Sentences with phrase «water vapour so»

Methane only has an effect at the 7.7 micron range and this is a very low energy portion of the Earth's radiative spectrum which is already saturated by water vapour so even a hundred fold increase in methane would be incapable of any more than a tenth of a degree C of further warming.

In the case of atmospheric calculations with water vapour so dominant I'm not sure how much effect a correction would have.

In fact the sensible heat or a portion of it gets radiated to space so the heated air parcel never becomes as light as it was when it contained water vapour so it becomes denser and heavier and must fall.

The increased warmth causes the atmosphere to evaporate and condense more water vapour so that total energy flow through the system increases.

In the past no tipping point has ever been known to have occurred as a result of runaway warming from extra water vapour so how have we been persuaded to fear it so much?

Warmer air holds more water vapour so that warmer air will extract more vapour from the ocean surface thereby cooling the ocean surface..

The increased warmth allows the atmosphere to hold more water vapour so that total atmospheric density increases and the atmospheric greenhouse effect strengthens.

Not exact matches

So droplets of salty fluid on Mars would tend to absorb water vapour from the atmosphere, explaining why the clumps grew over time.

So far, only water vapour has been detected — unlike the plumes on Enceladus, which also contain ice and dust particles.

[Response: CO2 / GHG changes add about 40 % to LGM cooling, water vapour feedback adds about 60 %, so they are comparable in size — and both large!

Both cause temperature change so both will play a role in any future water vapour feedback process that is dependent on temperature.

The intercooler is so big that, when first tested, it cooled the air to the point water vapour started to appear in the intake.

However, they can provide both positive and negative forcing» and Ray # 252 «we understand extremely well the way greenhouse gasses [sic] like CO2 warm the planet» So here we go — Assumptions from considerations of physics: Unless CO2 could enlist water vapour to amplify its forcing it would simply be an unremarkable trace gas in the atmosphere, but — CO2 + water (vapour) = + ve feedback implying warming CO2 + water (liquid) = - ve feedback implying cooling Facts: Clouds cover half the surface of the planet.

ENSO changes the cloud cover and water vapour amounts and so you would expect it to affect the Top - of - the - atmosphere radiation balance which changes the overall amount of heat in the system.

The increase in water vapour as the surface warms is key, but so might be changes in boundary layer stability, rossby wave generation via longitudinally varying responses at the surface, impacts of the stratopshere on the steering of the jet, and the situation is completely different again for tropical storms.

Or increased water content (so that energy is more efficiently transported by ferrying vapour up to condense, release the energy and rain out).

For some parts of the spectrum, IR can be either absorbed by CO2 or by water vapour, and so simply removing the CO2 gives only a minimum effect.

1998 was so warm in part because of the big El Niño event over the winter of 1997 - 1998 which directly warmed a large part of the Pacific, and indirectly warmed (via the large increase in water vapour) an even larger region.

So we've nailed the Arctic after a fashion & Rondonia for three months of the year, both instances with quite extreme increases in water vapour.

I've been discussing climate change with lots of people at campaign stalls recently, and it has opened my eyes as to how far this «balanced» climate sceptic reporting is shaping the thinking of even those people who are concerned and want to see some action («I am aware that flying might make climate change worse, but I'll still do it because the warming may just be part of a natural cycle — I would stop if I was more certain»; «I am worried, but I have also heard that it is just water vapour which makes us warmer, so we just don't kow if this CO2 thing is true, everybody seems to have a different agenda» etc.).

Water vapour partial pressure is an exponential function of temperature: it just amplifies the CO2 effect — more or less independent of where you are (It requires careful spectral analysis to say so — part of all model codes).

Climate models may over-estimate the so - called «water vapour feedback `, they nevertheless seem to capture the right sign of the water vapour feedback.

Meaning that, even without the dampening effect of water vapour, a «tipping point» so often spoken about by alarmists like Al Gore, is actually a scientific impossibility.

