Sentences with phrase «warm surface waters do»

Warm surface waters do not end at a uniform depth all over globe.

Not exact matches

3) Pre-heat oven to 450 deg Fahrenheit (230 deg cel) 4) Meanwhile, prepare the pizza dough but combing the tapioca flour, salt, 1/3 cup coconut flour in a medium - sized bowl 5) Pour in oil and warm water and stir well (mixture will be slightly dry) 6) Add in the whisked egg and continue mixing until well combined (mixture will be quite liquid and sticky) 7) Add in 2 — 3 tablespoons of coconut flour (one tablespoon each time) until the mixture is a soft but somewhat sticky dough 8) Coat your hands with tapioca flour, then using your hands, turn the dough out onto a tapioca - flour sprinkled flat surface and gently knead it until it forms a ball that does not stick to your hands.

• clean and sterilise all feeding parts before each use • do not use abrasive cleaning agents or anti-bacterial cleaners with bottles and teats • wash your hands thoroughly and ensure surfaces are clean before handling sterilised components • for inspection of the teat, pull it in each direction • place the teat in boiling water for 5 minutes before first use to ensure hygiene • throw away bottle and teats at the first sight of damage, weakness or scratching • replace teats and spouts after 3 months use • do not warm milk in a microwave as this may cause uneven heating and could scald your baby • always check the milk temperature before feeding • make sure that the bottles are not over-tightened • do not allow your baby to play with small parts or run or walk while feeding

One intriguing possibility: If fluid water does persist on Mars, life that might have thrived there millions of years ago, when the climate was warmer and wetter, could be hanging on in thin layers of salty water just beneath the surface.

Furthermore, a deeper upper layer of warm surface water may weaken the cold tongue if the Ekman pumping doesn't reach down below the thermocline to bring up colder water, and weakened trade winds would have a similar effect through reduced Ekman pumping near the equator.

Note that Ekman pumping does not penetrate deep into the oceanic interior, but since the trades advect the surface waters westward, the upper layer of warm sea water is deeper in the west than in the east.

This should be done with the same warm soapy water and thorough rinsing that all cage surfaces undergo during cleaning.

Manta Point and Crystal Bay can be more challenging due to the currents and cold water, and Nusa Lembongan is the relaxing, warmer, shallower dive usually done after a long lunch break and surface interval.

Grasping that CO2 warming leads to water vapor feedback does not require van der Waal calculation or Gibbs surfaces.

Note that Ekman pumping does not penetrate deep into the oceanic interior, but since the trades advect the surface waters westward, the upper layer of warm sea water is deeper in the west than in the east.

Furthermore, a deeper upper layer of warm surface water may weaken the cold tongue if the Ekman pumping doesn't reach down below the thermocline to bring up colder water, and weakened trade winds would have a similar effect through reduced Ekman pumping near the equator.

So, if each underwater artic volcano emitted 1 km3 a week (a rather large average flow) and did it for a year (about 52 weeks) you would need about 620 very active and extremely powerful volcanoes in order to warm the artic ocean by just 1 C (and that ignores surface cooling, in / out water flows and time rates that would require even more volcanoes.)

Warm water sticks at the surface and so does sweeter cold water.

[Response: Tropical surface waters remain in pretty close equilibrium with the atmosphere, because they don't mix with deeper waters, because they're warm and buoyant.

But again, I have to ask a question that you have not answered: How does the heat trapped by CO2 at the surface skin warm the subsurface ocean waters since it is widely acknowledged that the infrared heat from CO2 can't penetrate into the ocean itself?

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.

The land in turn creates warmer rivers which then enter the ocean and follow the bottom out to deep water so for diving buoys that don't come near shore the heat is not observed passing through the open ocean surface.

Water takes longer to heat up and cool down than does the air or land, so ocean warming is considered to be a better indicator of global warming than measurements of global atmospheric temperatures at the Earth's surface.

Climate Alchemy and probably most scientists not taught chemical thermodynamics don't realise that the main heat transfer term in the oceans is the partial molar enthalpy transferred when the fresh, cold water sinking from melting ice in the Antarctic and Arctic summers is made more saline when it mixes with the warmer, more saline surface water for which solar energy has partially unmixed the ions.

