Sentences with phrase «than water vapor in»

Evaporating water has a different effect than water vapor in the atmosphere (which can also move around).

That would suggest CO2 is far from «weak», however, I would suggest that it is no more important than water vapor in the role it plays in past ice cycles (look at the numbers!).

Not exact matches

In a clean cloud, the same spike of high water vapor could last a long time with only a few fortunate droplets in the vapor's vicinity to munch plentifully and grow much bigger than their neighborIn a clean cloud, the same spike of high water vapor could last a long time with only a few fortunate droplets in the vapor's vicinity to munch plentifully and grow much bigger than their neighborin the vapor's vicinity to munch plentifully and grow much bigger than their neighbors.

«There likely will be little traces of the hydrocarbons in the water that is condensed to form rain, but it will likely make up less than normal pollution does,» says research meteorologist Frank Marks, director of hurricane research at NOAA's Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory in Miami, Fla. «The amount of water vapor evaporated that might contain hydrocarbons related to the spill will be very, very small.»

While the ECS factors in such «fast» feedback effects as changes in water vapor — water itself is a greenhouse gas, and saturates warm air better than cold — they argued that slow feedbacks, such as changes in ice sheets and vegetation, should also be considered.

What goes up, must come down and, more and more, that water vapor is coming down in extreme precipitation events — defined in North America as more than 100 millimeters of rainfall (or the equivalent in snow or freezing rain) falling in 24 hours — according to new research also published February 17 in Nature that examines such events in the Northern Hemisphere.

That's because, as determined in subsequent experiments, the addition of water vapor served to transform gold nanoparticles into channel diggers, rather than the expected wire makers.

To heat that boiler, the damp, crumbly brown coal known as lignite — which is even more polluting than the harder black anthracite variety — burns in the presence of pure oxygen, a process known as oxyfuel, releasing as waste both water vapor and that more notorious greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO2).

And more water vapor worldwide is related to the atmosphere being warmer — we have about 7 percent more water vapor in the atmosphere now than we did in the 1950s, which is directly linked to the increase in heavy precipitation events.

I guess I am surprised that with better understanding of the importance of water vapor feedback, sulfate aerosols, black carbon aerosols, more rapid than expected declines in sea ice and attendant decreases in albedo, effects of the deposition of soot and dust on snow and ice decreasing albedo, and a recognition of the importance of GHGs that were probably not considered 30 years ago, that the sensitivity has changed so little over time.

With JWST, a few hours of integration time will be enough to detect Earth - like levels of water vapor, molecular oxygen, carbon dioxide and other generic biosignatures on planets orbiting a white dwarf; beyond that, observing the same planet for up to 1.7 days will be enough to detect the two CFCs in concentrations of 750 parts per trillion, or 10 times greater than on Earth.

The eruptions, they found, were intense enough that gases would have been spewed out of the surface faster than they could escape into space, forming a temporary atmosphere relatively rich in water vapor, that ensconced the Moon for about 70 million years.

The water vapor just makes the Planck response less effective, so you need a higher temperature change for the same perturbation than in a no feedback case.

Usually contains platinum, palladium and / or rhodium, which acts as a catalyst in a chemical reaction that converts unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen into water vapor, carbon dioxide and other gases that are less toxic than untreated exhaust fumes

So I would expect stronger water vapor effects in summer than winter, and stronger in daytime than at night, though clearly not by much.

[1] CO2 absorbs IR, is the main GHG, human emissions are increasing its concentration in the atmosphere, raising temperatures globally; the second GHG, water vapor, exists in equilibrium with water / ice, would precipitate out if not for the CO2, so acts as a feedback; since the oceans cover so much of the planet, water is a large positive feedback; melting snow and ice as the atmosphere warms decreases albedo, another positive feedback, biased toward the poles, which gives larger polar warming than the global average; decreasing the temperature gradient from the equator to the poles is reducing the driving forces for the jetstream; the jetstream's meanders are increasing in amplitude and slowing, just like the lower Missippi River where its driving gradient decreases; the larger slower meanders increase the amplitude and duration of blocking highs, increasing drought and extreme temperatures — and 30,000 + Europeans and 5,000 plus Russians die, and the US corn crop, Russian wheat crop, and Aussie wildland fire protection fails — or extreme rainfall floods the US, France, Pakistan, Thailand (driving up prices for disk drives — hows that for unexpected adverse impacts from AGW?)

