Sentences with phrase «same as the water vapor»

Since liquid water weighs the same as the water vapor it condensed from, there is no change in the weight of the column of atmosphere above our parcel of air, whence the pressure remains unchanged, although the parcel may change (very slowly) in volume.

Not exact matches

But by the same token, as global temperatures rise, the atmosphere can hold more water vapor.

Atmospheric rivers can carry the same amount of water vapor as 15 to 20 Mississippi Rivers — and deliver punishing winds, too.

Meanwhile, a different physical process in the comet's smooth mid-section was causing water ice to vaporize and flow through porous material to escape as a cloud of water vapor at the same time (NASA news release, and page on «fluffy snowballs;» David Shiga, New Scientist, November 18, 2010; and Astronomy Picture of the Day).

• Clouds form because cold air doesn't hold as much water as warm air • Clouds are made of water vapor • Clouds always predict rain • Rain falls when clouds become too heavy and the rain drips out or bursts the cloud open • Rain comes from holes in clouds, sweating clouds, funnels in clouds, melted clouds • Lightning never strikes the same place twice • Thunder occurs when two clouds collide • Clouds block wind and slow it down • Clouds come from somewhere above the sky • Clouds are made of smoke How does the 5E model facilitate learning?

«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.

Is the interaction modulated by water vapor, by the density aloft of the atmosphere (which is not exactly the same thing as surface pressure), etc.?

A small correction: Lindzen's «Iris» speculation is not the same as his earlier proposal that water vapor should have a zero or negative feedback.

(In the global time average, diffusion of latent heat is in the same direction as sensible heat transport, but latent heat will tend to flow from higher to lower concentrations of water vapor (or equilibrium vapor pressure at the liquid / solid water surface), and regionally / locally, conditions can arise where the latent heat and sensible heat fluxes are oppositely directed.)

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.

Obviously, sensitivity to radiative forcing of greenhouse gases (not water vapor, but CO2 and CH4) can't include feedbacks of those same gases — those are defined as forcings in such a sensitivity.

The principal reason is that water vapor has a short cycle in the atmosphere (a few days) before it is incorporated into weather events and falls to Earth, so it can not build up in the atmosphere in the same way as carbon dioxide does.

Kapsch et al., 4.1 (± 0.5), Statistical (same as June) For the prediction of the September sea - ice extent we use a simple linear regression model that is only based on the atmospheric water vapor in spring (April / May).

Water evaporates off the surface of the ocean and the vapor is at the same temperature as the wWater evaporates off the surface of the ocean and the vapor is at the same temperature as the waterwater.

Furthermore, water vapor absorbs at all the same wavelengths as CO2 except one.

You are on the same order of magnitude as CO2 without water vapor feedback.

A real insulator such as Styrofoam, works on the long wave radiation, the same as CO2 and water vapor.

I think of the earth as cooling the same all the time (absent the effect we're discussing and water vapor effects.)

The same value can be expressed also as ratio of water in droplets to that as vapor.

Water vapor feedback is purely temperature based and would be the same for natural, i.e. not easily attributed to man, as it would for anthropogenic.

This is effectively the same «greenhouse» as on Earth (Mars has no water vapor).

Upper atmosphere water vapor is important because as reported in a previous guest post https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/06/nasa-satellite-data-shows-a-decline-in-water-vapor/ «A water vapor change in the 300 - 200 mb layer has 81 times the effect on OLR than the same change in the 1013 - 850 mb near - surface layer.»

The principal reason is that water vapor has a short cycle in the atmosphere (10 days on average) before it is incorporated into weather events and falls to Earth, so it can not build up in the atmosphere in the same way as carbon dioxide does.

If water vapor has an amplifying effect as climate modelers claim, why is the daily mean temperature in a dry, desert area warmer (in spite of nighttime cooling) than a humid tropical area at the same latitude?

Again following the pesky basic physics involved the water vapor will be at the same temperature as the liquid water which was evaporated.

In addition, since the water vapor mixing ratio generally decreases with altitude, if the surface temperature was the same as the cloud temperature, then there would be fog.

Tyndall's lab gear lacked the sensitivity to identify CO2 as a greenhouse gas becuase it's so pathetically weak compared to water vapor but the principle remains the same.

Radiative feedbacks act the same way as radiative forcings, except that they themselves are dependent on temperature changes (the distinction depends on timescale and context; also, in some contexts the feedbacks» effects are described as radiative forcings — for example, the radiative forcing of the increase in water vapor that would occur for a given temperature increase).

Of course, warming from solar forcing (or reduced aerosols) would tend to increase the total convection even if the LW water vapor feedback is saturated at the surface (not the same as saturated at the tropopause or TOA).

Because of the different intramolecular forces between water molecules as vapor in air, water, and ice, the wavelengths of emission and absorption are shifted; some of the radiation from the water / ice droplets at the top of a cloud can escape to space because the atmosphere above it is transparent at its wavelengths, whereas the same radiation from droplets at the bottom of a cloud will be absorbed and re-emitted in random directions from the droplets above, including back down to the originating droplets.

We found that Colorado River flows decline by about 4 percent per degree F increase, which is roughly the same amount as the increased atmospheric water vapor holding capacity discussed above.

No feedback CO2 sensitivity is about 1.21 + / - 0.25, water vapor feedback is about 2x (nfbCo2) + / -1, and water vapor is dependent on surface temperatures not CO2 only, so any «natural» or «unforced» variability should have the same amplification as CO2e «forcing».