Sentences with phrase «more heat =»

More heat = more evaporation = more clouds.

More heat = more moisture = more snow in winter (until it warms enough that the snow will be rain instead.

Duh More magma = more heat = more hot air.

More magma = more heat = more hot water = more hot air.

More heat = more evaporation, which = more rain.

More heat = lower engine life.

Not exact matches

Carbon dioxide = more trapped heat.

You won't get badass probiotics out of these custards (because heat + probiotics = no more probiotics).

[url = http://www.cheapoutdoorjackets.net/] discount north face jackets [/ url][more inside] Second, its double - breasted closure not only fits in with fashion continued emphasis on military styling, but this design also helps trap body heat inside your coat so that you stay warmer.

Re # 173 (Dan Allan): Large - scale reasons for the chaos include planetary tilt (= seasons), a high rate of rotation (= major Coriolis effect), much more solar heat applied at the equator than at the poles, unevenly distributed land, air and water, a molten core resulting in tectonic activity including continental drift and volcanos, the occasional hammer from space, a really large satellite creating major tides in addition to minor ones from the sun, plus some stuff I'm probably forgetting.

Actually, though, most of the OLR originates from below the tropopause (can get up around 18 km in the tropics, generally lower)-- with a majority of solar radiation absorbed at the surface, a crude approximation can be made that the area emitting to space is less than 2 * (20/6371) * 100 % ~ = 0.628 % more than the area heated by the sun, so the OLR per unit area should be well within about 0.6 % of the value calculated without the Earth's curvature (I'm guessing it would actually be closer to if not less than 0.3 % different).

More heat energy = more intense stoMore heat energy = more intense stomore intense storms.

I.e., I would expect more heat (sensible & latent) = > more convection = > more mass flow = > a stronger cell, at least in the summer.

Warmer Oceans = More Heat Energy

Now we can see where Headline C came from: global warming made the expected frequency 23 times larger (because 8,547 / 379 = 23) so we expect to see a heat wave of this magnitude (or warmer) 23 times more often because of global warming.

lgl says: April 14, 2011 at 11:15 am Good, then you realize TSI is not a measure of T «C * dT / dt = dH / dt = Q - E» and «Time constant τ varies linearly with heat capacity» The longer cycles will mix more of the ocean, thus larger heat capacity and larger time constant.

Schwartz has a nice analysis of the energy balance Good, then you realize TSI is not a measure of T «C * dT / dt = dH / dt = Q - E» and «Time constant τ varies linearly with heat capacity» The longer cycles will mix more of the ocean, thus larger heat capacity and larger time constant.

High UV / particle radiation = reduction in plankton = clear water = deeper penetration, more heat absorbed further down and retained = warming, reverse holds true.

Your simplistic linear thinking aligns to CAGW alarmist pablum though: more people = more CO2 = more hot = rising seas, therefore; more robots = less people = less CO2 = less heat, etc. etc..

in Sahara is always clear sky + no H2O present = heats more during the day / cools faster during night === extra heat in the atmosphere is NOT accumulative == you the Warmist, and the Fakes don't have a case!!!

Heat = more evaporation, which = more rain, which would, or should allay the fears of the alarmists, yet, inexplicably, they are still afraid of water going away.

Therefore, note that in this particular case where you claim warming as a result of more CO2 it is the other way around: heat + HCO3 - = > CO2 + OH -, very similar to you boiling water to remove the CO2.

While I haven't tried this experiment myself, I foolhardedly predict that the resulting mixture will start out as supersaturated air at temperature 280 K and pressure 620 hPa with RH = 200 % (anyone who cares will have no trouble verifying this using only the specific heat numbers I've given earlier, no thermodynamic needed), and (more importantly for thermodynamics) that it will in due course become air at T = 287.7 K and P = 634.5 (higher pressure) with RH = 100 %.

To be energy or more properly, heat transferred, the one - way upwelling radiation from the surface absorbed by the air should be reduced by subtraction of the down - welling radiation of the air absorbed by the surface Note that by subtraction of the (about 20 W / m ² in global average) flow surface to cosmos of both terms of GH, GH expression becomes GH = (radiation from the surface absorbed by the air) minus (outgoing longwave radiation from the air) which has absolutely no physical sense!

However, since the shell is at a higher temp than background, though probably not by a lot, (background ~ 3 DegK, which is effectively = 0 for this problem), less heat would be transferred to the shell, and the earth would consequently retain more of it and so it would warm slightly.

Solutions: replacing coal - fired boilers with cleaner more efficient gas heating systems, upgraded roof systems with heat - reflective materials, green roofs and solar arrays, larger more insulated windows, adding space to existing schools (source = State of our Schools 2016)

B] higher» dry heat» produced in Sahara = higher evaporation in the Mediterranean - > the Gulf stream increases speed - > more water from Mexican gulf -.

«how it is supposed to work» = according to non-real-world theoretical models that say CO2 molecules that are spaced together 1/20, 000 ths more closely today than they were in 1990 function just like a blanket draped over the ocean waters, and this CO2 blanket determines the net heat changes in the depths of the ocean more so than variations in direct shortwave radiation absorption does.

Do they expand and shrink in a change of temperature; because they have nothing better to do — OR, they expand when warmed, to increase the volume of the atmosphere = to release more heat AND, they shrink when cooled more than normal, to preserve heat.

q = ε * σ * (Th ^ 4 — Tc ^ 4) Ah «Perhaps the most fundamental thing to understand about that equation is that if Tc was zero then there would be more heat going from the hotter object to the colder object than when Tc is not zero.

A bit of digression, but can atmospheric warming have «stalled» because of the enormous emission of reflective aerosols from coal burning in China and India in the last decade or so?p class =» response» > [Response: In principle yes, but the evidence that more heat has gone into the ocean is very strong.

Curry might say something about the» 76 - ’78 warm phase, but either climate sensitivity is no more her expertise than many amateur bloggers or she is intentionally muddying the waters with a long screed about Balmaseda reanalysis and attacking the strawman of «hiatus = missing heat».

You may have a point if it scales so that 3/300 is much less than 7.5 / 700, which would mean more heat is coming up from the depths than diffusing downward, but actually 3/300 = 0.01 ~ 7.5 / 700 = 0.00107 which is a 7 % margin of error, which I don't think they can get much better considering the quality of the data.

See, I am on the (impossible I think) lookout for a way to block much more light (= heat) from my windows during the summer, without looking «wintry»!