Sentences with phrase «effect with warm air»

Tornadoes have hit every continent on the planet except Antarctica, but the vast majority of tornadoes hit in the United States — specifically in the south and southeast United States, or «tornado alley,» where cold air blowing east from the Rocky Mountains can mix to deadly effect with warm air blowing north from the Gulf of Mexico.

Not exact matches

More than two of every five Americans reside in counties with unhealthy levels of smog and air pollution, thanks largely to the effect of global warming, health researchers report.

The researchers found that on windy nights it wasn't possible to measure the cooling effects of the green spaces beyond their boundaries as there was too much turbulent mixing of the air; but on calm warm nights they estimate that a network of green spaces of around 3 - 5 hectares each situated 100 - 150 m apart would provide comprehensive cooling for a city with a climate and characteristics similar to London.

However, a new University of Minnesota study with more than 1,000 young trees has found that plants also adjust — or acclimate — to a warmer climate and may release only one - fifth as much additional carbon dioxide than scientists previously believed, The study, published today in the journal Nature, is based on a five - year project, known as «B4Warmed,» that simulated the effects of climate change on 10 boreal and temperate tree species growing in an open - air setting in 48 plots in two forests in northern Minnesota.

Ironically, if the lakes enter the fall with record warm temperatures, it could herald an above - average season for lake effect snow, which occurs when cold, dry air blows across large expanses of comparatively milder waters.

(1) Most of the warming would actually occur near the surface in areas with shallow cold dry air masses, such as in Siberia and northern Canada where it would not have a large effect.

So, if you have two identical glass greenhouses with thermally isolated mercury thermometers at equilibrium in the sunlight [One with Air at Press =P, and the 2nd w / CO2 at Press =P], and you close the blinds — you will see the thermometer in the CO2 greenhouse retain its temperature longer — not because of any «global warming» type effect, but simply because Air conducts heat to the walls of the greenhouse better than Air does.

I have also never seen the combination of an earth tube with the stack effect, to deliver fresh air, cool in summer and warmed in winter, to a building this size.

So, if you have two identical glass greenhouses with thermally isolated mercury thermometers at equilibrium in the sunlight [One with Air at Press =P, and the 2nd w / CO2 at Press =P], and you close the blinds — you will see the thermometer in the CO2 greenhouse retain its temperature longer — not because of any «global warming» type effect, but simply because Air conducts heat to the walls of the greenhouse better than CO2 does.

Re 9 wili — I know of a paper suggesting, as I recall, that enhanced «backradiation» (downward radiation reaching the surface emitted by the air / clouds) contributed more to Arctic amplification specifically in the cold part of the year (just to be clear, backradiation should generally increase with any warming (aside from greenhouse feedbacks) and more so with a warming due to an increase in the greenhouse effect (including feedbacks like water vapor and, if positive, clouds, though regional changes in water vapor and clouds can go against the global trend); otherwise it was always my understanding that the albedo feedback was key (while sea ice decreases so far have been more a summer phenomenon (when it would be warmer to begin with), the heat capacity of the sea prevents much temperature response, but there is a greater build up of heat from the albedo feedback, and this is released in the cold part of the year when ice forms later or would have formed or would have been thicker; the seasonal effect of reduced winter snow cover decreasing at those latitudes which still recieve sunlight in the winter would not be so delayed).

Similar negative effects occur with worsening air pollution — higher levels of ground - level ozone smog and other pollutants that increase with warmer temperatures have been directly linked with increased rates of respiratory and cardiovascular disease — food production and safety — warmer temperatures and varying rainfall patterns mess up staple crop yields and aid the migration and breeding of pests that can devastate crops — flooding — as rising sea levels make coastal areas and densely - populated river deltas more susceptible to storm surges and flooding that result from severe weather — and wildfires, which can be ancillary to increased heat waves and are also responsible for poor air quality (not to mention burning people's homes and crops).

It is the collision of cold Arctic air with relatively warm unfrozen lake water in early winter that causes lake effect snows in the first place.

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.»

Lake - effect snow happens when moisture from warmer lake waters mixes with cold air coming from the north, causing more than 2 to 3 inches of snow an hour.

Rider: If CO2 does help warm the air (or the globe in general), does the extra warmth disappear soon after, with no significant effect on climate?

Part of this effect has been associated with the prevailing west wind bringing in warmer air off the ocean.