Even if ALL the OCEAN ICE around the POLAR REGIONS does «melt», the newly warmed sub-artic regions, verdant with streams and rivers, will take up much of the release to increase the proportion of FRESH LIQUID water available on a now EXTENDED verdant land surface.

The IPCC most certainly also claims water vapour warms, doing most of «33 degrees» of warming, whereas, in fact, it cools the surface by reducing the temperature gradient whilst still keeping radiative balance with the Sun.

El Ni o an irregular variation of ocean current that, from January to February, flows off the west coast of South America, carrying warm, low - salinity, nutrient - poor water to the south; does not usually extend farther than a few degrees south of the Equator, but occasionally it does penetrate beyond 12 S, displacing the relatively cold Peruvian current; usually short - lived effects, but sometimes last more than a year, raising sea - surface temperatures along the coast of Peru and in the equatorial eastern Pacific Ocean, having disastrous effects on marine life and fishing

Since the whole world does not appear to freeze during a ice age, the must be massive ice making going at the pole driven by heat lifting oceans of water to the sky from the equator where it is pushed by the expanding air and vapor to the poles areas where it returns to the surface and follows cold land like a culvert between warmer expanding ocean air back down to the equatoral region.

Francisco (09:12:57): Go ahead and explain how additional heat in the atmosphere moves from the atmosphere to the ocean surface, and from there to the deep oceans, ** without first producing any warming in the atmosphere or on the ocean surface water ** Just because you don't know how it can happen, does not mean that it is not happening, just that you don't understand how.

According to Klotzbach et al. (2010), which the Watts paper references, there should be an amplification factor of ~ 1.1 between surface and lower troposphere temperatures over land (greater atmospheric warming having to do with water vapor amplification).

«The change in surface water temperature doesn't appear to be a manifestation of global warming, but rather the result of weather and wind patterns that change quickly and vary year to year, Mantua said.»

«Ocean surface temperatures — water temperatures are in the mid to upper 30s, which doesn't sound that warm but is well above the freezing point of sea water, which is about 29 degrees Fahrenheit.

Water vapor does not merely «enter» the atmosphere: it rises, condenses to water, freezes to form clouds (thus warming the upper troposphere), then falls to the ground cooling the lower atmosphere and surWater vapor does not merely «enter» the atmosphere: it rises, condenses to water, freezes to form clouds (thus warming the upper troposphere), then falls to the ground cooling the lower atmosphere and surwater, freezes to form clouds (thus warming the upper troposphere), then falls to the ground cooling the lower atmosphere and surface.

At no time did we EVER get so deep that the water temperature was warmer than the surface.

Just to let you know how stupid the global warming activists are, I've been to the south pole 3 times and even there, where the water vapor is under 0.2 mm precipitable, it's still the H2O that is the main concern in our field and nobody even talks about CO2 because CO2 doesn't absorb or radiate in the portion of the spectrum corresponding with earth's surface temps of 220 to 320 K. Not at all.

Tropical pacific surface waters easily warm just as much in model - runs that apply historical external forcing values and let the simulated ENSO cycle do its random stuff.

So where there is water to evaporate the surface doesn't get warmer but instead the cloud deck rises about 100 meters per doubling and where there was once dry cool air above the clouds there's now a warm cloud occupying that layer in the atmosphere instead.

Back radiation can not be added to solar flux when determining the surface temperature and, in fact, it does not penetrate warmer water by more than a few nanometres.

With 2), there's still something I don't get... and this applies just as much to your answer as to any answers you would get from climate science, since clouds are clouds (i.e droplets of water), and water vapour is a gas, so their back - radiation explanation doesn't even apply in the case of clouds (not saying it physically could apply anywhere but hopefully you get what I mean)... what I don't get is, you liken them to a blanket, but a blanket is next to you, clouds are separated from the surface by quite a bit of atmosphere — so why is it warmer the next morning at the surface when the clouds are there?

It is not «conduction» but exchange of radiation; if you keep your hands parallel at a distance of some cm the right hand does not (radiatively) «warm» the left hand or vice versa albeit at 33 °C skin temperature they exchange some hundreds of W / m ² (about 500 W / m ²) The solar radiation reaching the surface (for 71 % of the surface, the oceans) is lost by evaporation (or evapotranspiration of the vegetation), plus some convection (20 W / ²) and some radiation reaching the cosmos directly through the window 8µm to 12 µm (about 20 W / m ² «global» average); only the radiative heat flow surface to air (absorbed by the air) is negligible (plus or minus); the non radiative (latent heat, sensible heat) are transferred for surface to air and compensate for a part of the heat lost to the cosmos by the upper layer of the water vapour displayed on figure 6 - C.

