Sentences with phrase «knowing the temperature response»

This isn't the same as knowing the global temperature, but there is some evidence that Antarctic temperatures and global temperatures rise and fall together.Knowing how these factors have changed, and knowing the temperature response, scientists can deduce the role of the remaining factors.

Not exact matches

«We know from other studies that the dengue virus particle expands its outer shell in response to temperature as a sort of breathing,» he said.

A different species, M. galloprovincialis, also known as the Mediterranean mussel, displayed a very different response to higher temperatures, Carrington said.

This receptor, known as Gr28b, is responsible for sensing external temperatures and triggering a quick response if temperatures exceed the fly's Goldilocks zone, Garrity and his team discovered.

Normal mouse oocytes are known to form parthenotes in culture in response to chemical signals or temperature changes, but despite multiple attempts to implant them in a womb, none has ever survived to birth.

Pinning a number on how much global temperature rises in response to a doubling of carbon dioxide — known as the climate sensitivity — is a big question in climate science as it helps more accurately predict how much warming we'll see in future.

In caloric restricted animals where body temperature and free T3 goes down, the immune response is markedly increased, and their mortality rate is well known to be significantly reduced while lifespan significantly increased.

T10 - Cross Reference W5W (194 168) 147 152 158 159 161 168 184 192 193 194 259 280 285 447 464 501 555 558 585 655 656 657 1250 1251 1252 2450 2652 2921 2825 504 2821 12256 12961 M158 M155 Benefits: 1 * Low Power Consumption, energy saving 2 * Faster on / off response time 3 * Long - lasting (long service life) Up to 50,000 hours 4 * Good heat dissipation, High Temperature Resistance, Rust Resistance, Bump Resistance, vivid color 5 * Protect the eye - sight, no strobe, no radiate, no light pollution 6 * Easy to Instal, Simple to fit, Just plug in and play.

[Response: If you want to know the temperature change, you need to know the important forcings.

Surely the IPCC and others at GISS can come up with based on the based available observational evidence and paretial difference equations and paleo climatic data a bloody good guess as to what response ice sheets will have to a known temperature rise come BAU to overall CO2 levels of 450 to 550 ppmv come the centurys end.

[Response: If it were indeed true that CO2 always lags temperature changes, never leads (which I don't believe) then what you would have proved is that past analoges are of limited value to assessing the present warming, because in this case we do know that the forcing if from GHG's, since we know the CO2 increase is anthro — William]

I know of no climate scientist who would do experiments fixing land temperatures and observing the atmospheric response, and with good reason.

There is also an important question of the degree to which internal variability can influence the attributable temperature change, given that the Millar result is contingent on knowing what the forced temperature response of the system is.

A compelling argument for the positive longwave response is a leading alternate to Lindzen's IRIS although it receives less attention, and is known as the FAT hypothesis (from Dennis Hartmann) and arises from the fundamental physics of convection only heating the atmosphere where radiative cooling is efficient, and thus the temperature at the top of convective cloudiness should be near constant as it becomes warmer.

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).

And we know that adding the same greenhouse agents back will (absent hysteresis among equilibria — which should be avoidable if we limit ourselves to considering only the Planck response) warm the climate back up to a surface temperature of 288 K.

High - frequency associations (not shown here) remain strong throughout the whole record, but average density levels have continuously fallen while temperatures in recent decades have risen... As yet, the reason is not known, but analyses of time - dependent regional comparisons suggest that it is associated with a tendency towards loss of «spring» growth response (Briffa et al., 1 999b) and, at least for subarctic Siberia, it may be connected with changes in the timing of spring snowmelt (Vaganov et al., 1999).

When a temperature anomaly of ~ 0.1 degrees Celsius (the difference between 2015 and the previous global heat record of 2014 — please note the above graph is in Fahrenheit, not Celsius) can lead to such an extreme carbon feedback response, we know we can expect a lot more feedback - induced CO2 now that world leaders are about to seal a 3.5 degrees warming deal — if at least 2030 pledges are not raised before the start of COP21, the Paris climate summit.

Since we don't know where the temperature thresholds might be for various climate responses, all we can say for certain is that reducing emissions reduces risk, and the more emissions reduction we achieve, the more risk we avoid.

But folks would be shocked to discover there has been NO response in temperature AS THE THEORY DEMANDS if the theory were actually true:

Surface temperatures across the Arctic are increasing at nearly twice the rate of the global mean in response to natural and forced climate change [1], known as «Arctic Amplification».

Even if the anthropogenic radiative forcing was better known, it is theoretically unclear by how much the temperature should have varied in response.

Given that tree growth is typically parabolic in response to temperature, how do you know a priori which side of the maximum you might be on when attempting a reconstruction?

Well — on the off chance that you might mistakenly read my response, I'll tell you that I don't know the average temperature of the atmosphere and oceans 50 years ago, let alone during the LIA.

This paper suggests there should be a net negative longwave radiative feedback in response to rising temperature, which is perfectly compatible with the known and agreed physical laws.

Knowing that global atmospheric temperatures are a lagged response to sea surface temperatures, characterized by the SOI, and that the SOI has moderated over the past decade, indicates that global warming will moderate as well.

It seems to me that depending on the parameters — specifically whether you are beyond the threshold point at which your boy can no longer sufficiently compensate and maintain homesostasis — there actually is a linear relationship between the forcing (external temperature) and response (core body temperature) in humans.

«For the doubled CO2 and the 2 % solar irradiance forcings, for which the direct no - feedback responses of the global surface temperature are 1.2 ° and 1.3 °C, respectively, the ~ 4 °C surface warming implies respective feedback factors of 3.3 and 3.0 (5).»

If the USA is wrong, nothing (much) is right, therefore we have no reliable global temperature record, therefore global warming may / may not be happening, nobody really knows, in which case policy responses are a trifle premature.

That such a feedback exists is well known, although paleoclimatologic correlations are inconsistent with the magnitude of CO2 responses to temperature claimed in Salby's talk.

• No adaptive responses to coral bleaching, even on a regional scale, will be available if average global temperature increases 2 °C by 2050.

So they knew that 93 % of interannual variation in CO2 could be explained by natural responses to temperature and soil moisture content, yet they continued with the charade?

Scientists arguing for consideration and research of SRM say these potential tools represent the only known option that can quickly suppress temperatures, to buy time for other forms of response to take hold.

In the end, the antics of the ocean and WV, which may indeed have the sun as the conductor, far outweigh that of co2 though an underlying signal may be there, which given the way temperatures bounce up and down in response to the enso, may be no greater than noise Peace out

[Response: The models were constructed at a time when the temperature record was known, although the cooling isn't built into their basic structure.

The injection of stratospheric aerosols from the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo was noted as the first modern test of a known radiative forcing, and indeed one climate model accurately predicted the temperature response (Hansen et al., 1992).

Although the existence of an upside down quadratic response to temperature has been known for a long time (e.g., Fritts 1976), current tree ring - based reconstructions universally assume that a linear approximation is not problematic, which is equivalent to the assumption that past climates do not deviate far from those in the calibration period, as will be shown.

Tim Clark says: March 24, 2011 at 5:54 pm «No, I'm stating that there is no actual data that indicates catastrophic consequences of modeled increases of temperatures in response to higher levels of CO2 without unverified positive feedbacks.»