So the rising trend in the lower curve is going to represent much more water vapor added to the atmosphere than the declining top curve represents as leaving it.

Specific humidity content of the air has increased, as expected as part of the conventional water vapor feedback, but in fact relative humidity also increased between 1950 and 1990, indicating a stronger water vapor feedback than given by the conventional assumption of fixed relative humidity.

I guess I am surprised that with better understanding of the importance of water vapor feedback, sulfate aerosols, black carbon aerosols, more rapid than expected declines in sea ice and attendant decreases in albedo, effects of the deposition of soot and dust on snow and ice decreasing albedo, and a recognition of the importance of GHGs that were probably not considered 30 years ago, that the sensitivity has changed so little over time.

There is 4 % more water vapor in the atmosphere than 50 years ago.

There's also a number of interesting applications in the evolution of Earth's atmosphere that branch off from the runaway greenhouse physics, for example how fast a magma - ocean covered early Earth ends up cooling — you can't lose heat to space of more than about 310 W / m2 or so for an Earth - sized planet with an efficient water vapor feedback, so it takes much longer for an atmosphere - cloaked Earth to cool off from impact events than a body just radiating at sigmaT ^ 4.

A larger mystery than either missing carbon or the influence of clouds / water vapor on climate change models is why the physical and life science community and the (in theory) science - based climate change advocates have not taken the time to adequately consult the evidence or experts (albeit exceptions certainly do exist) on communication about environmental issues, risk, or environmental and health literacy.

CO2, in contrast, strongly absorbs wavelengths > 13 times longer than O2 does, as well as other bands around 2 - 3 and 4 - 5 microns, while water vapor absorbs strongly from around 5 - 8 microns.

True, CO2 levels are higher than in most of our past but water vapor, not CO2, is the major «greenhouse» driver.

In the case of a failure of the surface to warm due to a La Nina - like process, the OLR reduction (and hence the energy gain) will be lessened by the reduction in water vapor and other feedback moieties, but it will still be greater than occurs with a warmed surfacIn the case of a failure of the surface to warm due to a La Nina - like process, the OLR reduction (and hence the energy gain) will be lessened by the reduction in water vapor and other feedback moieties, but it will still be greater than occurs with a warmed surfacin water vapor and other feedback moieties, but it will still be greater than occurs with a warmed surface.

In a pressure - cooker, the water vapor stays inside, and thus allows liquid water to get arbitrarily hot without boiling — until the whole thing explodes, which is why there is that little thinghy on top which in fact limits the pressure and instead allows the water to boil at a higher temperature than normaIn a pressure - cooker, the water vapor stays inside, and thus allows liquid water to get arbitrarily hot without boiling — until the whole thing explodes, which is why there is that little thinghy on top which in fact limits the pressure and instead allows the water to boil at a higher temperature than normain fact limits the pressure and instead allows the water to boil at a higher temperature than normal.

Now adding back the CO2 will have a larger magnitude of forcing than the initial removal because there is much less water vapor, and the water vapor feedback in terms of W / m2 will be smaller in magnitude because of the overlap with CO2.

There is no proof that increasing GHGs, in the presence of so much water vapor, without a corresponding increase in the sun's energy in these adsorptive wavebands for these gases, will actually increase warming to any significant degree, i.e. more than a couple of degrees.

Warming must occur below the tropopause to increase the net LW flux out of the tropopause to balance the tropopause - level forcing; there is some feedback at that point as the stratosphere is «forced» by the fraction of that increase which it absorbs, and a fraction of that is transfered back to the tropopause level — for an optically thick stratosphere that could be significant, but I think it may be minor for the Earth as it is (while CO2 optical thickness of the stratosphere alone is large near the center of the band, most of the wavelengths in which the stratosphere is not transparent have a more moderate optical thickness on the order of 1 (mainly from stratospheric water vapor; stratospheric ozone makes a contribution over a narrow wavelength band, reaching somewhat larger optical thickness than stratospheric water vapor)(in the limit of an optically thin stratosphere at most wavelengths where the stratosphere is not transparent, changes in the net flux out of the stratosphere caused by stratospheric warming or cooling will tend to be evenly split between upward at TOA and downward at the tropopause; with greater optically thickness over a larger fraction of optically - significant wavelengths, the distribution of warming or cooling within the stratosphere will affect how such a change is distributed, and it would even be possible for stratospheric adjustment to have opposite effects on the downward flux at the tropopause and the upward flux at TOA).

