Sentences with phrase «less clouds not»

«Cloudiness and albedo actually decline when the system warms up... a warmer world has less clouds not more clouds...»

Not exact matches

If dedicated servers aren't right for your company just yet, Liquid Web also offers less expensive services, starting with its Cloud VPS hosting for $ 29.50 per month (introductory offer).

I'm also moving the outdoor smoking area farther away from the office to be less convenient and so nonsmokers need not walk through a cloud of smoke on the way in.

Bare metal refers to fast servers that do not run virtualization, a key underpinning of most clouds because it packs more applications onto less hardware.

If, for example, we no longer expect Christ to return upon the clouds of heaven to hold the Last Judgment, as the heavenly Son of Man of the old Aramaic - speaking communities in Palestine, we do not honor or reverence or even worship him any the less.

After only the briefest interval — so Mark implies all along — ; his followers were convinced that he had risen from the dead — not as one more resuscitated Israelite, like the daughter of Jairus, nor as a saint who had entered glory, like Moses or Elijah, but as no one less than the transcendent, heavenly Messiah, the «Son of Man» who was to come on the clouds of heaven and hold the last judgment upon all mankind.

@Fatboy Gooner The Ozil deal was far less that 40 plus million as has been exposed on football leaks it was more in the region of 32 million with verious clauses that enable REM to take a percentage of any profit we make on selling Ozil and I would assume there are similar attachments with the Sanchez deal, even our record signings are clouded in smoke and mirrors so let not run away with the idea that its all SWengers fault, if your employer is on your back and pushing for results then you perform at a higher rate and push harder where as Wenger has no push from above so does nt go out of his way Kroenke does nt have the culture around him to win trophies cos thats not his aim and that filters down to the grass roots at Arsenal and shows in Wengers transfer policy and in the players performance.

If you've been on an Indian food kick and you can't get enough chicken tikka masala, you may be on cloud nine — but chances are, your baby is less than enthused.

For less massive stars like the Sun the process that brings them into existence is quite well understood — as clouds of gas are pulled together under gravity, density and temperature increase, and nuclear fusion begins)-- but for the most massive stars buried in regions like RCW 106 this explanation does not seem to be fully adequate.

Scientists recently realized these giant clouds can move and thicken or thin surprisingly rapidly, in less than an Earth day, but did not understand why.

If a cloud rains, or has less water in it, it won't be there to reflect sunlight.»

Olsen says the stars share the motion of gas streams near the Large Magellanic Cloud, suggesting that the galaxy tore not only stars but also gas from its lesser neighbor.

Storm clouds play a big role in keeping the planet cool by reflecting heat back into space — but they're not as effective farther north or south, where there's less solar radiation anyway.

Red Spot Jr. appears darker, either because its clouds are less dense or because the tops of the clouds are not as high as those of the larger spot.

Since this star is cooler and less luminous than our Sun, the gas cloud is not completely swept away, but enshrouds GJ 436b and forms a tail.

But they do at least have certain basic physical principles in their cloud representations — clouds over ice have less albedo effect than clouds over water, you don't get high clouds in regions of subsidence, stable boundary layers lead to marine stratus, etc..

The sci - fi epic «Cloud Atlas» will likely attract a crowd, but with less than 2,000 theaters, its opening weekend grand total won't be enough to trump «Silent Hill.»

(A public Cloud will give you the same promises at fault tolerance, but with less control, and as a one - size - fits - all solution that might, or might not, cover your unique business needs — unless you can get your Cloud vendor to sign a meaningful SLA that doesn't give them all kinds of leeway, as most do).

it do nt matter too me what u paying for but if those are the reason to not get this you should think about how much memory is 32gb, 64 gb and cloud storage also you do nt need a huge battery for a 4.7 inch screen because it consume less power

The music player is a less exciting than videos, with a clunky transition from your library, to your cloud player, to the store, but sound quality through headphones (not supplied) was absolutely first class.

