Sentences with phrase «given the temperature difference»

The thermal conductance of an interface determines the rate of heat flow for a given temperature difference between the materials.

Not exact matches

At a particular location within the product, a local freezing rate can be defined as the ratio of the difference between the initial temperature and desired temperature to the time elapsed in reaching the given final temperature (Persson and Lohndal, 1993).

Dr Van der Kamp said: «Our computer simulations of the «wiggling and jiggling» of enzymes at different stages in the reaction tells us how these structural fluctuations give rise to the difference in heat capacity, and thereby can predict the optimum temperature of an enzyme.

Also, insects depend on their surroundings for body warmth or cooling, so changing temperatures make a huge difference in their lives, says coauthor Dilip Venugopal, an applied ecologist working as a policy fellow at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, D.C. Pests evolving resistance to Bt might do so faster when a warming landscape, for instance, lets them squeeze extra generations into a year and gives earworms a better chance of surviving the winter.

Additionally, there were also regional differences in the spatial patterns of change trend in the ARNC temperature at a given time.

With 755 horsepower the 2019 Chevrolet Corvette zr1 is the most powerful Corvette ever it's also the most technologically advanced behind me are the rolling s's at Road Atlanta and we're here to see if we can reach to the supercar levels of performance afforded by this thing's massive power big tires and the tall wing on the back after that we'll take to the streets to see if a car this powerful can behave itself in public this is a monster of a car I've had some brief track opportunities moving this morning to get used to the pace of this machine which is phenomenal we're gonna warm up as we get out to the road Atlanta and sort of build up to the pace that this car can operate at now initially when you hop in this car you have this shrine to the engine right above you you see the line of the hood it kind of dominates the center of the view you can see over it it doesn't affect visibility but it's immediately obvious and that kind of speaks to what makes this car special it's a monster of an engine listen to that [Music] that is tremendous tremendous acceleration and incredible power but what I finding so far my brief time here at the Atlanta is that everything else in the car is rut has risen to match hurt me while I lay into it on the back straight look you know 150 mile - an - hour indicated we're going to ease up a little bit on it because I need to focus on talking rather than driving but like I was saying the attributes of the rest of the car the steering the braking capability the grip every system of this car is riding to the same level of the power and I think that's what makes it really impressive initially this is undoubtedly a mega mega fast car but it's one that doesn't terrify you with its performance potential there's a level of electronic sophistication that is unparalleled at this price point but it's hard not to get you know totally slipped away by the power of this engine so that's why I keep coming back to it this car has an electronically controlled limited slip differential it has shocks filled with magnetically responsive fluid that can react faster to inputs and everything this car has a super sophisticated stability control system that teaches you how to drive it quick but also makes you go faster we haven't even gotten into exploring it yet because the limits of this car are so high that frankly it takes a while to grow into it but [Music] I think what's impressive about this car is despite how fast it is it is approachable you can buy this car to track dates with it and grow with it as a driver and as an owner I think that's a really special [Music] because you will never be more talented than this car is fast ever unless you are a racing driver casually grazing under 50 miles an hour on this straight okay I'm just going to enjoy driving this now [Music][Applause][Music] this particular Corvette zr1 comes with the cars track performance package a lot of those changes happen underneath the sheet metal but one of the big differences that is immediately obvious is this giant carbon fiber wing now the way this thing is mounted is actually into the structure of the vehicle and it makes you know loading the rear hatch a bit more difficult but we're assuming that's okay if you're looking for the track performance this thing delivers also giving you that performance are these Michelin Pilot Sport cup tires which are basically track oriented tires that you can drive on the street but as we wake our way to the front of the thing what really matters is what's under the hood that's right there's actually a hole in the hood of this thing and that's because this engine is so tall it's tall because it has a larger supercharger and a bunch of added cooling on it to help it you know keep at the right temperature the supercharger is way larger than the one on the zo six and it has a more cooling capacity and the downside is it's taller so it pops literally through the hood the cool thing is from the top you can actually see this shake when you're looking at it from you know a camera from the top of the vehicle this all makes for 755 horsepower making this the most powerful Corvette ever now what's important about that is this not just the power but likewise everything in the car has to be built to accommodate and be able to drive to the level of speed this thing can develop that's why you had the massive cooling so I had the aerodynamics and that's why I had the electronic sophistication inside [Applause] we had a lot of time to take this car on the track yesterday and I've had the night to think about things Matt today two crews on the road and see how this extreme performance machine deals with the sort of more civil minded stuff of street driving the track impressions remain this thing is unquestionably one of the most capable cars you can get from a dealer these days a lot of that's besides the point now because we're on the street we have speed limits they have the ever - present threat of law enforcement around every corner so the question is what does this car feel like in public when you slow this car down it feels like a more powerful Corvette you don't get much tram lining from these big wheels though we as the front end doesn't want to follow grooves in the pavement it is louder it is a little firmer but it's certainly livable on a day to day basis that's surprising for a vehicle of this capability normally these track oriented cars are so hardcore that you wouldn't want to drive them to the racetrack but let's face it you spend more time driving to the track than you do on the track and the fact that this thing works well in both disciplines is really impressive I can also dial everything back and cruise and not feel like I'm getting punished for driving a hardcore track machine that's a that's a really nice accomplishment that's something that you won't find in cars that are this fast and costs maybe double this much the engine in this car dominates the entire experience you can't miss the engine and the whole friend this car is sort of a shrine to it the way it pops out of the hood the way it's covered with coolers around the sides it is the experience of this car and that does make driving this thing special and also the fact that it doesn't look half bad either in fact I think it has some of the coolest looking wheels currently available on a new car this car as we mentioned this car has the track package the track package on this car gives you what they call competition bucket seats which are a little wide for my tastes but I'm you know not the widest person in the world this automatic transmission works well I mean there's so much torque again out of this engine that it can be very smooth and almost imperceptible its clunky on occasion I think I'd might opt for the manual although Chevy tells me about 80 % of its customers will go for the automatic I don't think they're gonna be disappointed and that's gonna be the faster transmission drag strip on the street - and on the racetrack man it was a little bit more satisfying to my taste though we've talked about the exhaust I have it set in the track setting let's quiet it down a little bit so you can hear the difference now I've set that separately from everything else so let's put it stealth what happened to the engine sound that's pretty that's pretty amazing man stealth is really stealth and then go back to track Wow actually a really big difference that's that's pretty great the Corvette has always been a strong value proposition and nowhere is that more evident than this zr1 giving you a nearly unbeatable track performance per dollar now the nice thing is on the road this doesn't feel like a ragged edge track machine either you could genuinely drive it every day the compromises are few and that's what makes this car so special if you like what you see keep it tuned right here and be sure to visit Edmunds.com [Music]

