Sentences with phrase «only water vapour»

«A modern, highly efficient, supercritical coal - fired station with stack gas cleanup is very clean indeed, essentially emitting only water vapour, carbon dioxide and nitrogen.

I will consider only water vapour here because it is so important for the thermal stability of Earth's climate system.

So far, only water vapour has been detected — unlike the plumes on Enceladus, which also contain ice and dust particles.

I thought it was only water vapour,» she said.

Not exact matches

However water vapour is not pulled away from cloud forming regions when only deep 15 km updraughts are present.

This is only the second moon in the solar system found ejecting water vapour from its frigid surface.

If it were possible to leave the clouds but remove all other water vapour from the atmosphere, only about 40 % less infrared of all frequencies would be absorbed.

Reasoning that, because it fluctuated daily, water vapour was continually recycling itself in and out of the atmosphere, he turned his attention to carbon dioxide, a gas resident for a long time in the atmosphere whose concentration was only (at that time) dramatically changed by major sources such as volcanoes or major drawdowns such as unusual and massive episodes of mineral weathering or the evolution of photosynthetic plants: events that occur on very long, geological timescales.

For some parts of the spectrum, IR can be either absorbed by CO2 or by water vapour, and so simply removing the CO2 gives only a minimum effect.

That happens because the density of the air is «diluted» by the addition of water vapour with a molecular weight of only 18 compared to air with a molecular weight of 29.

There are only a few possibilities: clouds, water vapour or aerosols.

Other feedbacks include forests, and most importantly, water vapour, which as the temperature of the atmosphere rises increases in the atmosphere (think tropical rain forest), and water vapour is a potent greenhouse gas (but it is not the «controller» of our climate because it does not accumulate in the atmosphere, only gases like CO2, methane and nitrous oxide do this) See Skeptical Science https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

And by the way, water vapour constitues around.4 % of the atmosphere, only around 10 times more than CO2.

The only driver for those types of event that has not already been eliminated by geological evidence is the main greenhouse gas: water vapour.

And the other sort of latent heat, a decrease in atmospheric water vapour is also the stuff of fantasy requiring a change of 50,000 cu km when the atmosphere only contains (and only can contain) ~ 13,000 cu km without crazy temperature increases.

It is standard practice to include only the fast feedback processes, including changes in water vapour, in the calculation of climate sensitivity, but to exclude possible induced changes in the concentrations of other greenhouse gases (as well as other slow feedback processes).

However, human activities have only a small direct influence on the amount of atmospheric water vapour.»

This «climate sensitivity» not only depends on the direct effect of the GHGs themselves, but also on natural «climate feedback» mechanisms, particularly those due to clouds, water vapour, and snow cover.

July 17, 2013 at 1:39 pm The lapse rate feedback is only a negative feedback (in the general circulation model) if the long wave radiation that is released when the water vapour condenses is emitted to space rather than trapped by increased water vapour.

It is for the most part only in the tropics that tropospheric air can be drawn up into the stratosphere; it is also in the tropics that one finds the most spectacular thunderstorms, and these can reduce the temperature at the top of the troposphere, deepening the cold trap that ascending water vapour must pass through and thus impeding its rise.

But the notion of «internal forcings» means that what we consider only as temperature feedbacks, as the clouds or the water vapour, might be differentiated from temperature and might depend from others parameters.

Probably hotter by an amount too small to measure given that 15um is the only card CO2 can play when surrounded by water vapour.

Both water vapour and especially condescended water (cloud, the strongest emitter of LWIR in the atmosphere) can reduce surface cooling rates at night, but only over land.

Now, the only way we can get back for the previous equilibrium is that the earth «takes action» to kill off the vegetation to reduce the water vapour content in the atmosphere.

I only assumed that the absorption of water vapour in one of the bands is near zero at the poles and near 100 % at the equator.

Water vapour is not only a highly potent GHG but it increase has also recently been shown to have a serious potential for reducing cloud formation in the tropics and thus advancing Albedo Loss.

In 1928, George Simpson published a memoir on atmospheric radiation, which assumed water vapour was the only greenhouse gas, even though, as Richardson pointed out in a comment, there was evidence that even dry air absorbed infrared radiation.

As far as water vapor in the tropics, they even say» In the humid equatorial regions, where there is so much water vapour in the air that the greenhouse effect is very large, adding a small additional amount of CO2 or water vapour has only a small direct impact on downward infrared radiation.»