«Also I was wondering how Sony's vision is limited for cloud gaming, they claim they can use the cloud for whatever they want, including game streaming, and their cloud servers themselves will no doubt be greatly expanded on...» scott182 you basicly answered your own question, claiming and doing are two very big differences Microsoft is leading the way in this area by not only promoting cloud use but doing it at launch, sure sony CLAIMS THEY CAN but I don't even think they have spoken about their VISION at all to this point, this doesn't mean I don't believe they CAN upgrade and eventually have the infrastructure in place on a lesser level than micro with enough to get the infrastructure to get the job done but micro has the advantage of years of cloud building from their other business portfolio and its very expensive so we'll see to WHAT EXTENT AND WHEN sony has this in place.

Xbox users generally don't understand: - Xbox has been a historic money pit - Xbox division was shutdown in 2015 - Xbox users / games were migrated to the Microsoft Store in 2016/2017 - Windows is in the process of being put in the CLOUD, meaning all processing... actually you could do this a very long time through Citrix, for example - Games is in the process of being put in the CLOUD, meaning all processing - Microsoft is more or less abandoning the consumer market....

It is possible this was changed because the level's focus was not immediately obvious to the localization staff and removed it to be less confusing, but it's unclear how they felt the sleeping tapir was immediately evocative of a large pirate ship and not a land of clouds and rainbows.

If you download 1998 - 2009 cloud cover here, and sea surface temperatures here, you can see that, except for a cloud band from ~ 0 to 10 degrees N, cloudiness is generally less where SST is warmer, though there are lots of details and spatial variation that lessen the correlation.

Lower relative humidity means less clouds; how much less, I couldn't tell; clouds are tricky and also the big unknown in current models.

However he does it, he should perhaps desist from spending time on his latest aquisition (apparently that is «Everything Anyone Would Ever Want To Know About Cloud Microphysics» by Khvorostyanov & Curry which isn't exactly a light read) and instead do us lesser mortals the courtesy of explaining himself.

According to the skeptics, the solar irradiance isn't very important, it is the strength of the sun's magnetic field (that allows or stops cosmic rays from coming in which then causes more or less clouds, which increases or decreases the Earth's albedo, which then causes warming or cooling of the Earth's surface).

Nobody wants wells to run dry, villages to starve, storm clouds to gather or levees to break, but yet not everybody cares to clean up the mess we've made, much less recognize that we've made a mess, and ensure that our kids inherit a world that is a testament to your munificence.

In the case of this summer, to make it familiar, the NE North American Coast and most of Canada is cooler by extensive periods of cloud coverage, cooling caused by this region clashes with the US South extreme heat, given less bouts of clouds up North, the North American warming record would have been amazingly strong, but permanent cloud episodes over one region or another travel, never last forever, as such not causing a permanent shift in the temperature record (unless the clouds cover or not wide swats of the Polar regions).

But I don't plan on ingesting any sulfuric acid anytime soon, I've read about fog and cloud pHs of 3.0 or less, «acid rain» is usually considered that which has a pH < 4, and I've seen what very dilute sulfuric acid can do to clothing.

However, what evidence do we have that the increased precipitation efficiency will lead to less (not more) cloud cover?

IMHO, the increase in speed of the Hadley / Walker cells may be the result of higher ocean temperatures (or temperature differences over long distances), not the origin (or to a lesser extent, as less clouds lead to some extra insolation, thus warming).

There can be a whole plethora of nulls — «climate sensitivity is less than 3.5 ° K,» «cloud feedbacks are not positive,» etc. — and confirming or rejecting these can accumulate to an understanding that humans are or are not affecting climate.

Cumulus clouds will have the same effect, but more in balance with the positive effects, resulting in less negative net feedback, but with the same result, much lower climate sensitivity than the IPCC would have you believe.I realize that climate sensitivity is not usually discussed as a local phenomenon, but it should be, since it is the integral of all local phenomena.