And, given the number of different mosquito species that can carry the worm (as well as differences in their lifestyle, preferred body temperatures, and micro-climates in and around our homes), it's not surprising to think that while you may not have seen the mosquito, your cat might have.

For instance, the canvas buckets give a temperature up to 1ºC cooler in some circumstances (that depend on season and location — the biggest differences come over warm water in winter, global average is about 0.4 ºC cooler) than the modern insulated buckets.

The lags are only estimates, you wouldn't expect all the data sets necessarily to give the same result, and the difference between surface and lower - troposphere temperature lags is almost certainly physically meaningful.

is intended to give the impression that air temperature can make no difference, whereas we have seen that the results of [Moelg and Hardy, 2004] are compatible with several ways in which air temperature can affect ablation.

This is the difference between countries» pledged commitments to reduce emissions of heat - trapping greenhouse gases after 2020 and scientifically calculated trajectories giving good odds of keeping global warming below the threshold for danger countries pledged to try to avoid in climate talks in 2010 (to «hold the increase in global average temperature below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels»).

Your calculation describes how much difference in infrared radiational heating, dQ, results from a given increment of temperature change, assuming emissivity and everything else remain fixed.

Given that small difference you would have to have two boxes at the same time, not the same box at diffent times, cause normal variations in temperature from day to day would swamp your results.

In any given water heater with consistent insulation the energy lost will be proportional to the difference between the inside and outside temperature.

one thing I have notice is there is difference in temperatures between those given on the NASA / GISS map and those given on the NASA / GISS statistical page.

Given that you comment that the largest differences between the different forcings is between land and ocean or between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, have you looked at the land — ocean temperature difference or the Northern — Southern Hemisphere temperature difference, as they both scale linearly with ECS, in the same way as global mean temperature for ghg forcing, but not for aerosol forcing.

With a sufficiently large amount of CO2, each doubling will approximately halve the difference between BTc0 and the ultimate saturation value BTcsat (which will be the same at all frequencies for the given vertical level, equal to the temperature at that level minus the baseline BT value, or if we are considering net fluxes and intensities, it will be zero except at TOA).

Given this, it is quite clear that any reduction in the efficiency of upward radiation (by, say, reflecting it right back down again), will have to be compensated for by increasing the air / sea (skin) temperature difference, hence having a warmer subsurface temperature.

Geologist say that differences between water temperature and sediment levels are what gives this place its distinct two - toned appearance.

Given the big differences in temperature between the upper branch and the deep western boundary current, that is a large number.

In that case, for a given direction, a doubling of CSD will halve the difference between the intensity at L and the Planck function for the temperature at L.

(given by the Planck function or spectral blackbody flux / area, respectively, for T = BT, except when BT is the difference between upward and downward brightness temperatures, in which case the differences between Planck functions or blackbody fluxes must be used)

In other words Professor Mackay appeared to give tacit agreement to the generality of the figures, but that we must all make sacrifices for the common good, even though on the surface it appears that we can make no practical difference to temperature.

