Sentences with phrase «out of water vapour»

The role of convection and the subsequent condensation out of water vapour into clouds and then rainfall is currently incapable of quantification as a means of slowing or offsetting any atmospheric greenhouse effect but it certainly does those things.

Instead of heating a fossil fuel, his technique, called solid state ammonia synthesis, works by drawing hydrogen out of water vapour through a charged membrane, and then reacting it with nitrogen.

Not exact matches

The discovery adds to excitement set off in December, when scientists reported plumes of water vapour spurting out at Europa's south pole (L. Roth et al..

On a previous, much closer pass by Enceladus, Cassini detected that the south pole of Enceladus is spewing out a vast plume of water vapour that stretches hundreds of kilometres from the moon's surface and keeps Saturn's E-ring topped up — but it has now captured the first images of this activity.

Researchers have been fascinated with Enceladus since July 2005, when Cassini revealed plumes of ice particles and water vapour shooting out from the moon's south pole.

To find out precisely when, Vitaly Kresin of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles blasted water vapour through a pinhole and added hydrochloric acid to the spray.

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.

It is closed for practical purposes, but some of the water vapour in the atmosphere precipitates out.

There, plumes of ice and water vapour were discovered, jetting out from cracks in its surface.

If the enhanced atmospheric warming from a CO2 - induced temperature rise of 1 oC results in enhanced water vapour that gives an additional warming of say x oC, the overall warming (doubled CO2 + water vapour feedback; leaving out other feedbacks for now) will be something like 1.1 * (1 + x + x2 + x3...) or 1.1 / (1 - x)-RSB-.

Have you noticed that water vapour is pouring out of the cracks in the Arctic sea ice in stupendous quantities?

If your water vapour is out of equilibrium, you will have a forcing that is the systemic response to the water vapour being out of equilibrium.

Perhaps this isn't an issue because it would take an impossibly large amount of CO2 [and water vapour] for the emission altitude to reach the tropopause, but it's an aspect of this sort of explanation that I haven't been able to work out in my head.

When it reaches a level high enough to cool it to it's «dew point» the water vapour condenses out in the form of clouds and rainfall and the Latent Heat of Condensation is released into the upper part of the atmosphere to accelerate the escape of radiant energy to space.

As you can see, air near the equator is lifted high into the troposphere, effectively drying it by precipitating out nearly all of the water vapour.

The dry band at the northern edge of the NH Hadley zone results means nearly all water vapour from the tropics has been precipitated out.

Of that which travels north, much of it will be precipitated out, with some of that being replaced by newly evaporated water vapour from mid-latitude oceanOf that which travels north, much of it will be precipitated out, with some of that being replaced by newly evaporated water vapour from mid-latitude oceanof it will be precipitated out, with some of that being replaced by newly evaporated water vapour from mid-latitude oceanof that being replaced by newly evaporated water vapour from mid-latitude oceans.

What I can't work out is why hasn't the Clean Air Act (that classes CO2 as a pollutant but not of course water vapour) got rid of the «bad air» since the 1970s?

Water has a residence time of 8 - 10 days in the atmosphere, so whenever it rains carbon dioxide is being washed out of the atmosphere, because, water (vapour, liquid, solid) in the atmosphere attracts all carbon dioxide in the vicinity — together forming carbonic acid which gives all natural unpolluted rain its pH of around 5.6Water has a residence time of 8 - 10 days in the atmosphere, so whenever it rains carbon dioxide is being washed out of the atmosphere, because, water (vapour, liquid, solid) in the atmosphere attracts all carbon dioxide in the vicinity — together forming carbonic acid which gives all natural unpolluted rain its pH of around 5.6water (vapour, liquid, solid) in the atmosphere attracts all carbon dioxide in the vicinity — together forming carbonic acid which gives all natural unpolluted rain its pH of around 5.6 - 8.

It is my understanding that he derived these results from his knowledge of the infrared properties of carbon dioxide and water vapour (and not by curve fitting to observations, though he had also carried out his own estimates of changes in global temperature.)

The difference is in the residence time, mainly due to the lack of water vapour: the stratospheric injection of SO2 by the Pinatubo did last 2 - 3 years before the reflecting drops were large enough to fall out of the atmosphere.

