Sentences with phrase «heat at a depth»

Even though the Argo buoy data demonstrates a increase in SST's and require error correction for the pressure sensors I have not seen significant data suggesting that there is any heating at depth.

The sun's radiation penetrates and converts to heat at depth which is not at 294.2 K and obviously much less than this.

We say «deep» because we have measured any sufficient build up of heat at the depth we can measure.

«In recent years, from 2004 to 2011, while the upper ocean is not warming, the ocean continues to absorb heat at depth (e.g., Levitus et al. 2012; von Schuckman and Le Traon 2011), here estimated at a rate of 0.56 W m - 2 when integrating over 0 — 1800 m.»

Not a lot of tropical storms this year creating a large store of heat at depth.

Heat at a depth of 1000 meters would not return for at least 250 years because the return rate is about 4 meters / year.

Regarding flatness over this period, the Lyman and Johnson paper referenced by Judith says this: «In recent years, from 2004 to 2011, while the upper ocean is not warming, the ocean continues to absorb heat at depth (e.g., Levitus et al. 2012; von Schuckman and Le Traon 2011), here estimated at a rate of 0.56 Wm2 when integrating over 0 — 1800 m.» That 0.56 Wm2 figure is again pretty close to what the Balmeseda et al. reanalysis produces.

Meanwhile, the heating at depth (and continued sea level rise) is testimony of the continued top of atmosphere imbalance.

Not exact matches

What is needed, according to village officials, are heated pools, water slides and a zero - depth pool at Jefferson Pool to compete with neighboring towns.

The next stage of the research will be to take a more in - depth look at how long Zika survives on hard non-porous surfaces in the heat and how best to inactivate the virus.

To estimate the temperature at various depths (from 3,500 m to 9,500 m depth) the researchers have used the heat flow and temperatures at 1,000 m and 2,000 m provided in the Atlas of Geothermal Resources in Europe, as well as thermal data of the land surface available from NASA.

In extreme conditions — in this case, magma - heated water at an ocean depth of nearly 10,000 feet — things work a little differently.

The warm Atlantic water was saltier, and therefore heavier and subducted at depth and reached to the bottom, actually heating up beneath a lid of ice and melt water, that prevented the release of heat to the atmosphere.

Scientists at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory showed that global climate models are not accurately depicting the true depth and strength of tropical clouds that have a strong hold on the general circulation of atmospheric heat and the global water balance.

The concentration of radioactivity measured down Germany's deepest hole (5.7 miles) would account for all the heat flowing out at the earth's surface if that concentration continued down to a depth of only 18.8 miles and if the crust were 4 billion years old.47

The estimated increase of observed global ocean heat content (over the depth range from 0 to 3000 meters) between the 1950s and 1990s is at least one order of magnitude larger than the increase in heat content of any other component.

At the same time, increasing depth and duration of drought, along with warmer temperatures enabling the spread of pine beetles has increased the flammability of this forest region — http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n9/full/nclimate1293.html http://www.vancouversun.com/fires+through+tinder+pine+beetle+killed+forests/10047293/story.html Can climate models give different TCR and ECS with different timing / extent of when or how much boreal forest burns, and how the soot generated alters the date of an ice free Arctic Ocean or the rate of Greenland ice melt and its influence on long term dynamics of the AMOC transport of heat?

The following is an in depth look at the types of heating pads, and the best heating pads of 2017 you can choose to buy.

Looks very much like the one I make — only difference is I add a teaspoon or so of ground white pepper at about the same time I add the fish sauce — gives another heat level / depth.

This is difficult to answer because pools in Jamaica reply on Solar heat, so the temperature of the pool would depend on the sun heat at that time, and obviously also the depth of the pool.

It is not without criticism (insolation heats the ocean at depth and is not a surface forcing but IR forcing does).

Temperatures at this depth tend to have a paradoxical inverse relationship with surface temperatures, which can cool due to fresh meltwater input, trapping heat in the subsurface.

As Jamie [Morison] mentioned, water at 300 m depth is much warmer, has a greater heat content and is continuously present but is still on average unable to contribute to any larger heat flux to the underside of the ice, due to the strong stratification of the upper Arctic.

I was at the talk, and I believe the question was raised about depth of warmth / heat content... and Davis acknowledged that it would be good information to have but it was not available for their study.

One thing I would have liked to see in the paper is a quantitative side - by - side comparison of sea - surface temperatures and upper ocean heat content; all the paper says is that only «a small amount of cooling is observed at the surface, although much less than the cooling at depth» though they do report that it is consistent with 2 - yr cooling SST trend — but again, no actual data analysis of the SST trend is reported.

