Comparison between the Galileo probe and this study suggests that these fast - moving clouds within hot spots are deeper than 3 bars and are therefore
probably water clouds.
Not exact matches
Through a thick
cloud of cigarette smoke and after drinking Manhattans, Martinis and straight scotch like
water, Don would
probably deliver a hypnotizing speech stating that the fundamental part of any marketing strategy is to communicate to potential consumers what you do, what you can offer, and why you are better than all the rest.
The mountains are made primarily of rock - hard
water ice; the dunes are most likely ice granules coated with hydrocarbons; volcanoes
probably belch methane and ammonia, and methane fills the lakes, evaporates to form
clouds, and rains back down to carve out river channels.
The narrative is portrayed by some of nature's basics elements: sky, fog,
clouds,
water and terra firma; and further reduced to white through near black by the use of charcoal:
probably human's first art medium.
Cloud variations are obviously an important element on a global scale, but the effects of Arctic ice melting are important locally and also a non-trivial fraction of global albedo feedbacks, which are a contributor to total feedback that is smaller than those from water vapor and probably from cloud feedbacks, but not insignifi
Cloud variations are obviously an important element on a global scale, but the effects of Arctic ice melting are important locally and also a non-trivial fraction of global albedo feedbacks, which are a contributor to total feedback that is smaller than those from
water vapor and
probably from
cloud feedbacks, but not insignifi
cloud feedbacks, but not insignificant.
Probably, contrary to what you do, Koonin takes into account the existence of feedback mechanisms, like
water,
clouds, etc... It is time to end this crazy thinking of a one - parameter - is - sufficient, CO2 concentration, as the only that matters.
Probably water - vapor temporarily increases, aerosol methane consuming bacteria bloom and seed
clouds and precipitation, and it would all rain out pretty quickly, fertilizing the surface.
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.
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.
In the far northern latitudes there's not much surface area so the error
probably doesn't mean much but then again when
water vapor is frozen out of the atmosphere the so - called IR window gets a lot bigger and fewer
clouds closing it back up means the error might be significant because radiative cooling efficiency is drastically increased in very cold clear sky.
However, much less than 30 % of that reaches the surface and is available for surface heating because of scattering and absorption by the atmosphere and scattering by
clouds; it is
probably even lower for the oceans because of equatorial cloudiness and plankton using light for photosynthesis instead of it resulting in heating of the
water.