 forcing, water vapor forcing, cloud forcing, solar forcing, etc..

A third issue I have with the ICCP is the fact they do not list water vapor as being a greenhouse gas on their list of such gases (see their web site).

One of the great features of these systems is that the water control layer is also the assembly air control layer and vapor control layer, a.k.a., the «Perfect Roof» (see BSI - 001: The Perfect Wall).

What they see are contrails: trails largely made up of condensed water vapor.

The latent cooling capacity of the air conditioner is the amount of heat absorbed when water vapor condenses on the evaporator coil (see photo at right).

I am very skeptical of the indirect feedback amplification effects put down to CO2 (and water vapor), which supposedly double or triple the direct effects, don't see any observation evidence for this and the last 7 years have only firmed my skepticism.

Therefore, we would assume that the relative humidity would be high and the specific humidity (the amount of water vapor) would be strongly dependent on temperature (see Part Two).

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).

You can see that for a given increase in the mixing ratio of water vapor the most significant effect comes at the top of the troposphere.

As more water vapor enters the atmosphere, that in turn absorbs more SW radiation, and, as this recent MIT study has shown, we might actually see that we have a seemingly paradoxical effect of the bulk of the warming then being in the SW, even as net LW actually increases with increasing GH gas levels:

Instead take it as a challenge to intelligently criticize such as this: «If water vapor amplification was real we should expect to see [the high temperature] record over an equatorial jungle instead of a desert.

You can calculate the amount of water from hydrogen fuel - cells from future automobile usage and compare it with water vapor from the oceans, trees etc. and see that it is a trivial amount.

As for your V&V discussion, I don't see the relevance of it in this talk, but in the context of physical science of climate change we have overwhelming evidence of model usefulness and verification (water vapor feedback, simulating the Pinatubo eruption effects, ocean heat content changes, stratospheric cooling, arctic amplification, etc).

see what I wrote above «Or, the kinetic energy of the water vapor molecules is carried over into the droplet somehow, but quickly dissipated to the gas molecules via collisions occurring immediately after the condensation?»

One can't arbitrarily choose feedbacks for water vapor, ice / albedo, clouds, etc., without looking to see how these phenomena are actually behaving — e.g., what are the radiative properties of water vapor, how is relative humidity changing, what is happening to low cloud cover, high cloud cover, and the high / low cloud ratios, etc.?.

Water vapor is, of course, lost in this process, so your idea goes in the wrong direction, and its loss leads to negative buoyancy, which we see does not happen in thunderstorm updrafts where the condensation is occurring.

When you see condensation on the bathroom mirror, you know the dew point of the water vapor in the air is equal to or higher than the surface temperature of the mirror.

On top of the ocean heating, we can look at the outgoing radiation from the atmosphere, by satellite, to see that frequencies associated with water vapor and CO2 have reduced upward emissions.

It is easy to see that the spectrum of outgoing IF at CO2 and water vapor absorption wave lengths are lower than what would be expected from the surface temperature of the earth.

As can be seen, the «constant RH assumption» exaggerates the actually observed moisture increase with warming by a factor of around 10:1 (and hence the model - based water vapor feedback estimates).

Evaluations of column integrated water vapour from the NASA Water Vapor Project (NVAP; Randel et al., 1996), and reanalysis data sets from NRA, NCEP - 2 and ERA - 15 / ERA - 40 (see Appendwater vapour from the NASA Water Vapor Project (NVAP; Randel et al., 1996), and reanalysis data sets from NRA, NCEP - 2 and ERA - 15 / ERA - 40 (see AppendWater Vapor Project (NVAP; Randel et al., 1996), and reanalysis data sets from NRA, NCEP - 2 and ERA - 15 / ERA - 40 (see Appendix 3.

The instrument in that case is seeing the temperature of the water vapor very close the ground.

For the water vapor argument and other areas of debate with Lindzen, see Hansen et al. (2000), pp. 154 - 59.

All in all, this means that water vapor that enters the atmosphere persists there a very short period of time — about 11 days (see the right sidebar — while CO2 persists in the atmosphere for decades to centuries.

Similarly, if global temperatures drop for some reason (for example, a large volcanic eruption dumping massive amounts of aerosols into the air), we should expect to see water vapor concentrations decrease.