But when the surface waters of the Pacific do heat up beyond a certain point, El Nino conditions arise, the eastern trade winds strengthen and pump the warm tropical surface water, first across the Pacific and then to the poles.

It does that by pumping warm water from the surface Pacific to the poles and replacing it with cooler subsurface water.

Warm water on Mars, boils - it's lacks atmospheric pressure lowers the boiling point to somewhere around 5 to 10 C. And 5 C water would not boil on Mars, but it would evaporate quicker on Mars then it does on Earth - because no where on Earth is drier than Mars [due to changing temperatures, frost does form on the Mars surface at equator and at nite - this requires the thin Mars air to become saturated - but generally very dry.

Of course, if the air were to be warmer than the ocean surface then evaporation would take the extra energy required from the air rather than the water and that 1 mm deep layer (0.3 C cooler than the ocean bulk) would rise to the surface and dissipate but that doesn't happen often or for long.

The rush to identify El Niño, characterized by the periodic warming of surface water temperatures off the northwestern coast of South America, as California's savior was based in part on the belief that a strong El Niño would bring as much rain as it did in the winters of 1997 - 1998 and 1982 - 1983.

Now the sun would be expected to set up an undisturbed gradient from cold at the bottom to warm at the top but it does not because upward radiation from the surface plus energy drawn upwards by evaporation at the surface creates a layer 1 mm deep near the surface (the subskin) which is 0.3 C cooler than the water below it.

Back radiation does not slow evaporative cooling of a warmer water body, or slow the rate of conduction into air molecules at the surface - atmosphere boundary.

The resulting warming due to the water vapour is in fact larger than the initial warming due to the CO2 that forced it to happen, and this is the point of the Lacis paper - yes, water vapour is a more important greenhouse gas than CO2, but water vapour doesn't change systematically with time UNLESS CO2 is changing and initiating a warming that sets into motion the surface and atmospheric processes that allow water vapour to systematically increase.

The shape of the CO2 band is such that, once saturated near the center over sufficiently small distances, increases in CO2 don't have much affect on the net radiative energy transfer from one layer of air to the other so long as CO2 is the only absorbing and emitting agent — but increases in CO2 will reduce the LW cooling of the surface to space, the net LW cooling from the surface to the air, the net LW cooling of the atmosphere to space (except in the stratosphere), and in general, it will tend to reduce the net LW cooling from a warmer to cooler layer when at least one of those layers contains some other absorbing / emitting substance (surface, water vapor, clouds) or is space)

At no point does the average temperature of the vapor exceed the average temperature of the water from which it sprang so the air near the surface never gets any warmer either.

My bet is that the hiatus is ended, mainly on the basis that it's a lot to do with variations in the ocean draw down of warmer surface water after a pacific gyre spinup circa 1995 and its subsequent working out.

As you equilibriate, the planet warms (reducing the TOA imbalance) and water vapour increases, increasing the amount of surface LW absorbed in the atmosphere, but not adding to the TOA imbalance (though it does slow the equilibration).

But if surface waters warm and ice does not form as well in winter, these processes involving salinity and circulation could be reduced or eliminated.

De Witt, are you saying «THS???» because you don't know it stands for tropical hot spot [which I can't believe] or because you don't get the connection between backradiation and a THS, which I understood to be the case because the Troposphere would warm faster than the surface since it is being heated by a warmer surface, to wit, the surface of the planet which is getting warmed by the aforesaid backradiation; and in addition to but not withstanding that the troposphere whould also rise which would be another aspect of the THS, with the final characteristic being that said THS would occur in the tropics where the warming effect of extra water would be most pronounced, also as a consequence of backradiation?

Reduced equatorial cloud cover during La Nina (due to the cooler sea surface temperature), combined with the strong upwelling (Ekman suction) in the eastern equatorial Pacific, does indeed lead to greater warming of the ocean - because it's bringing cool subsurface water to the surface, where it can be heated by the sun.