Sentences with phrase «equal a temperature increase»

Not exact matches

Land - use changes over the past 250 years in Europe have been huge, yet, they only caused a relatively small temperature increase, equal to roughly 6 % of the warming produced by global fossil fuel burning, Naudts noted.

According to these data, the AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE for the first 9 months of 2008 is LOWER than the average from 2000 thru 2007 by an amount equal to 43.1 % of the total linearized increase (NOAA data) during the 20th century.

UWLWIR is proportional to T ^ 4, (2) with emissivity constant, so the increase in UWLWIR, assuming that the global mean surface temperature is equal 288K, works out to delta U = (288.5 / 288) ^ 4 × 398 — 398 = 2.8 W / m ^ 2.

(6) When the test result is invalid because pH is greater than or equal to 9.0 but less than or equal to 9.5 and the employee has no other medical explanation for the pH, you should consider whether there is evidence of elapsed time and increased temperature that could account for the pH value.

The average low temperature increases to 72 °F (22 °C) while the average high temperature increases at an equal rate to 86 °F (30 °C).

Can 20 years of flat temperature trend plus 12 years of increase equal a long term trend?

All else equal, if CO2 goes up, it affects that balance, and temperature increases until a new equilibrium is reached (which takes a long time as the ocean is a big heat sink).

Doesn't using a «baseline for anomaly calculation» «equal to the time span being analyzed» decrease REAL extreme weather event probabilities much the same way as using a sliding baseline minimizes the slope of temperature increase?

Recall that in their 2001 Third Assessment Report, the IPCC gives a range of temperature increase between 1990 and 2100 of 1.4 and 5.8 ºC based upon the simulated output from 7 different climate models run under 35 different emissions scenarios — each of which the IPCC claimed as having an equal probability of occurrence.

If the optical thickness and temperature distributions are such that the dominant spatial tendency in temperature is to either increase or decrease (as opposed to fluctuate) from a location out to a substantial optical thickness away, then farther increases in optical thickness will bring the flux and intensities coming from that direction toward the values they would have for a blackbody with a temperature equal to the temperature at that location.

the differential cloud change (dcc) of each day is equal to daily average cloud change (x), minus an averaging period of three days which begins five days prior to each date,... «-RRB-, linked to a transient decrease in cosmic rays, is associated with a transient increase of surface level air temperature.

When there aren't any gaps in space with zero optical thickness (there is approximately a gap above TOA) and temperature varies continously over space (at sufficient spatial resolution, this is generally true everywhere within the climate system), increasing optical thickness eventually saturates the fluxes going in opposite directions, at which point they become equal, so that the net flux is zero.

Northern Hemisphere mean temperatures do appear to have cooled over that period, and that contrasts with a continuing increase in CO2, which if all else had been equal, should have led to warming.

-- What's the mean avg growth in global CO2 and CO2e last year and over the prior ~ 5 years — What's the current global surface temperature anomaly in the last year and in prior ~ 5 years — project that mean avg growth in CO2 / CO2e ppm increasing at the same rate for another decade, and then to 2050 and to 2075 (or some other set of years)-- then using the best available latest GCM / s (pick and stick) for each year or quarter update and calculate the «likely» global surface temperature anomaly into the out years — all things being equal and not assuming any «fictional» scenarios in any RCPs or Paris accord of some massive shift in projected FF / Cement use until such times as they are a reality and actually operating and actually seen slowing CO2 ppm growth.

So with the «greenhouse gas effect» if I add more CO2 AND all other things remain equal, temperature will increase, but if clouds are a regulating mechanism, adding more CO2 doesn't have to change temperature at all, just the amount of energy required to maintain that temperature would be reduced.

Other Arizona USHCN raw station data is below, showing about equal numbers of stations with declining and increasing maximum mean temperatures over the last 80 years.

In the worst case, as the temperature gradient between the freezing water and the air increases, the energy transfer from the water to the air may now equal the energy loss from the air, at which point the air will stop getting colder.

This is a simple first order equilibrium process, where a temperature increase will increase the CO2 content of the atmosphere until a new equilibrium is found where the release of CO2 and the absorption of CO2 again are equal.

According to these data, the AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE for the first 9 months of 2008 is LOWER than the average from 2000 thru 2007 by an amount equal to 43.1 % of the total linearized increase (NOAA data) during the 20th century.

As greenhouse gases accumulate one might expect about 0.01 degrees C increase in atmospheric temperature per year — all things being equal.

In the simpelist terms I can state that based on historical evidence x amount of increase in CO2 will equal y amount of temperature increase as for instance IPCC models.

Is anyone arguing that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas and that all else being equal, a shift in the earth's radiative equilibrium temperature upward would NOT be expected with this increase?

«3.7 Wm - 2 of additional forcing due to a doubling of CO2 will cause 1.5 C increase in temperature IF ALL THINGS REMAIN EQUAL.»

You can easily prove this coupled concept with a beach windbreak: erect it and the sand temperature rises to keep the sum of convective and radiative heat loss equal to the SW thermalisation; drop the windbreak and sand temperature falls as convection increases.