(a) Convection accounts for approximately 67 % of the total amount of heat transfer from the Earth's surface to the troposphere, the condensation of water vapour for 25 % and radiation accounts for only 8 %.

In the humid equatorial regions, where there is so much water vapour in the air that the greenhouse effect is very large, adding a small additional amount of CO2 or water vapour has only a small direct impact on downward infrared radiation.

The only data we do have shows declining water vapour levels (in the lower atmosphere, troposphere and stratosphere, surface is rising though) and declining overall cloudiness levels.

But in calculating the 254.5 K temperature they fail to alter the albedo which, according to their energy diagrams includes 30 % of solar radiation reflected back to space by those clouds which would only exist if the greenhouse pollutant, water vapour actually existed.

There is actually water vapour in Venus» atmosphere, although it only makes up 0.002 %.

On the clear day in Malaysia you might have 30degC, sealevel and 80 % RH, which still is only ~ 3 % of water vapour.

While what I have described is a bit simplistic, it gives the gist of why the CO2 emissions are significant: not only is CO2 a greenhouse gas, but its effect causes other significant changes to take place, such as increased uptake of water vapour into the atmosphere.

[6] The difference is that while water vapour remains in the atmosphere only a few days or weeks, and hydrogen gas about two years, carbon dioxide lingers for more than a century.

(a) only CO2 + water vapour feedback effects can account for the majority of this rise (and that it can be separated from noise and natural processes like ENSO, PDO, cloud cover etc);

The only GHG IR to be emitted is a limited subset of water vapour side bands.

However water vapour's residence time in the atmosphere is only about a week (wikipedia) so temporary increases in water vapour tend to equilibriate before they can increase temperature and cause a further increase in water vapour.

Carbon dioxide fully part of the water cycle, all pure clean rain is carbonic acid, can only aid the main greenhouse gas water vapour in its role of cooling.

Only in this way is the energy balance determined empirically and the multitude of changes — cloud height and extent, water vapour, ozone, surface temperature, ice and snow, biology, aerosols — integrated in a comprehensible measure.

The fact that the actual measured planetary warming is less than the lowest IPCC model prediction warming and is found only at high latitudes (which is not predicted by the IPCC models) logically supports the assertion that the planet's response to a change in forcing is to resist the change (negative feedback, planetary clouds in the tropics increase reflecting more sunlight in to space) rather than to amplify the change (positive feedback) due increased water vapour in the atmosphere.

The only difference is that the attribution will be 90 % towards clouds and water vapour and since humans are in no way responsible for these factors AGW will be just about natural global warming which ended over a decade ago and replaced by the global cooling which started in 2002 and will likely continue nuntil at least the end of solar cycle 25 around 2032

Most of your readers are probably unaware of the fact that doubling carbon dioxide in itself only produces a modest warming effect of about 1.2 C and that to get dangerous warming requires feedbacks from water vapour, clouds and other phenomena for which the evidence is far more doubtful.

If this assumption is only slightly wrong, it completely changes the expected response of increasing CO2 because water vapour is such a dominant greenhouse gas.

As reported by the IPCC in the Physical Science Basis, «In the humid equatorial regions, where there is so much water vapour in the air that the greenhouse effect is very large, adding a small additional amount of CO2 or water vapour has only a small direct impact on downward infrared radiation.

Ascending air cools The only heating is from solar infrared (absorbed by water vapour) and condensation (of water vapour); the heating in the altitude explains the Ch.

It is not «conduction» but exchange of radiation; if you keep your hands parallel at a distance of some cm the right hand does not (radiatively) «warm» the left hand or vice versa albeit at 33 °C skin temperature they exchange some hundreds of W / m ² (about 500 W / m ²) The solar radiation reaching the surface (for 71 % of the surface, the oceans) is lost by evaporation (or evapotranspiration of the vegetation), plus some convection (20 W / ²) and some radiation reaching the cosmos directly through the window 8µm to 12 µm (about 20 W / m ² «global» average); only the radiative heat flow surface to air (absorbed by the air) is negligible (plus or minus); the non radiative (latent heat, sensible heat) are transferred for surface to air and compensate for a part of the heat lost to the cosmos by the upper layer of the water vapour displayed on figure 6 - C.

QUOTE: He says water vapor content has been roughly constant for 50 years, but that is contradicted here: http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.full.pdf ANSWER: the quoted paper by Santer considers only the TOTAL water vapour content.

Tropical rainforests cover only about 6 % of the earth's land surface, but it is believed they have a significant effect on the transfer of water vapour to the atmosphere.