Sentences with phrase «less than the surface temperature»

I strongly believe that the surface temperature of the passive sphere will be less than the surface temperature of the active sphere; and energy will flow via radiation from the active to the passive sphere.

Not exact matches

In the new study, researchers placed tiny particles of silicon carbide (one represented by the group of tan molecules in this artist's concept) covered with graphite (hexagonal networks of gray atoms) in a vacuum chamber that duplicated the deep - space conditions surrounding many stars (temperatures between 900 and 1500 kelvins and pressures less than one - billionth that found at Earth's surface).

The penguins once numbered around 2,000 individuals, but in the early 1980s a strong El Niño — a time when sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific are unusually warm — brought their numbers down to less than 500 birds.

Four of these new planets are less than 2.5 times the size of Earth and orbit in their sun's habitable zone, defined as the range of distance from a star where the surface temperature of an orbiting planet may be suitable for life - giving liquid water.

Winds over the Atlantic Ocean also appear to modulate global surface temperatures, albeit to a lesser extent than those over the Pacific Ocean.

If this rapid warming continues, it could mean the end of the so - called slowdown — the period over the past decade or so when global surface temperatures increased less rapidly than before.

They are designed to operate fully exposed in the harsh conditions of the Array Operations Site, to survive strong winds, and to keep their smooth reflecting surfaces accurate to at least 25 micrometers (less than the typical thickness of a human hair) under a wide range of air temperature of -20 to +20 degrees.

More than 90 % of global warming heat goes into warming the oceans, while less than 3 % goes into increasing the atmospheric and surface air temperature.

Chase et al. (2000) performed this analysis and found that the temperature rise in the 1000 to 925 mb surface layer is much less than that reported by the surface thermometers.

It is more striking for Ocean Heat Content which so far you have avoided, despite it being a considerably less noisy record than surface temperature.

Lindzen and Giannitsis (2002) pose the hypothesis that the rapid change in tropospheric (850 — 300 hPa) temperatures around 1976 triggered a delayed response in surface temperature that is best modelled with a climate sensitivity of less than 1 °C.

The thermometer reads surface temperatures in less than a second.

Furthermore, they provide different materials with which the heaters can interact — their irregular and aluminum surfaces create a less effective type of heat sink than the smooth concrete floor, and those heaters draped over engines will therefore reach higher and less controllable temperatures.

If not, and the upper troposphere warms less rapidly than the surface, the temperature difference relevant for hurricane strength will increase that much faster.

However, the warming trends are still lower than the surface temperature trends, and also quite surprisingly, the trends in the tropical troposphere are less warming than the trends in the extratropical troposphere.

So, although the science isn't «wrong» regarding the continued heating of the earth (net energy imbalance), the rate of rise of surface temperatures may prove to be much less than predicted by the models.

Actually, I thought about it and having oceanic circulation does allow this behavior (that the surface temperature can decline when forcing is declining even while it is still less than the equilibrium temperature)-- it makes sense because the deep ocean may still be pulling the surface temperature toward a much lower temperature.

Surface temperatures in parts of Europe appear to have have averaged nearly 1 °C below the 20th century mean during multidecadal intervals of the late 16th and late 17th century (and with even more extreme coolness for individual years), though most reconstructions indicate less than 0.5 °C cooling relative to 20th century mean conditions for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole.

WRT water vapor amplification, I suspect that the basic (radiative only) amplifying effect of water vapor, which is something less than a factor of 2 over the CO2 - only effect of ~ 1.2 C, IIRC, will be close to the same across a range of average surface temperatures.

Modtran indicates that maintaining constant clear sky upward flux after a doubling of CO2 (70 KM altitude, looking down, constant relative humidity) requires ~ 1.9 C higher surface temperature in the tropics but a bit less than 1C in the subarctic.

The advantage of the ocean heat content changes for detecting climate changes is that there is less noise than in the surface temperature record due to the weather that affects the atmospheric measurements, but that has much less impact below the ocean mixed layer.

If not for the temperature discontinuity, then the radiation coming from the surface would be less than what fits the linear T ^ 4 pattern, with the biggest difference at angles near vertical.

Before allowing the temperature to respond, we can consider the forcing at the tropopause (TRPP) and at TOA, both reductions in net upward fluxes (though at TOA, the net upward LW flux is simply the OLR); my point is that even without direct solar heating above the tropopause, the forcing at TOA can be less than the forcing at TRPP (as explained in detail for CO2 in my 348, but in general, it is possible to bring the net upward flux at TRPP toward zero but even with saturation at TOA, the nonzero skin temperature requires some nonzero net upward flux to remain — now it just depends on what the net fluxes were before we made the changes, and whether the proportionality of forcings at TRPP and TOA is similar if the effect has not approached saturation at TRPP); the forcing at TRPP is the forcing on the surface + troposphere, which they must warm up to balance, while the forcing difference between TOA and TRPP is the forcing on the stratosphere; if the forcing at TRPP is larger than at TOA, the stratosphere must cool, reducing outward fluxes from the stratosphere by the same total amount as the difference in forcings between TRPP and TOA.