To point out just a couple of things: — oceans warming slower (or cooling slower) than lands on long - time trends is absolutely normal, because water is more difficult both to warm or to cool (I mean, we require both a bigger heat flow and more time); at the contrary, I see as a non-sense theory (made by some serrist, but don't know who) that oceans are storing up heat, and that suddenly they will release such heat as a positive feedback: or the water warms than no heat can be considered ad «stored» (we have no phase change inside oceans, so no latent heat) or oceans begin to release heat but in the same time they have to cool (because they are losing heat); so, I don't feel strange that in last years land temperatures for some series (NCDC and GISS) can be heating up while oceans are slightly cooling, but I feel strange that they are heating up so much to reverse global trend from slightly negative / stable to slightly positive; but, in the end, all this is not an evidence that lands» warming is led by UHI (but, this effect, I would not exclude it from having a small part in temperature trends for some regional area, but just small); both because, as writtend, it is normal to have waters warming slower than lands, and because lands» temperatures are often measured in a not so precise way (despite they continue to give us a global uncertainity in TT values which is barely the instrumental's one)-- but, to point out, HadCRU and MSU of last years (I mean always 2002 - 2006) follow much better waters» temperatures trend; — metropolis and larger cities temperature trends actually show an increase in UHI effect, but I think the sites are few, and the covered area is very small worldwide, so the global effect is very poor (but it still can be sensible for regional effects); but I would not run out a small warming trend for airport measurements due mainly to three things: increasing jet planes traffic, enlarging airports (then more buildings and more asphalt — if you follow motor sports, or simply live in a town / city, you will know how easy they get very warmer than air during day, and how much it can slow night - time cooling) and overall having airports nearer to cities (if not becoming an area inside the city after some decade of hurban growth, e.g. Milan - Linate); — I found no point about UHI in towns and villages; you will tell me they are not large cities; but, in comparison with 20-40-60 years ago when they were «countryside», many small towns and villages have become part of larger hurban areas (at least in Europe and Asia) so examining just larger cities would not be enough in my opinion to get a full view of UHI effect (still remembering that it has a small global effect: we can say many matters are due to UHI instead of GW, maybe even that a small part of measured GW is due to UHI, and that GW measurements are not so precise to make us able to make good analisyses and predictions, but not that GW is due to UHI).

In other words, UHI * is the value of the urban - heat - island effect if wind were not reducing it by replacing warmer air with colder; and NSTI * is the effect of the near - surface temperature inversion if the wind were not mixing up the air near the ground with the air a little higher up.

However, on windy days, I expect the UHI effect to be vitiated by mixing of air from outside the region of the city with the relatively warmed air; and I expect the windiness to reduce the stratification of the boundary layer («mix it up») and thus reduce the cooling effect of the NSTI.

In their Geophysical Research Letters publication the researchers also write that «aerosol invigoration effect occurs mainly in warmed - based convection with weak shear «-- as they could not find similar effects in frontal convection weather systems, which have higher wind shear and where air is forced up not by land surface warming, but by a pushing cold air wedge.

Also, off the top of my head, a very tall tank may allow for a small lapse rate like effect, with warm air rising.

The Nature study suggests that global warming will mix growing amounts of higher, drier air with ocean clouds over the course of the century, thinning out the clouds and reducing their cooling effect.

If these plumes of warm air operated in the same way during the last glaciation as they do know then they would make short work of ice sheets that were hanging around because of the albedo effect, this is possible because not all the northern hemisphere mid latitude land surface was covered with ice throughout the period of glaciation and might explain why glaciations terminate quickly

Warmer air temperatures with ocean temperatures lagging would result in La Nina's having a relatively larger spread between water and air temps producing a stronger effect even with weak La Nina's.

With evaporation being the more powerful effect the rate of energy flow to the air above is likely to increase rather than decrease and the 1 mm deep layer descend and / or intensify despite a warming of the topmost few microns.

As I understand AGW, the theory goes that added CO2 combines with an energy photon (ie the greenhouse effect) to warm the world, & heat the air which results in more water vapor which absorbs more photons which results in Man caused warming feedback.

One of the most well - known effects of global warming is an intensification of the water cycle, with higher air temperatures leading to increased evaporation from the seas and soils, and more atmospheric water vapor contributing to more frequent heavy precipitation events.

The second issue is far more complex, namely the inter-relationship with other gases in the atmosphere and what effect it may have on the rate of convection at various altitudes and / or whether convection effectively outstrips any «heat trapping» effect of CO2 carrying the warmer air away and upwards to the upper atmosphere where the «heat» is radiated to space.

Popular Science has a relatively user - friendly definition of «bomb cyclone» you can check out, but this type of weather event is essentially a super fast drop in pressure (bomb) caused by warm air meeting cold air, combined with the rotation of the Earth to create a swirling effect (cyclone).