They found that lead «supercharges» the clouds, causing them to form at higher temperatures and
with less water vapor.
Not exact matches
The warming due to
water vapor helps the air hold
water, but in the Earth's orbit, it is not actually sufficient to keep the air warm enough to keep the
water it already has — so you go into the death spiral,
with a bit of cooling,
less water, then more cooling, and so on to Snowball.
Between a two foot high greenhouse filled
with atmosphere and a two foot high greenhouse filled
with carbon dioxide there would be
less than a thirtyieth of a degree difference — provided you had
water at the bottom of the greenhouse to provide
vapor feedback.
Simple physics dictates that
with less sea ice there is magnified warming of the Arctic due to powerful albedo feedback; this in turn reduces the equator to pole temperature gradient which slows the jet stream winds causing them to become more meridional; this combined
with 4 % more
water vapor in the atmosphere (compared to 3 decades ago) is leading to much more extremes in weather.
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.
Arrhenius spent a number of years trying to overcome this little obstacle before finally saying that the impact of CO2 was considerable
less than his first estimate and mentioning 1.6 (2.1)
with water vapor was more likely.
The
water vapor cooled the Earth, the snow cooled the atmosphere
with resulting increase in surface albedo which does reflect radiative heat, meaning the Earth gets
less warm, not colder because of it.
Less water vapor is associated
with heat waves not more, so the greenhouse effect is lessened.
``... the
water vapor is in equilibrium
with the ocean temperature that has risen
less than the global temperature, so its response relative to the global temperature may be
less than 7 % per degree, while it is 7 % per degree for the ocean.»
You can then add in
water vapor and so on
with my complete blessing, as long as you do not assert that gravity can do any net, continuous work even in the dynamic case in an atmosphere
with a more or
less static density profile.
Ragnaar, the
water vapor is in equilibrium
with the ocean temperature that has risen
less than the global temperature, so its response relative to the global temperature may be
less than 7 % per degree, while it is 7 % per degree for the ocean.
dude I don't think the observed reduction in relative humidity
with rising temperature implies a negative
water vapor feedback, just a
less strongly positive
water vapor feedback than has been otherwise postulated.
Water vapor content has little do
with whether a region or hemisphere will have more or
less snow.
Supercritical stations burn
less coal per megawatt - hour produced and so benefit the environment and the electricity consumer.A modern, highly efficient, supercritical coal - fired station
with stack gas cleanup is very clean indeed, essentially emitting only
water vapor, carbon dioxide and nitrogen.
Here, it is
water vapor that is replaced by an inferior heat - trapping gas, creating an atmosphere
with less «greenhouse» effect.
Given two almost identical parcels of air at the same temperature and pressure, the one
with more
water vapor will be
less dense.
Water vapor is speculated to correspond
with «
less cloudiness», but that's about it.
However, a warmer atmosphere means
less cloudiness even
with more
water vapor and then there are seasonal effects.
Although hydrogen generates about 62,000 Btu per pound, it accounts for only 5 percent or
less of coal and not all of this is available for heat because part of the hydrogen combines
with oxygen to form
water vapor.
With scrubbers in place,
less dust,
vapor, and gases will go through the baghouse filter and up the stacks; but they will create sulfurous acids, suspended fines, and a precipitate in the scrubber
water.