If you consider that the Earth is also about 2 / 3rds cloud covered and any CO2 or other GHG absorption would not matter because the clouds would be absorbing the energy anyway, over 90 % of the GHE is from water vapor and / or clouds and less than 10 % is from CO2 and other GHGs.

The southern polar has little «amplification» and the southern hemisphere has higher annual solar insulation, a natural oscillation that shifts clouds to were they have greater reflective impact and energy where it has less atmospheric resistance, doesn't qualify as a climate impact, only a weather impact.

However, I am not a «warmista» by any means — we do not know how to properly quantify the albedo of aerosols, including clouds, with their consequent negative feedback effects in any of the climate sensitivity models as yet — and all models in the ensemble used by the «warmistas» are indicating the sensitivities (to atmospheric CO2 increase) are too high, by factors ranging from 2 to 4: which could indicate that climate sensitivity to a doubling of current CO2 concentrations will be of the order of 1 degree C or less outside the equatorial regions (none or very little in the equatorial regions)- i.e. an outcome which will likely be beneficial to all of us.

If in fact this results in increased cloud cover (for example), that results in less temperature increase than the stated, it is still not possible to rule out the stated value of «sensitivity»

If less energy comes in, the governor will try to maintain the energy flux into the system (Willis's retarding the appearance of clouds) but once all stops have been pulled out (the sky is clear morning to night), then the engine slows down — slower air and water currents, less addition of heat to the polar areas, dissipation of what heat has accumulated by radiation into space and return cold water not getting the heating it formerly did.

It elected not to simulate an amplifying effect, much less introduce dynamic cloud feedback to warming and solar radiation.

Warmer air doesn't cause less clouds, it causes more.

if solar magnetic field isn't increasing right now, it's not going to deflect more GCRs, which means there won't be less cloud seeding (though there's no concrete evidence GCRs successfully seed clouds anyway, as Zeke has noted), which means there won't be more GCR - induced warming.

Even those less common ones that form in the Gulf of Mexico aren't total surprises with meteorologists monitoring storm clouds clustering together a couple days before they become named storms.

The fact that the actual measured planetary warming is less than the lowest IPCC model prediction warming and is found only at high latitudes (which is not predicted by the IPCC models) logically supports the assertion that the planet's response to a change in forcing is to resist the change (negative feedback, planetary clouds in the tropics increase reflecting more sunlight in to space) rather than to amplify the change (positive feedback) due increased water vapour in the atmosphere.

I say my conclusion was «not unreasonable» because Dr. Scafetta, in a posting at WattsUpWithThat today, has also concluded that, once the natural 60 - year cycles of the great ocean oscillations are accounted for (and it may be these cycles that express themselves in changes in cloud cover such as that which Dr. Pinker had identified), the anthropogenic component in global warming is considerably less than the IPCC imagines.

In bands where greenhouse gases (or clouds) absorb a lot, there is less, not more, infrared radiation escaping into space.

Even assuming that the 1 part of the increase in minima was not caused by the sun / less clouds but by man, then this influnce could not possibly be more than 1/13 x 0.012 = ca. 0.001 degrees C / annum = 0.1 degrees C / century.

I'm not even a regular scientist, much less a (sound of choir, ray of sunlight from parted clouds) «CLIMATE Scientist», so don't really know what goes on behind the curtain, but I will say that it is increasingly apparent to me that much of «science» (save that bastion of purity, mathematics), has been corrupted by greed, a political agenda (whose operatives are dupes of the former, really, viz..

If climate charts indicate a trend over time with rising temperatures that would tend to suggest less cloud cover, not greater heat energy trapped in the atmosphere.

The physics is not difficult to understand by skeptics, nor objective scientists: less clouds allow more sunshine to strike the Earth's surface (1980 - 1990s); more clouds decrease sunshine at surface (2000s).