Sentences with phrase «water vapour reduces»

The presence of water vapour reduces the actual lapse rate to about 6.5 C.

Laura Yes, the entropy conditions spelled out by the Second Law of Thermodynamics establish the fact that water vapour reduces the warming due to gravity from about 50 degrees back to about 33 degrees.

Water vapour reduces the temperature gradient (fortunately) making the surface about 10 to 12 degrees cooler.

You can get any invalid «sensitivity» you wish if you start with invalid assumptions that the atmosphere would have been isothermal without WV and GHG Without WV the surface would have been around 300K, but water vapour reduced the gradient (as does carbon dioxide to a minuscule extent because it radiates in far fewer frequencies than WV) and so each has a cooling effect.

Not exact matches

The separation into two chambers means there are two separate flue gas streams to deal with too: air with a reduced concentration of oxygen is discharged from one chamber, water vapour and CO2 from the other.

Greenhouse gases like CO2 and water vapour and dust have their largest effect at lower altitudes and their effect is reducing bottom up.

i.e. the water vapour will tend to carry heat (in the form of warmed air and latent heat) higher in the atmosphere, reducing surface warming.

The heat exchangers extract energy from the waste water and the warm, humid water vapour inside the machine and use it to heat up the incoming cold water supply, reducing energy costs by up to 10 %.

Greenhouse gases like CO2 and water vapour and dust have their largest effect at lower altitudes and their effect is reducing bottom up.

It is for the most part only in the tropics that tropospheric air can be drawn up into the stratosphere; it is also in the tropics that one finds the most spectacular thunderstorms, and these can reduce the temperature at the top of the troposphere, deepening the cold trap that ascending water vapour must pass through and thus impeding its rise.

A warmer world has more atmospheric water vapour, and reduces temperature extremes and variability.

The IPCC most certainly also claims water vapour warms, doing most of «33 degrees» of warming, whereas, in fact, it cools the surface by reducing the temperature gradient whilst still keeping radiative balance with the Sun.

Thus a change of water vapour, sky radiation and tempcrature is corrected by a change of cloudiness and atmospheric circulation, the former increasing the reflection loss and thus reducing the effective sun heat.

Both water vapour and especially condescended water (cloud, the strongest emitter of LWIR in the atmosphere) can reduce surface cooling rates at night, but only over land.

Now, the only way we can get back for the previous equilibrium is that the earth «takes action» to kill off the vegetation to reduce the water vapour content in the atmosphere.

The specific heat of water vapour is higher than that of carbon dioxide, so it will reduce the gradient slightly, and thus have a cooling effect, just as it does by reducing the gradient to the «wet adiabatic lapse rate» on Earth.

Water vapour is not only a highly potent GHG but it increase has also recently been shown to have a serious potential for reducing cloud formation in the tropics and thus advancing Albedo Loss.

Now, Rob, this is the most ludicrous and unsubstantiated statement in Pierrehumbert's «gold standard» where, on page 100, he clearly assumes (from his incorrect computations) that 10 % water vapour in the atmosphere would raise the temperature from 250K to 350K whilst at the same time reducing the temperature gradient.

By seeding them with substances like bismuth tri-iodide, which cause water to form into ice particles, the hope is to reduce the water vapour and allow more radiation to escape.

Water vapour has a far great cooling effect, because it reduces the thermal gradient, and so the thermal plot intercepts the surface at a temperature which is about 30 % lower than would be the case with a dry atmosphere.

A slight change of ocean temperature (after a delay caused by the high specific heat of water, the annual mixing of thermocline waters with deeper waters in storms) ensures that rising CO2 reduces infrared absorbing H2O vapour while slightly increasing cloud cover (thus Earth's albedo), as evidenced by the fact that the NOAA data from 1948 - 2008 shows a fall in global humidity (not the positive feedback rise presumed by NASA's models!)

Thus a parcel of air into which water vapour is injected will rise without any change in ambient temperature.The reduction of density from surface upwards is what initially reduces air pressure as measured from the surface.

The local pressure reduction pointed to when condensation reduces volume is instantly offset by mass flowing into the original volume from the surroundings and the energy released is not enough to make the air parcel and the liquid contents lighter than air containing water vapour.

* the water vapour content of upper layer of the air (in blue figure 6 - D) will change by about 12 % / K near the tropopause and is reduced by the enhanced cooling of the 250 mbar layer; hence the water vapour radiation will the be from a «lower and warmer» level, with a very significant spectral leverage of a factor of ten (400 cm - 1 for the water vapour w.r.t to 40 cm - 1 for the CO2).

Complete absorption is THE reason that potent GHGs like water vapour and CO2 reduce the rate of heat loss from the surface and lower levels of the atmosphere.

Basic theory, climate model simulations and empirical evidence all confirm that warmer climates, owing to increased water vapour, lead to more intense precipitation events even when the total annual precipitation is reduced slightly, and with prospects for even stronger events when the overall precipitation amounts increase.

So, AGW or «any global warming» as it should be known is therefore down to water vapour and governments could save millions of $ expenditure by reducing water vapour emissions instead of CO2 emissions by merely paying lip service (10 $) to it (water vapour that is).

Because the temperature gradient in a planet's troposphere is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium which the Second Law of Thermodynamics says will evolve, the planet's supported surface temperature is autonomously warmer than its mean radiating temperature, so warm in fact on Earth that we need radiating gases (mostly water vapour) to reduce the gradient and thus cool the surface from a mean of about 300K to about 288K, this being confirmed by empirical evidence (as in the study in my book) which confirms with statistical significance that water vapour cools rather than warms, all these facts thus debunking the greenhouse conjecture.

«''» Earth that we need radiating gases (mostly water vapour) to reduce the gradient and thus cool the surface from a mean of about 300K to about 288K, this being confirmed by empirical evidence (as in the study in my book) which confirms with statistical significance that water vapor cools rather than warms, all these facts thus debunking the greenhouse conjecture.

When CO2 and water vapour are present together a correction is made to reduce the sum of their emissities using a plot of correction factor v Pw / (Pc + Pw) for particular temperature / PcL + PwL values.

It seems GISS haven't heard about thin cloud, varying water vapour, dust and aerosols, which reduce the apparent brightness of urban sites, which GISS uses to estimate population density for the adjustments.

As you equilibriate, the planet warms (reducing the TOA imbalance) and water vapour increases, increasing the amount of surface LW absorbed in the atmosphere, but not adding to the TOA imbalance (though it does slow the equilibration).

CO2 is a small fraction of sea level gases, so far all models, calculations do not include water vapour or particulates which act in the atmosphere and in reducing the ice cap / snoe level albido effect.

The graph shows adding water vapour to the upper layer reduces OLR by 41 times more than the same change in the surface layer.