Sentences with phrase «other than water vapor»

Still more important was another study, co-authored with the eminent spectroscopist G.B.B.M. Sutherland, advancing quantitative knowledge of atmospheric gases other than water vapor.

Not exact matches

It also would be far easier to get a water sample from Enceladus, which has plumes of water vapor, ice and particles shooting more than 300 miles off its surface, than from other moons, such as Jupiter's Europa, where a massive ocean is believed to be buried beneath a thick icy crust.

With JWST, a few hours of integration time will be enough to detect Earth - like levels of water vapor, molecular oxygen, carbon dioxide and other generic biosignatures on planets orbiting a white dwarf; beyond that, observing the same planet for up to 1.7 days will be enough to detect the two CFCs in concentrations of 750 parts per trillion, or 10 times greater than on Earth.

Usually contains platinum, palladium and / or rhodium, which acts as a catalyst in a chemical reaction that converts unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen into water vapor, carbon dioxide and other gases that are less toxic than untreated exhaust fumes

Apparently, the water vapor is self regulating, more than offsetting all the other greenhouse gases combined.

The other thing about water vapor of course is that more energy is required to vaporize water than to raise its temperature somewhat.

CO2, in contrast, strongly absorbs wavelengths > 13 times longer than O2 does, as well as other bands around 2 - 3 and 4 - 5 microns, while water vapor absorbs strongly from around 5 - 8 microns.

I have read more than one paper on the topic, and my assessment is that cloud cover and other water vapor effects are widely recognized as among the biggest unknowns going forward.

In the case of a failure of the surface to warm due to a La Nina - like process, the OLR reduction (and hence the energy gain) will be lessened by the reduction in water vapor and other feedback moieties, but it will still be greater than occurs with a warmed surface.

Water vapor at the equator goes far higher into the stratosphere than at any other place on earth.

Water vapor has a lower molecular weight than the other components.

For instance, perfect initialization of the state of the Atlantic ocean, a correct simulation of the next 10 years of the solar cycle, a proper inclusion of stratospheric water vapor, etc may be important for whether the next 5 years are warmer than the previous 5, but it has nothing to do with climate sensitivity, water vapor feedback, or other issues.

CO2 is absorbing other wavelength than water vapor, so the effects do add up I imagine.

If you consider that the Earth is also about 2 / 3rds cloud covered and any CO2 or other GHG absorption would not matter because the clouds would be absorbing the energy anyway, over 90 % of the GHE is from water vapor and / or clouds and less than 10 % is from CO2 and other GHGs.

Let the water vapor or some other greenhouse gas be reduced, and the warm earth will be losing more heat than it gains from sunlight.

Water vapor is more difficult to measure than the other greenhouse gases and scientists are uncertain as to the exact part that it plays in global warming.

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.

For this reason the water vapor pressure declines with height much faster than the other (non-condensable) atmospheric gases.

Carbon dioxide is the biggest long - term human - generated contributor to global warming — other molecules like methane and water vapor are also greenhouse gases, but their levels are more or less constant; the amount of anthropogenic CO2 has been going up steadily for decades and is higher now than in any point in human history.

Shifts in clouds, water vapor, and the great currents in the ocean and air, however, cause complex responses in which some regions warm more than the average while others warm less than average, or even cool.

The view is based on results of simplified models of the troposphere that advect water passively and contain virtually no microphysics other than the requirement that water vapor is immediately removed so as to prevent the relative humidity (RH) from exceeding 100 %.

That principle does is exactly the same for any greenhouse gas: water vapor should have no other forcing impact than CO2.

-- It seems perfectly reasonable to me that if we imagine the surface never emits that energy in the first place, - energy that is stored in the surface and just below, i.e. oceans, lakes, rivers, ground, and air, — just to mention a few, then any surface temperature change would be completely reliant on variations in Solar irradiation and advection mainly by Water Vapor (WV) but also by other GHGs that have the ability to contain more heat than the rest of the atmospheric gases.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me that if we imagine the surface never emits that energy in the first place, - energy that is stored in the surface and just below, i.e. oceans, lakes, rivers, ground, and air, — just to mention a few, then any surface temperature change would be completely reliant on variations in Solar irradiation and advection mainly by Water Vapor (WV) but also by other GHGs that have the ability to contain more heat than the rest of the atmospheric gases.

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.

I know about the report to LBJ from the Presidential Science Advisory Committee in 1965 (and its Appendix Y4) and the 1958 booklet from the NAS that talked about CO2 and water vapor being greenhouse gases, but it's never been clear to me exactly when it would be reasonable to say that the evidence was not just strong enough but also widely accepted enough by scientists that the rest of us should have taken notice and done something other than buy more cars and bigger houses.

Water vapor (as a gas) does not have much of continuum spectrum other than tails of peaks broadening of various kinds.