On the real planet, there are multitudes of feedbacks that affect other greenhouse components (ice alebdo, water vapour, clouds etc.) and so the true issue for climate sensitivity is what these feedbacks amount to.

(c) The level of water vapour depends on the global temperature, so it is roughly fixed until something else warms the atmosphere when it increases in amount producing more warming.

Water vapour feedbacks are very robust across different models — cloud feedbacks less so of course.

That's why it is the trace gases CO2, water vapour, CH4 etc that are so important.

Re # 36 Lawrence, your cousin is correct that the greenhouse effect of water vapour, and even more so clouds are much larger (x 2 — x 4) than that from CO2.

Apart albedo, shouldn't we expect a classical water vapour feedback (and so DLF forcing) as arctic ice is melting and arctic seas / ocean warming?

In theory above that height the humidity remains at 100 %, and so the greenhouse effect from water vapour in the region above the condensation level will not change.

However, the greenhouse effect from water vapour is due to a (positive) feedback from the temperature and so any warming caused by CO2 is amplified by water vapour.

So starting with water vapour as a Green House Gas: 1) The water vapour in the air (near the ground) is heated by the ground and the sun.

The conversion of a water molecule to a water vapour molecule involves a huge energy transfer from water to air so evaporation alone is a substantial factor.

Even the water vapour effect has never provoked any tipping point in the face of the primary solar / oceanic driver so CO2 could never do so.

Climate models suggest that water vapour and snow cover, at least, are «positive feedbacks» and so should enhance the warming.

Water vapour is lighter than air once formed by the acquisition of the latent heat of evaporation so no additional radiative energy needs to be acquired to enable it to rise within the Earth's gravitational field.

I will consider only water vapour here because it is so important for the thermal stability of Earth's climate system.

Finally, you mention water vapour as a GHG... but water vapour is the main cooling component in the atmosphere, transporting heat from the surface to the radiative layer, so not really a true GHG.

Water has a residence time of 8 - 10 days in the atmosphere, so whenever it rains carbon dioxide is being washed out of the atmosphere, because, water (vapour, liquid, solid) in the atmosphere attracts all carbon dioxide in the vicinity — together forming carbonic acid which gives all natural unpolluted rain its pH of around 5.6Water has a residence time of 8 - 10 days in the atmosphere, so whenever it rains carbon dioxide is being washed out of the atmosphere, because, water (vapour, liquid, solid) in the atmosphere attracts all carbon dioxide in the vicinity — together forming carbonic acid which gives all natural unpolluted rain its pH of around 5.6water (vapour, liquid, solid) in the atmosphere attracts all carbon dioxide in the vicinity — together forming carbonic acid which gives all natural unpolluted rain its pH of around 5.6 - 8.

However, there are other feedbacks (water vapour, lapse rate, clouds) which depend roughly linearly on dT, so you can rewrite the above as

So too does my study showing water vapour cools.

To do so, you'd need a study such as mine which shows water vapour cools and more moist regions have lower mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures than drier regions at similar latitudes and altitudes.

Hence water vapour leads to a lower surface temperature, so there goes all that positive feedback the IPCC likes to tell you about.

Anyway, both water vapour and carbon dioxide absorb incident solar radiation, so what's your point?

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.

So in order for the green corner not to be empty, we must also place in it the evidence for water vapour and clouds.

CO2 plays a minuscule cooling role because it also radiates like water vapour, but you won't detect it because its cooling effect is less than 1 % of water vapour's, so why waste time looking?

Although the surface is now cooler again, the skies are also clear which again allows more sun through to warm the seas which produces more water vapour which rises to form clouds, and so on and so on.

As far as water vapor in the tropics, they even say» In the humid equatorial regions, where there is so much water vapour in the air that the greenhouse effect is very large, adding a small additional amount of CO2 or water vapour has only a small direct impact on downward infrared radiation.»

In the humid equatorial regions, where there is so much water vapour in the air that the greenhouse effect is very large, adding a small additional amount of CO2 or water vapour has only a small direct impact on downward infrared radiation.