Sentences with phrase «already know the temperatures»

Researchers already know the temperatures in the Arctic are rising twice as fast as temperatures elsewhere, but other aspects of the changing environment in the Arctic are difficult to predict and model.

Not exact matches

Changes of clocks and rulers were already well known in physics due to temperature and pressure and so on.

You probably already know something about your baby's temperature preferences, but since you've presumably been only breastfeeding up until this point, you may be unaware of whether or not your child has any temperature - related pickiness in terms of his or her food.

Year - to - year changes in Greenland melt since 1979 were already known to be closely tied to North Atlantic ocean temperatures and high - pressure systems that sit above Greenland during the summer — known as summer blocking highs.

The findings of this study can add to what is already known about the temperature oversensitivity experienced by patients with thyroid disorders.

It was already known that cold temperatures stimulate brown fat, but was unclear how the body signals that message to its cells.

«We know that with global temperature about 0.9 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial, these changes are already causing significant harm to life.»

It is already known to exert a strong influence on temperatures and rainfall in the United States, and affect the position of the jet stream.

According to a study conducted by marine biologists of GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel and Rostock University within the German research network BIOACID (Biological Impacts of Ocean Acidification), eutrophication — that is already known for its negative effects — and rising seawater temperatures could lead to a decline of the bladder wrack in the Baltic Sea.

Aerosols are already known to reduce global warming: The vast clouds of sulfates thrown up in the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, for example, reduced average global temperatures by about half a degree Celsius.

One study of cyanobacteria, also known as blue - green algae, although they are not algae, predicted that rising sea temperatures could help the already widespread creatures expand their territory by more than 10 percent.

The whole CAGW — GHG scare is based on the obvious fallacy of putting the effect before the cause.As a simple (not exact) analogy controlling CO2 levels to control temperature is like trying to lower the temperature of an electric hot plate under a boiling pan of water by capturing and sequestering the steam coming off the top.A corollory to this idea is that the whole idea of a simple climate sensitivity to CO2 is nonsense and the sensitivity equation has no physical meaning unless you already know what the natural controls on energy inputs are already ie the extent of the natural variability.

Some of the already known low - and intermediate - mass extrasolar planets may be carbon planets, which should easily survive at high temperatures near a star if they have the mass of Neptune.

The study documented a connection between rising sea surface temperatures and declines in phytoplankton, a phenomenon that was already well known, said study team member Boris Worm, a marine biologist at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

THURSDAY, April 12, 2018 (HealthDay News)-- If you suffer from allergies, you already know that pollen is in the air — even in the parts of the United States with unseasonably cool temperatures.

And second thing you're going to know that you're already into ovulation, is you're going to notice an increase in temperature following the drop.

I already know that the blouse will be my go to summer piece, so I can't wait for the temperatures to rise a little.

With temperatures between the 70s and 80s, it feels like Spring already (my allergies know it too ha!).

Think about what you already know about weather, look at weather forecasts and video your own school weather forecasts; do weather observations and make collages about the seasons; have fun with shadows; make a class weather station that can measure rainfall, wind direction and temperature.

Since the engine computer already knows the engine temperature, vehicle speed and throttle position it can activate the TCC.

We all know there's another four to eight weeks of frigid temperatures, but clothing manufacturers are already preparing for spring.

Prior to that point, we see cooling — consistent with what we already know, that global temperatures appear to have either declined or held steady from ca. 1940 through the late 70's.

How does society, as it stands now, not understand that they have locked into the system already a rise to the high 500's ppm, and, in my humble opinion, the low 600's are NOT out of the question.To me this is just as much of a tragedy if it takes place 250 years from now as it is if it takes only 100 years.In the end, the seventh generation is screwed by a huge loss of fresh water, a huge increase in temperature, an ocean that no longer produces even one tenth of its total protein and carboydrate output as it did in the 1800's.

In any case, what Oerlemans's paper does very well is to demonstrate (one more time) what we already knew: global temperatures have risen more than 0.5 degrees C in the last century (up to 1990 — we don't yet have a compilation of the latest data).

The community already knows that there is multidecadal - scale variability in North Atlantic temperatures.

We already know they can take a change in average temperature of that magnitude in one year.

In the reconstruction period (the only part that is «new science» here, after all we know the temperature record already), the patterns are not replicated.

-LSB-...] And I don't think I am shocking anyone here, because I know everyone already assumes that we will see more witch executions as the temperatures rise.

