Sentences with phrase «instead of temperature changes»

Not exact matches

I've made this pie crust a number of ways (with solid coconut oil, cold water instead of ice water, room temperature flour, etc.) and yes, the method drastically changes the end result.

Instead, the new system uses molecular switches that change shape in response to light; when integrated into the PCM, the phase - change temperature of the hybrid material can be adjusted with light, allowing the thermal energy of the phase change to be maintained even well below the melting point of the original material.

The team demonstrated that reducing the laser scan vector length instead of using a continuous laser scan regulates temperature changes during processing to reduce residual stress.

«Instead, the array of lenses can remain in the liquid state, which allows us to change the periodicity of the liquid lenses if, say, the temperature difference driving the convection cells is varied.

But this simple mixture shows how changes in pressure, instead of temperature, can change the properties of some materials.

Instead, the web special opened with «Estimates of future global temperatures based on recent observations must account for the differing characteristics of each important driver of recent climate change», which sounds a bit ho - hum, if not, well, duh?

Instead, changes in Pacific Ocean winds that have also been linked to the so - called «hiatus» in steeply rising temperatures, upped the odds of such a stormy season.

To remove this difference in magnitude and focus instead on the patterns of change, the authors scaled the vertical profiles of ocean temperature (area - weighted with respect to each vertical ocean layer) with the global surface air temperature trend of each period.

And then, if the ocean surface water was «diluted» with isotopic light melt water, would this not be reflected with a similar drop in the Greenland ice cores, just by a changing isotope signature of the source, instead of a temperature drop?

But the authors completely ignored the tropics, where most of the world's species live, focusing instead on the temperate and polar ecosystems that will experience the most significant changes in annual temperatures.

Instead, the sun, that big bright hot thing in the sky (unless you live in England), is identified as the most likely cause of temperature changes.

Instead of a blouse layered underneath (could be too hot or stuffy for some), the below outfit would also look great with a floral print scarf that can easily be taken off to accommodate temperature changes.

Is there a way to customize the «my nook today» as the weather keeps showing the temperature in Celcius instead of Fahranheit and I can't figure out for the life of me how to change it Thanks for any help anyone can offer Its driving me nutty!

Instead, the web special opened with «Estimates of future global temperatures based on recent observations must account for the differing characteristics of each important driver of recent climate change», which sounds a bit ho - hum, if not, well, duh?

I would suggest comparing peak to peak average temperature captures during weighted El - Nino events (during the time they occur, if they can be compared equally this would be a telling graph), instead of considering year to year records as a means of reducing ENSO effects on the temperature record, ENSO being largely a heat exchange between air and sea causing great changes in cloud distribution world wide.

And then, if the ocean surface water was «diluted» with isotopic light melt water, would this not be reflected with a similar drop in the Greenland ice cores, just by a changing isotope signature of the source, instead of a temperature drop?

What Gore should have done is extrapolated the temperature curve according this the appropriate scaling — with CO2 accounting for about 1/3 of the total change — instead of letting the audience do it by eye.

In light of the urgency of tackling climate change and nuclear power's essential role in limiting temperature rises, the four scientists will therefore challenge environmental leaders who still hold anti-nuclear positions to instead support development and deployment of safe and environmentally - friendly nuclear power.

«Instead of the above definition of λ, the global climate sensitivity can also be expressed as the temperature change ΔTx2, following a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 content.

Professor Kevin Anderson, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and the Teesside University said: «If the EU is to transform its energy system to align with the Paris temperature and equity commitments, it can not continue with business as usual and must instead initiate a rapid phase out of all fossil fuels including natural gas.

So, they didn't actually simulate sea level changes, but instead estimated how much sea level rise they would expect from man - made global warming, and then used computer model predictions of temperature changes, to predict that sea levels will have risen by 0.8 - 2 metres by 2100.

Climate Stabilization, Climate Change Commitment and Irreversibility: On the relationship between cumulative total emissions of CO2 and global mean surface temperature change, China, Saudi Arabia and India expressed difficulties understanding that this relationship is linear, with China, supported by Saudi Arabia, suggesting referring to «positively correlated» instead of «approximately linear.&Change Commitment and Irreversibility: On the relationship between cumulative total emissions of CO2 and global mean surface temperature change, China, Saudi Arabia and India expressed difficulties understanding that this relationship is linear, with China, supported by Saudi Arabia, suggesting referring to «positively correlated» instead of «approximately linear.&change, China, Saudi Arabia and India expressed difficulties understanding that this relationship is linear, with China, supported by Saudi Arabia, suggesting referring to «positively correlated» instead of «approximately linear.»

There are these aspects of paleoclimate where CO2 levels changed due to geological processes and the temperature followed, only now it is us instead of geology doing it.