The mix of these diffusion coefficients gives rise to a dispersive rise in temperature that has subtle differences from the rise expected with a single - valued diffusion coefficient.

You believe CO2 responds only to the difference in temperature, but you do not consider the length of a given temperature change.

Now what do you think of the differences in night - time temperatures between the «Valleys» and the «Sierras» given in a Roy Spencer's paper linked to in a different thread a few days ago?

Beck interpretes the latter as the direct influence of seawater temperatures, but the measurements near the floating ice border were just average, not the lowest... Modern measurements give less than 10 ppmv difference over the seas from the coldest oceans to the tropics, including a repeat of the trips that Buch made.

You believe CO2 responds only to the difference in temperature, but you do not considder the length of a given temperature change.

I'm still waiting for a reply to the question I asked him about the differences in night - time temperatures between the «Valleys» and the «Sierras» given in a Roy Spencer paper linked to in a different thread.

For example, the final value in 2014 is the difference between the temperature in 2004 given by HAD / CRU, and what is forecast for 2014.

Thus he seems to be well aware that the relationship is always broken when the atmospheric temperature differs from the surface temperature (the size of this difference is given by the theory he is using in his calculations).

Given the large uncertainties in forcings and model inadequacies (including a factor of 2 difference in CO2 sensitivity), how is it that each model does a credible job of tracking the 20th century global surface temperature anomalies (AR4 Figure 9.5)?

So the non tree historic temperatures now gives a MWP / LIA difference of 0,8 K like the (non tree) Holocene temperatures, fig 5.

Well SW was mentioned — the difference between a SB calculation and temperature measurement gives the greenhouse effect.

I think I might be responsible for that abuse of jargon; just meant to convey that the macrostate (globally averaged temperature) has a whole bunch of equi - probable (or as close as makes little difference given how under - constrained by measurement the system is) microstates (spatial distributions of temperature).

Looking purely at Celsius can give a misleading view of the difference between two temperatures.

A publicly available computer program is used to calculate the difference between surface temperature in a given month and the average temperature for the same place during 1951 to 1980.

The specific heat varies with temperature and the thermocouple can't tell the difference between fresh water, 35 ppt salt water, and alcohol all of which have different specific heats at a given temperature.

So, given all that, I'm disappointed that you ascribed the temperature difference between the two sites as solely due to humidity without giving the merest mention to all the other variables.

These can not — and will not — destabilize the atmosphere to start up convection, because they always move net heat in the direction that makes convection even less likely, given that convection is driven by temperature differences that conduction or radiation further reduce.

Whilst I have severe reservations regarding the accuracy of the temperature record (given siting issues, coverage, stations drop outs, UHI, man made manipulation & continued revisions, etc), what would appear to be the case is that there is little temperature difference between the decade of the 1990s and that of the 2000s.

So it's all gases at greatest density will be doing the same thing around the planet at the same time (*) and as these change with differences in density in the play between gravity and pressure and kinetic and potential from greatest near the surface to more rarified, less dense and absent any kinetic to write home about the higher one goes, then, energy conservation intact, the hotter will rise and cool because losing kinetic energy means losing temperature, thus cooling they which began with the closest in density and kinetic energy as a sort of band of brothers near the surface will rise and cool at the same time whereupon they'll all come down together colder but wiser that great heights don't make for more comfort and giving up their heat will sink displacing the hotter now in their place when they first went travelling.

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.

(Dividing tropospheric dissipation by the difference of its bounding temperatures (240/70) also gives 3.4, a result hardly coincidental.)

I agree with you that the last decade really doesn't tell you that much about the long term trends, given the size of the error bars, but it does allow for some interesting analysis of the difference between individual temperature records during that period (e.g. ENSO responses of satellites vs. surface measurements, effects of different ways of treating arctic temperatures, etc.).

Given that biases in buckets measurements depend on the air - sea temperature difference any more detailed corrections would involve using both MAT and SST together.

Considering how deep the solar minimum was in 2008 - 2009, and how low total solar irradiance went compared to where it was in 1998, given that the average global temperature changes from peak to trough in a normal solar cycle from the changes in TSI can be of the order as high as.2 degrees centigrade, and also given that we were nearer the peak of the solar cycle in 1998 than we were in the 2009 - 2010 El Nino, I should think that it is more than reasonable to suspect that the difference in impact of the TSI on global between 1998's and 2009 - 2010 is easily on the order of.1 C, or roughly ten times your.01 C figure.

What a U-value does tell us is how much heat energy in Watts is being lost across a given square metre area of a building element, for every one - degree temperature difference between the heated internal space and the outside world.

My point at that time was that the number of CRN 1 and CRN 2 stations was very small and that given the noisy data for temperature trends amongst even closer spaced stations meant that in order to see a statistically significant difference due to CRN rating would require a very large difference in trends or a larger number of stations in those classifications.

An illustration of how meaningless the record and the results are is given by the fact that in many years the difference in global annual average temperature is at least half the 0.7 °C figure.