* There is too much conflicting evidence about climate change to know whether it is actually happening * Current climate change is part of a pattern that has been going on for millions of years * Climate change is just a natural fluctuation in Earth's temperatures * Even if we do experience some consequences from climate change, we will be able to cope with them * The effects of climate change are likely to be catastrophic * The evidence for climate change is unreliable * There are a lot of very different theories about climate change and little agreement about which is right * Scientists have in the past changed their results to make climate change appear worse than it is * Scientists have hidden research that shows climate change is not serious * Climate change is a scam * Social / behavioural scepticism measures * Climate change is so complicated, that there is very little politicians can do about it * There is no point in me doing anything about climate change because no - one else is * The actions of a single person doesn't make any difference in tackling climate change * People are too selfish to do anything about climate change * Not much will be done about climate change, because it is not in human nature to respond to problems that won't happen for many years * It is already too late to do anything about climate change * The media is often too alarmist about climate change * Environmentalists do their best to emphasise the worst possible effects of climate change * Climate change has now become a bit of an outdated issue * Whether it is important or not, on a day - to - day basis I am bored of hearing about climate change

Scientists already knew that average global temperatures had risen about one degree Fahrenheit since 1900.

For people who accept AGW (durrrr basic physics) the demonstration that you can «explain» the temperature as a function of 2 parameters (in out our case) or 9 parameters (in your case) stands as a good sanity check of what we already know to be the case.

Now imagine if there was already a known mechanism of IR scattering that reduced IR loss to space resulting in a heating effect, and that the particulars of the mechanism were well understood, and that the substances responsible for this mechanism were very well known, and that we were increasing the concentration of this substance quite dramatically, and that we we seeing temperature rises as had had been hypothesized almost a century ago, and that some signs indicative of this particular mechanism for warming had been observed.

Based on the principles of radiative physics and reasonable estimates of feedbacks and climate sensitivity, I would say that any current oscillations beyond those we already know can't be strong so strong that they leave little or no room for what anthropogenic emissions are contributing to the temperature trend.

We knew already that the average surface temperature is only a proxy.

If you did already know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is logarithmic why did you use an argument that only applies if the relationship was linear?

We all already know that the blade comes from a few cherry - picked series that just happen to correlate with the instrumental temperature record.

A new study on ice loss in Antarctica by the British Antarctic Survey confirms what we already know about the effects of global warming but it differentiates between the effects of ocean currents, their cause and the air temperature effects at the ice surface.

Scientists already know how climate change is impacting the Western United States — higher temperatures have translated to earlier spring snow melts, precipitation is falling more as rain instead of snow at higher elevations and there's reduced runoff and streamflow.

It is pushing up temperatures in a region already known for its scorching summers.

The two periods are of different length, and at different temperature levels, with different error bars, and we already know from Cowtan & Way and other basic observations that the so - called «global» dataset isn't representative of the scale of the change but tends to minimize differences: you can't simply subtract one rate from the other and get a valid result.

Confirming what we already know about the effects of global warming, it also differentiates between the effects of currents, their cause and the air temperature effects at the ice surface.

We already know that the sea surface temperatures associated with mass bleaching of much of the Great Barrier Reef in early 2016 would have been virtually impossible without climate change.

He says to take examples from real world, (as he's done with the example of packets of air rising which is already well known and which is what gives us our weather), but on a non-rotating Earth it's the difference of temperature provided by the Sun between the equator and the poles which sets up the basic pattern of packets of air on the move (which is wind, wind is volumes of air on the move) from the equator to the poles where they cool and are drawn back to the equator where the heating cycle begins again.

It's not as though this communcation effort started yesterday, that we don't already know the surface temperature expresses only a tiny fraction of accumulated energy in the Earth system.

The high and persistent temperatures this fall are particularly extraordinary, scientists said, because the region has already plunged into «polar night,» the time of year when the sun no longer rises over the North Pole.

By plotting and replotting global temperatures with various trendlines through them, we won't learn anything more than we already know (so stop it, it's boring).

As just one example; «How we can know an average global sea surface temperature back to 1850 when so much of the world was unexplored let alone its oceans measured» should be just one example that should make scientists question whether the models they build are actually using reliable data, or whether they think they already know the answer and therefore just use data that supports it, no matter its doubtful provenance.

From direct observation we already know that the extreme predictions of CO2's impact on global temperature are highly unlikely given that about one - third of all our CO2 emissions have been discharged during the past 18 years and there has been no statistically significant warming.

The stronger explanatory stance is to say «We already knew from the superior thermometer data that temperature went up over the last x years.

This comment has already gotten too long, but I'd like to point out that based on what we know so far, it looks very much as if Salby is making the same mistake that McLean made (in attributing the temperature rise to ENSO) and, even more similarly, that Mr Lon Hocker made in a post at WUWT in which he made virtually the identical argument to this one (temperature changes explain the atmospheric CO2 trend).