Instead, they are good proxies for whatever makes tree ring widths change in size, and this is then defined by MBH as representing a climactic signal with zero supporting evidence and no means to quantify this relationship in terms of temperature..

The CLAs suggested referring to global mean surface temperature «response» instead of «change.»

Instead, the speed of the hydrological cycle changes to a miniscule extent in order to maintain sea surface and surface air temperature equilibrium.

I mean, if you want to consider temperature change versus forcing, why not all man - made GHG's instead of just CO2?

Did you really calculate a change on temperature from the difference between two separate years, instead of a smooth or regression?

If we could see ahead to 2111, when the temperature (anomaly) is 3º C instead of 0ºC and the CO2 concentration is approaching 600 ppm, when the ice caps are gone and Greenland is called whatever might be the Chinese word for breadbasket, we couldn't tell whether the climate change was natural or anthropogenic.

Victor argues that policymakers should instead focus on a suite of «vital signs» that are more tightly linked to carbon emissions, including atmospheric carbon - dioxide concentrations, ocean heat content, and high - latitude temperature changes.

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.

Instead of changes in monthly values of Temp and precip (and cloud cover) changes in ANNUAL mean temperature were used to force LPJ.

The argument against this should be obvious, such a small group may be non-representative of regional temperature changes, and instead reflective of other environmental factors that impacted the individual trees and groups of trees.

Instead of this evidence showing that there is no UHI increase in the main temperature indices, an alternative explanation for the empirical evidence is that, for whatever reason, actual urban changes do not result in a material difference in trend for calm Tmin than for windy Tmin.

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).

Only a REAL reality denier, would deny the reality of planetary geologic changes to claim that a trace gas, whose concentration is temperature dependent, is instead driving temperature.

=== > Finally, as this accompanying chart of the empirical evidence indicates, while the per cent change in cumulative CO2 emissions dropped in a quasi-continuous pattern since 1979, the RSS annual global temperatures anomalies instead follow an opposite increasing trend.

Actually, the relevant «law» is not the ever rising entropic «heat death» of the universe from CO2, but instead is Le Châtelier's principle for a reaction in physical chemistry: the disturbance of the equilibrium of greenhouse gases H2O and CO2 by CO2 injections acts to oppose the change to the equilibrium, and thus to cancel out the effect on temperature from the increase in CO2.

When climate scientists first began homogenizing temperature data, the PDO had yet to be named, so I would like to suggest instead of a deliberate climate science conspiracy, it was their ignorance of the PDO coupled with overwhelming urbanization effects that caused the unwarranted adjustments by causing «natural change points» that climate scientists had yet to comprehend.

If one assumes that the rate of energy loss stays the same (generally safe assumption) then instead of just changing temperature, the heat of fusion or vaporization of water vapor also needs to be considered.

(Any higher and they start to suffer stratospheric heating due to the vertical temperature profile reversing at the tropopause — the lapse rate changes sign and the air gets warmer instead of colder with altitude.)

Rather than dealing with trends, instead we ask how much has the TLT satellite brightness temperature vertically relative weighted average changed in absolute levels, compared to what we'd find year to year or within groups of years.

Instead of the warming equivalent to 2.33 Cº / century global warming that had been «anticipated», there has really been no change in global temperature at all over the past five or ten years.

Just a suggestion here in preparation for the droves of people who will try and lambast this excellent work, you might want to change the legend colors for the comparison chart above — maybe use Green instead of blue for the lower temperatures?

If one changes the composition of the atmosphere without changing the mass significantly then the speed of the throughput of energy changes and NOT the amount of potential energy stored in the atmosphere so one sees a circulation shift instead of a temperature rise.

Instead, Abbott chose to dig himself deeper, extending his denialism on bushfires and further claiming that the observation of record high temperatures is not evidence of climate change.

% DLR and solar forcing on the ocean % to investigate the impact if DLR does and doesn't heat the ocean % this version to look at solar heating below the surface and its effect % % v2 considers convection if temperature inversion occurs % v3 looks at heat flows to compare changing heat flow for changing DLR % and changing solar % also tries to improve the algorithm (v3.2) by reducing the vector to % a manageable size and just retaining hourly figures instead of every % second.

These unique fingerprints are easier to see by probing beyond a single number (such as the average temperature of Earth's surface), and looking instead at the geographical and seasonal patterns of climate change.

In the absence of any other change in heat flow (an unphysical assumption but let's use this as a thought experiment), instead this increases the temperature by (initially) 100/42 = 2.4 K per second.

Instead they lead to changes in the extent of ice sheets and in the abundance of CO2 and other greenhouse gases which amplify the initial temperature change and complete the global transition from warm to cold or vice versa.