Sentences with phrase «about heat capacity»

It's not about heat capacity as such.

But what about heat capacity over the full ocean depth?

not quite the whopper of the last point, but has he ever heard about the heat capacity of the ocean, or for that matter, the height of the tropopause (does he think it's at 500 mb globally?).

Not exact matches

On Tuesday, facing rising political heat after the Parkland massacre, Trump, as he often does, blamed his predecessors for a lack of action and said he would be different, despite widespread skepticism among gun control activists about his sincerity and capacity to make the case for change.

All in all, the First Years Night Cravings Bottle Warmer is perfect or just about everyone, with its capacity to hold up to two bottles, and it's ideal for heating formula or even baby food.

However, in reality CO2 increases by about 2 ppm per year and the observations show that the atmosphere with its rather low heat capacity responds to that quite rapidly.

The fundamental issue about climate change, the difficulty, is the delayed response of a system and that's due to the ocean's heat capacity.

A Powerpoint covering the theory about Specific Heat Capacity for the AQA A Level Physics Thermal Physics topic.

The atmosphere stores only about 2 % because of its small heat capacity.

The surface heat capacity C (j = 0) was set to the equivalent of a global layer of water 50 m deep (which would be a layer ~ 70 m thick over the oceans) plus 70 % of the atmosphere, the latent heat of vaporization corresponding to a 20 % increase in water vapor per 3 K warming (linearized for current conditions), and a little land surface; expressed as W * yr per m ^ 2 * K (a convenient unit), I got about 7.093.

Learn about specific heat capacities of different substances (specifically the difference between air and water)

If molten stone is at about 2000 C, and the heat capacity is about 0.2, than you would need 32,500 km3 to provide the required heating.

Typically that is about 200 years after the CO2 reaches 2 times its initial concentration, although it varies from model to model depending on the effective heat capacity of the Earth's surface in the model.

Climate response (and thus climate sensitivity) isn't just about radiative balance, heat capacity etc..

The heat capacity of the OSBL is about 10 ^ 6 as large as that in the diffusive boundary layer, as shown with this definition:

Considering the heat capacity of the oceans is about 1,100 times greater than the air, would not even a modest change in cloud cover affect the radiative balance with far greater magnitude than a parts - per - million change in an atmospheric gas constituent?

John Carter August 8, 2014 at 12:58 am chooses to state his position on the greenhouse effect in the following 134 word sentence: «But given the [1] basics of the greenhouse effect, the fact that with just a very small percentage of greenhouse gas molecules in the air this effect keeps the earth about 55 - 60 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be, and the fact that through easily recognizable if [2] inadvertent growing patterns we have at this point probably at least [3] doubled the total collective amount in heat absorption and re-radiation capacity of long lived atmospheric greenhouse gases (nearly doubling total that of the [4] leading one, carbon dioxide, in the modern era), to [5] levels not collectively seen on earth in several million years — levels that well predated the present ice age and extensive earth surface ice conditions — it goes [6] against basic physics and basic geologic science to not be «predisposed» to the idea that this would ultimately impact climate.»

lgl says: April 12, 2011 at 10:59 am No, that's what heat capacity is about.

That fluctuation is amplified by land surface temperatures in the same latitude band of about the same area, because the land surface temperatures are at a higher average altitude with a lower average specific heat capacity and the (Tmax + Tmin) / 2 method of determining «average» amplifies the variance.

Well now, that is something you should take up with Webster, I just know that more efficient mixing increases the average temperature of the oceans which is increasing the total heat in the ocean system which has about 1000 times the heat capacity of the air that that heat would be lost to if the mixing didn't take place as efficiently.

The atmosphere has the heat capacity of only about the top 2.5 meters of water, so where is your energy coming from?

* In addition to maturity issue for the dataset, what about the fact that large (compared to the rest of the system's heat capacity) changes can result from tiny changes in temperature measurements arguably within instrumental detection limits?

I've long wondered why the ocean is warming at about the same rate as the atmosphere but has more than 1000x the heat storage capacity.

A heavy ceramic cup, doesn't work as good as thermos but works slightly better than less heavy cup [more a bit more heat capacity and more insulation] But if you don't screw on the lid, a thermos works about a good as ceramic cup - preventing evaporation of the hot coffee is large factor.

Instead what is important about Earth is it comprised of material which has a high heat capacity.

The sky equals about 10 meter liquid [or frozen solid] over entire surface - so rocks, lawns, dirt, sand, and have little heat capacity as compare to 30 feet worth of liquid air.

Now, the first 2.5 meters of ocean water have about as much heat capacity as the entire atmosphere, so its detectability there would be as difficult as in the atmosphere, assuming all of it went there instantly (without affecting the atmosphere).