Presumably, it does take a lot of energy to move that much water faster, with the heat potentially being redistributed into deeper ocean layers associated with perhaps poorly understood fluctuations of the Antarctic convergence at depth?

However, heat store in the Atlantic Layer (temperature maxima at ~ 300 m) and in waters of Pacific origin (maxima at ~ 50 m depth in the western Arctic) are prime candidates for releasing heat to the underside of the Arctic ice.

Enhanced greenhouse effect The term known as the «enhanced greenhouse effect» describes a situation where the atmosphere's becomes less transparent to infra - red light (reducedincreased optical depth), and that the heat loss must take place at higher levels.

Moreover, most of this flow probably occurs at some depth, where the temperature is close to zero, so its heat transport is also very low.

It plunges toward the seafloor and heads south at depth, retaining some of the heat it accumulated on the surface.

Thus 3,000 ARGO buoys do not give 3,000 independent estimates of the ocean heat content at a particular time; each observation gives a single estimate of the temperature at a particular location and depth.

The heat would be dumped into the cold water stream, which cools the condenser and is ejected below the thermocline so that the water would not release its CO2 content except to the colder surrounding water at depth, where the CO2 would remain sequestered.

Geothermal wells are drilled to the depth of hot rock, and well stimulation is used to engineer a man - made heat exchanger at depth using EGS technology and AltaRock's expertise.

The soil below about 4 feet depth in most climates is at a constant 50 degree temperature — almost benign in its impact on heating or cooling.

MA Rodger # 16 Yes, it's the fallacious argument that a mass can not warm a warmer mass, used in both atmosphere (radiation) and ocean comments (the fallacy that heat can not increase at depth with also increasing shallower, and this «heat gone forever» one).

Year 2013: surface skin has wamed a tiny fraction of 1C (not shown for comparison simplicity) and ocean mixing will not permit it to balance within 0.003 C at the sub-skin (maybe also ocean happens to mix heat down a tad faster due to a natural variation), now will only let 1.441 mm to < several tens - to - hundreds of metres > depth warm by 0.69462 C instead of prior 0.697 C (ocean - air interface at 0.70000 C).

The misnomer of the green house effect is at odds with reality, take a ride through our solar system and you will find that the heat of a planet has diddly squat to do with the composition of the atmosphere but its depth.

Values such as 0.70000 C are not known with this precision but precision is irrelevant because it is the residual of the 0.7 C anomaly (computed here as 0.003 C per 1.441 mm of near - surface depth for 2000 - 2010, 0.00538 C for 2013) that is adding the ocean heat, so if actual at ocean - air interface were, say, 0.726 C then it must be 0.723 C at 1.441 mm depth to reduce upward flux by 1.21 w / m ** 2 and cause the measured +138 ZettaJoules / decade.

For example, in the Pacific, when easterlies increase in strength (as happens during the cool phase of the PDO) the net surface may cool but more heat is being sequestered at depth due to increased Ekman pumping, thus the net energy content of the ocean increases, even with a cool surface layer.

SST's are often, but not always, better gauges for how much heat is leaving the ocean on the way to the atmosphere rather than how much remains at depth to be measured as ocean heat content.

Those are measurements at over half a kilometre depth; it takes a long time for the heat to penetrate that deep, so there's a substantial lag in the response.

I have a preference for near global coverage and depth integrated satellite temperature records — it doesn't miss energy in latent heat at the surface for one thing.

If the bucket were dragged at sampling depth for a few minutes before extraction, the walls of the bucket would have come near the ambient water temperature, slowing heat loss from the captured water.

If you look at the top post right now the depth would absorb heat at the rate of thermal conductivity and the depths would be more stable, but at an in - between max and mix temps.

At the surface, the variability of temperatures over land is much greater than that over the oceans (Fig. 4), which reflects the very different heat capacities of the underlying surface and the depth of the layer linked to the surface.

The added ocean heat combines with falling melting points at depth to produce rapid melt along sea fronting glacier bases.

The oceans, which at first only slowly accumulated heat, began a long term warming which eventually extended through almost every depth and region.

I agree with a lot of your assertions, e.g. the practical irrelevance of the adiabatic and hence essentially reversible ALR — the only mechanism that actually cools the atmosphere (permanently removes heat from it) is radiation, and that occurs in the upper troposphere where the atmosphere ceases to be opaque to e.g. LWIR (although it is more complex than this, this process occurs in depth and at different depths in different frequencies).

Instead, the ocean heat was increasingly trapped at depth.

(Building heat in Pacific Equatorial Surface waters on April 9 of 2015 — a sign of a massive pulse of hotter than normal water running at about 100 meters depth.