With respect to my Venus / Earth temperatures comparison, I found the Venus / Earth ratio of temperatures at equal pressures to be 1.176, which implies an incident power ratio of 1.91, just that provided by the ratio of the two planets» distances from the Sun ** (and thus proving there is no greenhouse effect, even for so large a CO2 increase as from 0.04 % on Earth to 96.5 % on Venus).

Increase a LW interacting GHG in the atmosphere... causes absorption / random radiation... the 1/2 down increases radiation pressure... atmosphere expands... thus it cools... BUT, radiation 1/2 down causes an increase in temperature... warming equals Increase a LW interacting GHG in the atmosphere... causes absorption / random radiation... the 1/2 down increases radiation pressure... atmosphere expands... thus it cools... BUT, radiation 1/2 down causes an increase in temperature... warming equals increase in temperature... warming equals -LRB-??)

More GHG equals more absorption and re-emitting of long wave bands, and that equals an increase in temperatures.»

And as increasing CO2 has never led to temperatures spiraling out of control on the high side, nor has decreasing CO2 ever caused temperatures to spiral out of control on the low side, clearly all other things are NEVER equal.

Adding CO2 does increase the adsorption of IR in a closed cell and the temperature must go up to until the IR emission equals the absorption at a new equilibrium.

In that case, when we raise the temperature, the pressure inside will remain constant (and equal to the outside pressure), but the container's volume will increase.

All else being equal, increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide lead to warmer global average surface temperatures.

Other analyses have revealed that increased temperatures are spreading rapidly across the world's oceans (measured as the movement of bands of equal water temperature or isotherms).

In addition, it has been noted on the chart when extreme 10 - year temperature changes have taken place - those rare increasing / decreasing temp changes that equal or exceed +0.6 / -0.6 °C.

Of course increased global temperatures will alter ecosystems no matter what their origin but, if the evidence of the last 200 years or so is anything to go by, there will be an equal number of winners and losers in the ecosystem as a whole.

Moreover, on an all - other - things - equal basis, there is no statistically valid proof that past increases in Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have caused the officially reported rising, even claimed record setting temperatures.

However, there was an equal increase in solar forcing between 1940 and 1970, when temperature trends reversed.

It increases temperature overall, which, all other things being equal, would lead to less snow.

Increase in co2 equals a corresponding increase in tempIncrease in co2 equals a corresponding increase in tempincrease in temperature.

As Earth became colder and continental ice sheets grew, further increase of δ18O was due in equal parts to deep ocean temperature change and ice mass change.

The black - body hypothesis that a doubling of carbon dioxide will, all other things being equal, lead to around a one degree C increase in temperature.

A 1 percentage point decrease in albedo (30 % to 29 %) would increase the black - body radiative equilibrium temperature about 1 °C, about equal to a doubling of atmospheric CO2.

The frequency and intensity of forest fires in the region have been increasing along with rising temperatures.5, 7,13 An average of around 9.9 million acres (4 million hectares) of boreal forest burned annually in Russia from 1975 to 2005 — and that rate more than doubled in the 1990s.15 One of West Siberia's largest forest fires on record occurred in 2003, claiming some 47 million acres (20 million hectares) of land7, 15 and emitting heat - trapping emissions equal to the total cuts in emissions the European Union pledged under the Kyoto Protocol.2, 7,16 Higher temperatures and thawing permafrost are probably contributing to the rising frequency and severity of forest fires in West Siberia.5, 7,14

Fourth: the increase in total CO2 disturbs the natural equilibrium, but more CO2 (pressure) in the atmosphere gives less ocean output (for equal temperature) and more ocean sink.

But based on the radiative properties, there is broad agreement that, all things being equal, a doubling of CO2 will yield a temperature increase of a bit more than 1 C if feedbacks are ignored.

Now if SST (skin) temperature increases for whatever reason that should have an effect on upward energy transfer from below all other things being equal.

It has been demonstrated experimentally for the last 100 years, and even Ms Curry says that all other things being equal, increased CO2 will increase temperature.

In this case upscaling is not carried out since the GCM uncertainty has already been taken into account in the original literature; h — cases where sea surface temperature is the important variable, hence upscaling has been carried out using the maps from Meehl et al. (2007), using Figures 10.5 and 10.8, taking the increases in local annual mean (or where appropriate seasonal, from Figure 10.9) surface air temperature over the sea as equal to the local increases in annual mean or seasonal sea surface temperature.

3) The TOA energy imbalance equals on average total forcing from all factors since 1750 (by convention) minus the increase radiation to space due to increased surface temperature.

Vaughan Pratt had a nice model with a strong relationship of temperature to CO2, others get nearly equal results with a simple linear increase since the LIA.

To me, thinking that the temperature responds in a simple way to a simple change in forcing is like saying the velocity of my car responds in a simple way to a change in the forcing (increase in fuel burned)... As Mosher always says, that's true if and only if everything else is equal.