Sentences with phrase «remove all water vapor»

as a consequence of a physical change (condensation and precipitation remove water vapor from the atmosphere).

That was holding the distribution of solar heating steady, which would require removing water vapor, cloud, and ozone LW optical thickness but still leaving behind their SW (solar) optical properties.

It appears that the condensation has a tendency to remove the water vapor from the air as it condenses on Condensation Nuclei, the result is the air above the condensation layer is normally very dry.

The reason that the greenhouse effect from water vapor does not spiral temeratures out of control is because there is another phenomenon that removes water vapor from the atmosphere.

Note that in the very detailed description of how to construct the experimental appartus Tyndall employed a chemical - filled filter cannister to remove water vapor from the gas to be tested.

Reality dictates vastly smaller changes - we will never remove all water vapor or CO2!

If we remove water vapor from the atmosphere, the world will quickly become much cooler.

Geoengineering Is Easier Said Than Done] «You remove the water vapor, you remove the humidity and you prevent the normal cirrus cloud formation,» Lohmann said.

Not exact matches

Here are some other top successes: destroying stockpiles of chemical weapons globally as well as local stores of DDT in Tanzania; new cooking stoves to eliminate indoor air pollution in Ghana; separating copper mine tailings from the local water supply in Chile; alternative fuels to reduce air pollution in New Delhi as well as treating arsenic in well water in West Bengal; removing lead - contaminated soil in the Dominican Republic and Russia; reducing mercury vapors from artisanal gold mining in Indonesia; and new sewage systems to clean up contaminated Suzhou Creek in Shanghai.

However, isn't it true that most energy is removed from the earth's surface by convection and evaporation, not radiation (because the lower troposphere contains so much GHGs, especially water vapor)?

Salt lamps attract this water vapor and those items it carries to its surface and removes them from the air.

«The product is first frozen, then the sublimation process converts the ice into water vapor, removing most of the moisture from the product while keeping the nutritional value virtually the same,» Milchman says, adding that this is a fairly recent innovation in food preservation, one that offers several benefits over other methods, such as using artificial preservatives or dehydration, which can affect the appearance and composition of products.

Removing CO2 will have some forcing, and their will be a water vapor feedback.

If water vapor condenses on aerosol particles and then precipitates you can remove that way too.

If a doubling of CO2 resulted in a temperature increase of approximately 1 K before any non-Planck feedbacks (before water vapor, etc.), then assuming the same climate sensitivity to the total GHE, removing the whole GHE would result in about a (setting the TOA / tropopause distinction aside, as it is relatively small relative to the 155 W / m2 value) 155/3.7 * 1 K ~ = 42 K. Which is a bit more than 32 or 33 K, though I'm not surprised by the difference.

Exactly the same sequence of events, MUST happen, before water vapor can condense into liquid water; but this time the latent heat that must FIRST be removed, is about 590 calories per gram.

And trying to argue that water vapor is innocuous because it is removed from the atmosphere much faster than CO2, doesn't wash, because if that were true on a climate time scale, then earth would be a frozen ball.

The fact that we sit at +15 C and not -15 C is definitive proof that water vapor is not removed from the atmosphere fast enough to not have an appreciable global warming / climate change effect.

A substantial reduction in water vapor (shown below, from Lacis et al (2010) as well as increase in the surface albedo are important feedbacks here, showing that removing the non-condensing greenhouse gases (mostly CO2) in the atmosphere can collapse nearly the entire terrestrial greenhouse effect.

These crystals are then removed and dewatered while the water vapor from evaporation is condensed and returned to the process and reused throughout production.

Solar heating and appropriately vapor permeable inner layers assist in removing this water by evaporation and diffusion to the interior.

My confusion wasn't helped by your reference to Arrhenius, who removed the effect of water vapor to estimate CO2 forcing.

