Sentences with phrase «still more water vapor»

This additional rise in temperature will result in still more water vapor which will raise the temperature still more, but by a smaller amount.

Moreover, the warming makes the atmosphere damper (providing still more water vapor) and may cause the stratosphere to heat up, speeding the chemical reactions that destroy ozone.

Not exact matches

Increase the global temperature a bit, however, and there could be a bad feedback effect, with water evaporating faster, freeing water vapor (a potent greenhouse gas), which traps more heat, which drives carbon dioxide from the rocks, which drives temperatures still higher.

The criticisms have ranged from the absurd (water vapor is still not 95 % of the greenhouse effect, particularly in a glacial world where one expects a drier atmosphere) to somewhat more technical sounding (like criticizing the way they did the weighting of their proxy records, though the results aren't too sensitive to their averaging method).

However, for any sufficiently thin slice of the stratosphere, the water vapor will be almost transparent everywhere, while the CO2 still has a significant effect near 15 microns; thus, the fluxes among thin layers are mediated more by CO2 and occur near 15 microns.

Re 9 wili — I know of a paper suggesting, as I recall, that enhanced «backradiation» (downward radiation reaching the surface emitted by the air / clouds) contributed more to Arctic amplification specifically in the cold part of the year (just to be clear, backradiation should generally increase with any warming (aside from greenhouse feedbacks) and more so with a warming due to an increase in the greenhouse effect (including feedbacks like water vapor and, if positive, clouds, though regional changes in water vapor and clouds can go against the global trend); otherwise it was always my understanding that the albedo feedback was key (while sea ice decreases so far have been more a summer phenomenon (when it would be warmer to begin with), the heat capacity of the sea prevents much temperature response, but there is a greater build up of heat from the albedo feedback, and this is released in the cold part of the year when ice forms later or would have formed or would have been thicker; the seasonal effect of reduced winter snow cover decreasing at those latitudes which still recieve sunlight in the winter would not be so delayed).

I think it's more a matter of the physics of the situation, and the sky is just too big a lab and the experiment still ongoing to get exact results and there are these pesky «internal» feedbacks — such as water vapor and clouds.

Dan Pangborn: The still - rising water vapor (WV) is rising at 1.5 % per decade which is more than twice as fast as expected from water temperature increase alone (feedback, engineering definition).

My guess would be that the heat capacity of the air would dominate (surely the volume of air in a forest is more than 1000x the volume of the leaves), in which case the cooling effect would still be an order of magnitude greater than the buoyancy of water vapor effect (but no more than 13X).

(In the real - world, of course, if warming leads to more water vapor and if that leads to more daytime clouds, possibly more precipitation and thunderstorms and so on, the additional warming will be reduced, but, there will still be some warming with increased GHGs).

Still more persuasive to scientists of the day was the fact that water vapor, which is far more abundant in the air than carbon dioxide, also intercepts infrared radiation.

(And I still can't see how a newly open and increasingly warm summer Arctic Ocean won't produce more water vapor, vapor whose GHG properties will further accelerate Arctic warming — or is that completely offset by increased cloud formation??)

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.

It follows from this that the logarithmic dependence of the outgoing longwave radiation (which by the way, has to do the the exponential decay of the absorption coefficient away from the center of the absorption line) can still lead to significant temperature changes, particularly since water vapor enhances the value of λ and smoothes out a plot of the outgoing radiation vs. temperature (making it more linear than T ** 4).

I know that water vapor is more concentrated in the lower parts of the Atmosphere and carbon dioxide is more evenly distributed, but that still does not make it clear why what you say will happen.