Sentences with phrase «with only water vapor»

Not exact matches

Hydrogen may be the ultimate clean fuel because burning it — in chemical terms, reacting it with oxygen — yields only water vapor.

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 neighbors.

He notes that DMF could rapidly replace ethanol, because it not only provides more energy but also has a higher boiling point (allowing DMF to blend more easily with gasoline) and it does not react with water (ethanol absorbs atmospheric water vapor, which degrades its potency).

Today, there is only enough water vapor in Venus» atmosphere to cover the planet with 3 centimeters (1.2 inches) of water, if the vapor were an ocean.

This electricity used to power the vehicle, along with heat and water vapor, are the only byproducts of fuel cells.

«With a range of over 300 miles per tank, a refueling time of under five minutes, and emissions that consist only of water vapor, Mirai is leading the world forward toward a more sustainable future.»

Shifting between states is a vital part of solving the various puzzles, and with the exception of vapor to water (think precipitation) you can only do so at specific locations, so plan carefully.

BUT that if we continue to add CO2 to the air, the air has the added heat capacity to get warmer, IF and ONLY IF driven by the sun, but rapidly come to equilibrium with the ocean, by means of rain and the daily heating & condensation of the water vapor feedback mechanism.

Essentially Charney climate sensitivity is calculated only with the fast feedbacks: water vapor, sea ice, etc..

You have mentioned a MGT feedback loop of diminishing water vapor as the only thing that explains the hiatus well but it could also occur with increasing water vapor as clouds might reflect more sunlight back restoring the new system to its temperature mean.

«gbaikie, with the constant relative humidity assumption (and it is only an assumption), the water vapor effect is proportional to the CO2 effect.»

Seventy percent of the earth is covered with water, but only a tiny amount occurs in the atmosphere as vapor or ice crystals.

Water vapor is responsible for 80 percent of that effect, and carbon dioxide for only 10 percent, with methane, ozone, and so forth accounting for the remainder.

Given your background it is probably evident that with only the GHG model input and the resulting «water vapor feedback» controlled, the GCM functions as a noise generator with a variable bias.

However, since the amount of water vapor varies significantly with altitude, and because this is for instructive purposes only, I have not made those adjustments.

It's easier just to stick with the known, 0.8 to 1.6 C per doubling, WM - GHGs only, since water vapor is going to do what water vapor wants to do.

I would like also mention that when calculating the influence of water vapor or CO2 one ought to calculate not with the total back radiation but only with that part that is due to water vapor and / or CO2.

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.

Areas receiving modest cuts or level funding in the Energy Department's FY17 budget included solar and wind energy programs aimed at expanding renewable power and lowering costs for these clean energy technologies; work to advance hydrogen and fuel cellElectrochemical device in which electricity is generated by chemically reacting hydrogen with oxygen; electricity, water vapor, and heat are the only products.

Electrochemical device in which electricity is generated by chemically reacting hydrogen with oxygen; electricity, water vapor, and heat are the only products.

This rapid turnover, combined with the variation of temperature with height and geography, causes water vapor to be distributed unevenly in the atmosphere, not only horizontally but vertically as well.

I, for one, believe that in time even the water vapor «problem» will be solved — but only with empirical studies and probably only over several decades.

This results in a major positive feedback from water vapor only in IPCC's world where it keeps cloud cover constant with unpublished, primitive, unsatisfactory, failing parameterizations.

Elliott et al. conclude, based on the selected data below 500 hPa only that SH (moisture content) increased slightly with warming, but not at a rate sufficiently strong to maintain constant RH, as is assumed by the IPCC models in estimating water vapor feedback.

With Hansen talking about «tipping points» in the climatic energy - budget, high priests of AGW raising the specter of «runaway greenhouse,» and modelers resorting to a fictitious positive water - vapor feedback in their calculations, energetics (power fluxes) in the geosystem is not only relevant, but the central issue.

Ryan Maue, if we assume that Kevin Trenbreth has the seminal paper on atmospheric water vapor products in the paper: «Trends and variability in column - integrated atmospheric water vapor», then I have the distinct view that we only have water vapor data that would pass muster with Trenberth for the period 1988 forward and only over the oceans in the form of the RSS SSM / I measurements / reanalysis.

The difference has nothing to do with the amount of water in the atmosphere, but only with whether or not the water vapor is changing state.

If all of the water vapor in our planet's atmosphere fell as water at once and spread out evenly, it would only cover the globe with about an inch of water.

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.

The calculations can only be made in steady state temperature conditions, with the inability to model water vapor or clouds.

I know of only a few materials capable of down converting light in this manner, and they all have to be charged with much more energetic light to be able to «phosphoresce» in this manner (see: http://www.roithner-laser.at/cards.html), and neither CO2, nor water vapor, nor CH4 are capable of this kind of behavior.