AGW climate scientists seem to ignore that while the earth's surface may be warming, our atmosphere above 10,000 ft. above MSL is a refrigerator that can take water vapor scavenged from the vast oceans on earth (which are also a formidable heat sink), lift it to cold zones in the atmosphere by convective physical processes, chill it (removing vast amounts of heat from the atmosphere) or freeze it, (removing even more vast amounts of heat from the atmosphere) drop it on land and oceans as rain, sleet or snow, moisturizing and cooling the soil, cooling the oceans and building polar ice caps and even more importantly, increasing the albedo of the earth, with a critical negative feedback determining how much of the sun's energy is reflected back into space, changing the moment of inertia of the earth by removing water mass from equatorial latitudes and transporting this water vapor mass to the poles, reducing the earth's spin axis moment of inertia and speeding up its spin rate, etc..

Through horizontal averaging, variations of water vapor and temperature that are related to the horizontal transport by the large - scale circulation will be largely removed, and thus the water vapor and temperature relationship obtained is more indicative of the property of moist convection, and is thus more relevant to the issue of water vapor feedback in global warming.

The Kyoto Protocol is a treaty to regulate «Greenhouse Gases» only: - Carbon dioxide (CO2)- Methane (CH4)- Nitrous oxide (N2O)(Laughing Gas, Nitrous, NOS)- Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)- Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)- Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) Car Exhaust consists of: Harmless: - Carbon dioxide (CO2)- Nitrogen (N2)- Water vapor (H2O) Some Pollutants: - Carbon monoxide (CO) * - Hydrocarbons or Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) * - Nitric oxide (NO) * - Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) * - Particulate matter (PM - 10) * - Sulfur dioxide (SO2) * * Your car's catalytic converter removes about 95 % of these pollutants.

When the convective processes of the atmosphere remove enough water vapor from the oceans to drop sea levels and build polar ice caps, as has happened many times before, the top 35 meters of the oceans where climate models assume the only thermal mixing occurs, must heat up cold ocean water that comes from depths below the original 35 meter depth, removing vast more amounts of heat from the earth's surface and atmosphere.

If the water vapor was replaced by CO2 and the latent heat transfer was removed from the balance, then I agree that the Earth would be cooler by at least 10 C.

His model runs had atmospheric water vapor dropping by 90 % after CO2 was removed, but cloud cover increasing by 50 %, resulting in a world that would be a perpetually cloud - covered desert.

Later as the ocean warms to remove the leftover imbalance, more water vapor is added (which Lewis and Curry don't include in their calculation of ECS thus lowballing it).

capt.d., using your numbers, you appear to have removed 35 g / m3 of water vapor (an extreme case for sure).

My first reaction is that the condensation of water vapor — removes a little gas from the air — releases relative to the that volume of gas a huge amount of latent heat

Once in the stratosphere the SO2 did slowly mix with water vapor to form H2SO4 (sulfuric acid), but in the stratosphere there is no precipitation to allow for it to be quickly removed.

A detailed and very accurate calculation of the atmospheric flows of moist air must take into account also the effects related to the volume taken by water vapor both when water vapor is added by evaporation and when it's removed in condensation, but these effects are very minor corrections and not a source of anything significant.

JimD, «capt.d., using your numbers, you appear to have removed 35 g / m3 of water vapor (an extreme case for sure).

«Corrected» temperature history with general influence of stratospheric water vapor (according to Solomon et al., 2010) removed (green line).

If you remove the air saturated with water vapor from above the surface of the water and continuously replace it with air at the same temperature but lower humidity, the water will cool.

«Corrected» temperature history with general influence of stratospheric water vapor (according to Solomon et al., 2010) removed and the influence of black carbon (according to Ramanathan and Carmichael, 2009) removed (blue line).

How about if you just remove all the water vapor?

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 %.

Here are MODTRAN calculated spectra with 375 ppmv CO2 but most of the water vapor removed, with both CO2 and water vapor and with water vapor but without CO2.

Monthly and weekly mean CO2 concentrations are determined from daily averages for the number of CO2 molecules in every one million molecules of dried air (water vapor removed).