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.

If CO2 in the Anthropocene atmosphere contributes to re-vegetating currently arid areas as it did post-LGM, we should expect an even greater warming feedback from CO2 than is assumed from water vapor and albedo feedbacks, due to decreased global dust - induced albedo and increased water vapor from transpiration over increased vegetated area.

(CO2 band is near the peak wavelength, water vapor bands significant in stratosphere for wavelengths longer than ~ 25 microns and between ~ 5.5 and 7 microns, and ozone between ~ 9.5 and 10 microns, and CH4 and N2O between ~ 7.5 and 8 microns — Hartmann p. 44 and 48, rough est. from graphs; signficant stratospheric transparency remains in several of those bands except near the peak of the CO2 band, but especially water vapor from 25 to 50 microns.)

Is less poleward transport of heat by the Gulf Stream as the AMOC weakens a positive feedback for global warming, since that energy will escape more slowly in the humid (higher water vapor GHG effect) tropics than near the poles?

But in the end, all of the water vapor adds somewhat less than 1.8 C to the original 1.2 C for a CO2 doubling in the fast feedbacks.

Even if you take the convective flux as 24 +78 W m - 2 (including latent) you need better than a 2:1 change in convection, and some way to explain away the radiative effect of moving more water vapor up.

First is that warmer air can hold more water vapor, leading to torrential rains in coastal regions that last longer than usual.

Even in cases where it is cold or where SSTs [sea surface temperatures] are cold, or where water vapor is low, they are still warmer / moister than they would have been without the global warming.

Warmer air holds more water vapor than colder air, so the amount of water vapor in the lower atmosphere increases as it is warmed by the greenhouse effect.

In 1896 Swedish chemist and Nobel laureate Svante Arrhenius used Langley's bolometer to measure the heat from the Moon at various altitudes above the horizon in order to estimate the dependence of atmospheric heat trapping on amount of water vapor and CO2 along the line of sight to the Moon, a much longer path near the horizon than at 45 degreeIn 1896 Swedish chemist and Nobel laureate Svante Arrhenius used Langley's bolometer to measure the heat from the Moon at various altitudes above the horizon in order to estimate the dependence of atmospheric heat trapping on amount of water vapor and CO2 along the line of sight to the Moon, a much longer path near the horizon than at 45 degreein order to estimate the dependence of atmospheric heat trapping on amount of water vapor and CO2 along the line of sight to the Moon, a much longer path near the horizon than at 45 degrees.

I believe if you just use a CLOSED cell foam (much better water / vapor / air / thermal barrier than either open cell or cellulose) with almost no thermal bridging in the wall then it kind of solves lots of problems all at once...

But the boiling point of heavy water, as well as heavy oxygen water (H2O ^ 18 rather than H2O ^ 16) are higher than that of normal water, and are found in water vapor in the atmosphere at lower concentrations when the global temperature is low.

Because the new precise observations agree with existing assessments of water vapor's impact, researchers are more confident than ever in model predictions that Earth's leading greenhouse gas will contribute to a temperature rise of a few degrees by the end of the century.

You appear to have your knickers all twisted about the generally accepted greenhouse theory, which states that GH gases (primarily water vapor, plus some smaller ones, such as CO2) keep our planet warmer than it would otherwise be if they were not in our atmosphere.

One would get some water vapor in the atmosphere, but liquid water on the surface would be rare - probably more due to volcanic activity rather than sunlight warming surface.

In addition, it now appears that water vapor feedback, while still positive and robust, is likely to be weaker than previously estimated by the models.

By that measure, total column CO2 is ~ 3 meters or ~ 3 atm m. Engineering heat transfer calculations often use standard pressure times path length to calculate emissivities of CO2 and water vapor in furnaces from tables or graphs rather than having to do full RT calculations.

Jim D December 21, 2012 at 1:08 am lied:» the tropics should account for larger fraction than now, especially the ocean areas, and this will lead to the expected rise in water vapor.

Niche Modelling concludes from the Leviticus data that net total global radiative feedback from water vapor, etc. is negative, rather than strongly positive, as estimated by the models cited in IPCC AR4.

The absolute humidity will be largely set by the oceans, so water vapor and will increase but relative humidity over land will largely decrease, resulting in less precipitation than one would otherwise expect, given Clausius - Clapeyron and a constant residence time.

Now there is more water vapor in the atmosphere over the Arctic than there was 20 years ago.