The uhü is heated and cooled with a single - head Mitsubishi Hyper - Heat ductless minisplit with a rated capacity of 18,000 BtuBritish thermal unit, the amount of heat required to raise one pound of water (about a pint) one degree Fahrenheit in temperature — about the heat content of one wooden kitchen maHeat ductless minisplit with a rated capacity of 18,000 BtuBritish thermal unit, the amount of heat required to raise one pound of water (about a pint) one degree Fahrenheit in temperature — about the heat content of one wooden kitchen maheat required to raise one pound of water (about a pint) one degree Fahrenheit in temperature — about the heat content of one wooden kitchen maheat content of one wooden kitchen match.

Over the ocean water vapor is about 5 % of the atmosphere by weight but about 95 % by heat capacity.

So if on shined that laser on a square meter for say 10 mins then the 1 mm depth of square meter could warm by about 1 C. Rather than water one could also heat up anything with a thin surface [and assuming one reduces the heat loss] So thin sheet of paper which absorbs [has heat capacity of whatever wavelength one is using could heated within mins of exposure.

I know about thermodynamics... CO2 does not have magical insulating properties or heat storage capacity you dreamed up to do anything measurable to our atmosphere's temperature.

You can see this in ocean heat capacity data which showed fast warming from the 1980s and warming ceased in about 2003.

The heat capacity of dry soil is about 0.20 BTU per pound per ºF of temperature change, which is only one - fifth the heat capacity of water.

When applying the factor 0.203 to the case of the Earth one gets 240K and if taking the heat capacity of H2O into account, one comes to the temperature of about 200 — 220 K without the atmosphere.

We also know about LWR feedback from cloud skies, and SWR feedback from clear and cloudy skies in response to seasonal warming (which is 3.5 K in GMST without anomalies due to the lower heat capacity in the NH).

I was doing work on how Europeans had manage to back out out of heating and utilities, and found out about a lot of both electric capacity and home heating equipment that could use two or even three fuels (Yes, Swedish home boilers using wood, oil and electricity!).

Further, air has little heat capacity and the wavelength of re-radiated radiation from CO2 is such that it can not effectively penetrate the oceans (depth of penetration about 10 microns) and at most it simply boils off a small layer of the ocean which probably has a net cooling effect.

Think about the difference in magnitude between the heat of vaporization of water and the heat capacity of air.

To figure out if it is about to stop, you have to consider the heat capacity and distribution.

The base case showed about 3,000 megawatts of combined heat and power market penetration, including both generation capacity and avoided electric air conditioning.

Consider, for instance, that the heat capacity of the ocean is about a thousand times that of the atmosphere.

The basic results of this climate model analysis are that: (1) it is increase in atmospheric CO2 (and the other minor non-condensing greenhouse gases) that control the greenhouse warming of the climate system; (2) water vapor and clouds are feedback effects that magnify the strength of the greenhouse effect due to the non-condensing greenhouse gases by about a factor of three; (3) the large heat capacity of the ocean and the rate of heat transport into the ocean sets the time scale for the climate system to approach energy balance equilibrium.

This assumed people know about watts and joules and heat capacity.

Note: LOTI provides a more realistic representation of the global mean trends than dTs below; it slightly underestimates warming or cooling trends, since the much larger heat capacity of water compared to air causes a slower and diminished reaction to changes; dTs on the other hand overestimates trends, since it disregards most of the dampening effects of the oceans that cover about two thirds of the Earth's surface.

(about 75 % of the total mass of the atmosphere) Dry air has a heat capacity of 1.0035 J / (gK).

True story: the heroes of AGW Theory (the idea that humans caused global warming by releasing carbon dioxide into the air) had a very poor grasp of the facts about the heat carrying capacity of Earth's oceans.

Like the heated jar of Carbon Dioxide compared with a heated «jar of air» — nothing about constituent parts in the «air» or their heat capacities compared with CO2, no continuation in simple logic to see how fast they lose heat in comparison.

Yes, it is not a simple problem considering about 70 % of the earth's surface is covered by water and the heat capacity of the oceans is several orders of magnitude greater than the atmosphere.

The «note» you refer to goes: «Note: LOTI provides a more realistic representation of the global mean trends than dTs below; it slightly underestimates warming or cooling trends, since the much larger heat capacity of water compared to air causes a slower and diminished reaction to changes; dTs on the other hand overestimates trends, since it disregards most of the dampening effects of the oceans that cover about two thirds of the earth's surface.»

As I understand it the difference in the heat capacity of moist and dry does not amount to much, as the average percentage of water vapour in air is only about 2 %.