A lot of the post 1995 surface warming is AMO driven, which includes continental interior regions drying out, and probably the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere declines in water vapour since 1995.

Laura Yes, the entropy conditions spelled out by the Second Law of Thermodynamics establish the fact that water vapour reduces the warming due to gravity from about 50 degrees back to about 33 degrees.

Meanwhile it does not answer the main point of my last post, which is that that most climatologists view this aspect of the earth's environment as «weather» (or statistical noise) and that if you measure temperatures for long enough periods of time (30 + years) the effect of clouds, rain and water vapour average out and a temperature trend signal will become apparent.

Why do you believe that water vapour can make clouds under the right atmospheric conditions, yet water vapour that comes out of a jet exhaust shouldn't do the same?

The paper also makes a bit of a digression in pointing out the erroneous and irresponsible assertion by Dick Lindzen that «about 98 % of the natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapour and stratiform clouds withCO2 contributing less than 2 %».

Taking out the greenhouse gases, which in all logic seeing the effect just a small percentage of water vapour has on temps need not include any other, then we have Jelbring's experiment, a very good approximation, just by stepping into a desert.

Carbon dioxide is fully part of that water cycle where water heated by the thermal infrared direct from the Sun evaporates and anyway lighter than air rises in air and takes away heat from the surface — all pure clean rain is carbonic acid, the water vapour spontaneously joining with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere releases its heat in the colder heights and condenses out back into liquid water and ice, cooling the Earth from the 67 °C it would be without the water cycle.

Richard111 Mar 3rd 2011 My question then is did the water vapour freezing out of the air provide a positive feedback to the temperature drop?

My question then is did the water vapour freezing out of the air provide a positive feedback to the temperature drop?

The reality however is that the release of sensible energy can not give enough fresh buoyancy as to overcome the loss of buoyancy when the water vapour condensed out.

It can and does suck energy out of one part of a system (the ocean skin layer) and place it in another part of the system (water vapour in the air).

In the 1850s the Irish physicist John Tyndall figured out a way to actually test and measure the capacity of various gases, including nitrogen, oxygen, water vapour, carbon dioxide, and ozone, to absorb and transmit radiant energy.

So if at this point all GCMs hypothetically turned out to share similar flaws - e.g. regarding the unknowns for which there's essentially no data - the responses at the LGM of water vapour, clouds, aerosols etc - wouldn't that undermine validated model approaches to estimating climate sensitivity from even the LGM?

Oh and, while the water vapour content of air may be dependent on temperature, cloud cover certainly isn't No, not entirely, but increased water vapour is the main contributors to cloud formation, and, as you almost point out, increased temperature increases water vapour in the atmosphere.

One question, how would a paper which accepted the basic chain of human emissions - > more CO ₂ in the atmosphere - > warming - > positive feedbacks (water vapour, etc) but then proposed that there were large negative feedbacks which cancel out most of the effect be counted?

I recall one post on how Earth came out of a snowball, which explanation may be a possibility but then again there may be other explanations (eg., oceanic volcanos splitting in the ice and thereby releasing some water vapour, soot deposits changing albedo, even meteor collision — who knows given the lack of evidence).

Because of its high concentration, water vapour absorbs to extinction first generation photons (hv) in the main waveband in 120m of traverse (as many contributors have pointed out) and CO2 absorbs very little, due to its small concentration.

There is a plethora of information screaming that man is causing catastrophic climate damage due to GHG emissions with out any comparison to TOTAL GHGs including water vapour.

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.

The subtropical regions (e.g. the Mediterranean, North Africa and Central America) experience a drying owing to increased transport of water vapour out of this area and an expansion of the subtropical high - pressure regions towards the poles [4].

Just getting through the effective black body discussion knocks half their argument out of existance, explains why water vapour doesn't increase across the board as predicted, that most of the warming happens at nigh time lows, in winter, in arctic zones, and so pretty much doesn't matter.

Now there were two papers put out by a Swiss team (you should know who) on consideration of European warming where they argued that natural effects could be ruled out; the first paper argued for strong water vapour feedback causing the 1980 to 1998 temperature rise and the later paper, using exactly the same data, argued for a reduction in aerosols causing a recovery in temperatures over the same period.