Sentences with phrase «mass than the air»

Not exact matches

The TV segment, which first aired in June on Oliver's HBO show «Last Week Tonight,» hit more than 4 million views on YouTube, putting a mass - media spotlight on a very important issue with which the financial services industry has been grappling for years.

He showed us how to work for freedom in circumstances rather tougher than we are currently experiencing in Britain, and he showed us that the public celebration of the Faith - processions, open - air Masses, youth events - plays a central role in achieving or affirming the rights of Christians.

Pope Francis has celebrated an open air mass with more than 50,000 Catholics at a football stadium in South Korea on the second day of his trip to the country.

«Nowhere is the problem of mass more relevant than to the issue of combat air capability.

The cloud is there because it's in a different meteorological air mass than where the clear sky is.»

Because relativity prevents mass from traveling faster than the vacuum speed of light, there's no way to further speed up the detoured light in a vacuum or in air.

@Paulster2: I believe the air - flow sensor on the car is closer to a volumetric air - flow sensor than mass air - flow since I don't see any temperature correction taking place here.

P2106 can be caused by many, many faults other than a failed water pump including: general engine overheating, coolant leaks, EGR valve malfunctions, mass air flow sensor malfunctions, drive axle modifications, ABS, Traction Control or Stability Control failures, automatic transmission...

The inertia of the mass of air rushing down each intake passage helps draw in more charge than each cylinder would normally ingest.

A business model that prices air travel as a last resort rather than as mass transport could succeed in spite of eco-taxes — but only if there is a level playing field.

Basically what we are saying is that normal greenhouse is based on having less thermal mass to heat than the atmosphere as whole due to seperation from that atmosphere, and to a lesser extent on insulation due to the air not moving as much.

The warm air above nocturnal or polar inversions, or even stable air masses with small positive lapse rates, are warmer than otherwise because of heat capacity and radiant + convective heating during daytime and / or because of heating occurring at other latitudes / regions that is transported to higher latitudes / regions.

Two problems: 1) CO2 is heavier than the rest of dry air, molar mass 44 against 29.

In order for the air to start cooling, the entire air mass must be losing more heat from radiation than it is gaining from the water.

In addition the warming oceans — which hold heat for longer than land masses — generate pathways for warm air invasions of the Arctic during Winter time.

So the whole rising air mass experiences less cooling than it would in a dry atmosphere.

You say that the descending air would heat up more than the «surrounding atmosphere»... but the air mixes and descends over the entire area and the entire air mass warms, there is no «surrounding atmosphere» in the sense you mean.

Expecting less than 5 % of Earths surface to filter the air mass from the other 95 % given actual air circulation patterns is patently absurd compared to natural CO2 scrubbing mechanisms like the biological carbon cycles, or Henry's law (which is leading to ocean acidification.

This may be me advertising my ignorance but if the OHC is of interest as against the SST why do we use a parameter of «global temperature» which is an amalgam of SST and air temperature over land rather than a total heat content or a temperature normalised say for mass or thermal density (normalise to the properties of water say)?

Having lived most of my life in the upper Midwest, I would suggest that much of the midwest is actually more affected by Southern Gulf air masses than Pacific air masses.

For the US MIDWEST, the air masses from the Pacific first have to pass more than a thousand kilometres of mountains and thus the temperature trends in the US Midwest have unusually little noise from ocean air temperature trends.

In Fig 22 you state that «air masses from the Pacific first have to pass more than a thousand kilometres of mountains and thus the temperature trends in the US Midwest have unusually little noise from ocean air temperature trends.»

Until then, it would appear that it is your assertion that the carbon dioxide filled bottle heated faster and become hotter than the air filled bottle because the carbon dioxide has a higher mass than does air, i.e., «Much smaller mass means they can hold much less heat, just as a smaller cup holds less boiling water.»

Besides the mass of CO2 in the CO2 bottle is significantly higher than the bottle of air and hence requires similar energy to increase in temperature no matter how the heating is occurring.

You correctly state that «less energy is needed to to raise one gram of CO2 one °C than one gram of air one °C» but you have simply ignored mass and the fundamental heat transfer equation Q = m x c x delta T.