The hiatus decades were chosen based on a slight cooling trend in global surface temperatures of less than -0.08 °C per decade.

Before the response of the surface + troposphere, what allows stratospheric cooling is the TOA forcing being less than the tropopause - level forcing; both are affected by the stratospheric temperature profile.

Before that could happen, the atmosphere would be so full of cloud, which would prevent solar flux reaching the surface, that the maximum surface temperature would be much less than 100C.

One thing I would have liked to see in the paper is a quantitative side - by - side comparison of sea - surface temperatures and upper ocean heat content; all the paper says is that only «a small amount of cooling is observed at the surface, although much less than the cooling at depth» though they do report that it is consistent with 2 - yr cooling SST trend — but again, no actual data analysis of the SST trend is reported.

At much longer wavelengths, given the surface temperature (which won't change much by introducing a small amount of absorption), the skin temperature would only be a bit more than half of the surface temperature (example: for a surface temperature of 250 K and a small amount of atmospheric absorption at 200 microns, the skin temperature would be about 56 % of the surface temperature), which could be less than the temperature even at TOA.

In that case it does not matter how the water is heated but simply the temperature of the layer of surface water down to a few multiples of the inverse of the IR absorption coefficient which is I think varies from around a few cm to less than 1 mm with increasing wavelength.

But if the optical thickness in that band is sufficiently smaller than in another band (depending on wavelengths), adding some absorption to the optically - thinner band would tend to result in warming of the colder layers (as there would be less temperature variation over height in radiative equilbrium for that band, given the same surface (+ tropospheric) temperatures.

The skin temperature can be measured with absolute uncertainties of much less than 0.1 ºK The thermometer in the surface following float is accurate to better than 0.01 ºK.

Combined climate / ice sheet model estimates in which the Greenland surface temperature was as high during the Eemian as indicated by the NEEM ice core record suggest that loss of less than about 1 m sea level equivalent is very unlikely (e.g. Robinson et al. (2011).

[Response: Estimates of the error due to sampling are available from the very high resolution weather models and from considerations of the number of degrees of freedom in the annual surface temperature anomaly (it's less than you think).

While the aerosol influence last less than a decade, the influence on surface temperatures continues because of the slow mixing of cooled waters on the ocean surface.

Anthropogenic change has been detected in surface temperature with very high significance levels (less than 1 % error probability).

Please note that nowhere does science claim a linear correlation with temperature - CO2 is not the only factor in surface temperature, especially on scales less than a couple of decade.

That warming on descent also reduces the rate of temperature decline with height which suppresses convection from the surface so that the surface on the day side then warms more than it otherwise would have done and the surface on the night side cools less quickly than it otherwise would have done..

me warming of the earth's temperature, but that the observed rate of warming (both at the earth's surface and throughout the lower atmosphere) is considerably less than has been anticipated by the collection of climate models upon whose projections climate alarm (i.e., justification for strict restrictions on the use of fossil fuels) is built.

The Global Warming Speedometer for January 2001 to June 2016 shows observed warming on the HadCRUT4 and NCEI surface temperature datasets as below IPCC's least prediction in 1990 and somewhat on the low side of its 1995 and 2001 predictions, while the satellite datasets show less warming than all IPCC predictions from 1990 to 2001.

What's lost in a lot of the discussion about human - caused climate change is not that the sum of human activities is leading to some warming of the earth's temperature, but that the observed rate of warming (both at the earth's surface and throughout the lower atmosphere) is considerably less than has been anticipated by the collection of climate models upon whose projections climate alarm (i.e., justification for strict restrictions on the use of fossil fuels) is built.

The inflection point at 0C is caused because the surface becomes less reflective than clouds above that temperature.

More than 90 % of global warming heat goes into warming the oceans, while less than 3 % goes into increasing the atmospheric and surface air temperature.

The impact of sea surface temperature bias was further investigated by using uncoupled atmospheric models with prescribed sea surface temperatures, and those 3 models each with differing complexity showed less severe double ITCZ bias than the ensemble of coupled models.

El Niño and La Niña years were classifed as those with MEI values of greater than 0.5 and less than -0.5, respectively (which correspond to warming or cooling effects of ~ 0.04 °C or more on the annual global surface temperature anomaly, according to Foster & Rahmstorf).

This logical deduction is based on the fact that there is nowhere on the Earths surface where the difference in the summer maximum and winter minimum temperatures is less than any temperature change resulting from the addition of «green house gasses».

The Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (AMO), a 60 - to -80-year natural cycle in sea surface temperature, explained less than 0.1 degrees Celsius [0.2 degrees Fahrenheit] of the rise, according to Trenberth.

The change in the heat balance of Earth is in such case much less than the change in the average surface temperature.

That is a major reason the planet's surface temperatures have risen less than expected in the past dozen or so years, given the large greenhouse gas hike during the same period, said Kevin Trenberth, senior scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

You haven't explained how the temperature is maintained at the Venus poles, where less than 1W / m ^ 2 of incident solar radiation reaches the surface, and not much more reaches the lower troposphere.

With 200 C skin surface, the air should less than this temperature.