I also think that increasing urbanization would affect this factor, as urban surfaces would get hotter than the air temperature during the day and would not be as likely to cool at night to a temperature below the air temperature because they started out hotter at sundown and they have more thermal mass.

Do GCM's «create» cold fronts and the arctic air flows when they run, or are they «static» heat exchange models only (radiation received and radiation released are obviously their «drivers»... But what happens after the air masses have been «driven» for the equal of one or two «years» — do we see flows in the tropics, mid-latitudes, and polar latitudes than resembles earth's circulation?

The total mass of air above the urban area is 10,000 kg / m ^ 2, but the bottom 2000 ft contains less than 5 % of it, or around 500 kg / m ^ 2.

In an atmosphere with moving gases, hot air masses rise and are radiating more strongly than the gases at the altitude they are moving through.

Rather than flow around the arctic in a circular manner, the movement of the cold air becomes wavier, bringing the mass further and further south (see the pictures above).

All it would take for the Makarieva Effect to work, would be for a rising moist air mass to be more diabatic than a dry air mass.

The air around being colder therefore denser and heavier, with more condensed volume, will sink; gravity having less of a grip on the hotter less dense rising expanding lighter volume with less mass than it does on the denser colder heavier with more mass.

The local pressure reduction pointed to when condensation reduces volume is instantly offset by mass flowing into the original volume from the surroundings and the energy released is not enough to make the air parcel and the liquid contents lighter than air containing water vapour.

However there is a contraction of volume but that immediately pulls in more air from the surroundings so the original volume then contains more mass than before which must give a rise in surface pressure rather than a fall.

If the air mass sinks low enough, the air at higher altitudes becomes warmer than at lower altitudes, producing a temperature inversion.

The Bering and Barents Seas were both experiencing lower - than - normal ice levels, before an air mass from the northern Arctic moved down, freezing the waterways.

When the Arctic Oscillation is negative, cold Arctic air masses tend to plunge southward and into the U.S., spawning snowstorms and leading to cooler than average conditions.

In return, the thermal mass works to maintain a steady air temperature inside the house, rather than continually working to lower the indoor air temperature to that of the surrounding earth.

Real gases separate out from each other by weight, so, real gas methane will always rise in air because its mass is lighter than air under gravity, as is water vapour.

Ideal gas which has no mass therefore no weight under gravity because there is nothing on which gravity can pull; which has no volume therefore does not expand or condense changing its weight under reduced and increased pressure or heat and cold and so does not become lighter or heavier than air under gravity; with no attraction therefore merely capable of bouncing off another and not capable of undergoing chemical changes, such as water and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere forming carbonic acid.

My curiosity is built around the assumption that the warmer air mass must have transferred heat to the ocean (warmer to colder) and that raises the thought that the atmosphere would have to get colder than the ocean for it (the air) to be warmed by the sea.

Air masses are more mobile than the ocean waters, and when they move to a cooler region, the water vapor condenses as rain or snow, leaving the heat energy in the atmossphere.

The latitudinal temperature gradient in summer is much smaller, thus providing less drive for exchange of air masses between middle latitudes and polar regions — and when exchange occurs the effect on temperature is less than that caused by a winter «polar express» of Arctic (or Antarctic) air delivered to middle latitudes.

[99] The atmospheric concentration of vapor is highly variable and depends largely on temperature, from less than 0.01 % in extremely cold regions up to 3 % by mass in saturated air at about 32 °C.

The warmer air near the surface expands, becoming less dense than the surrounding air mass.

(The ascending air is moving a lot faster than the descending air so mass balance does occur).

In one simulation, the researchers covered much of the northern hemisphere (above 20 ° latitude) with forests and saw a jump in surface air temperature of more than 6 ° F. Covering the entire planet's land mass with trees led to a more modest increase of about 2 ° F.

Availability and pricing info is up in the air, as are the handset's full specifications, but the thing is repeatedly described as «ready for mass - production» in Vivo's latest press release, backing up hopes of a commercial launch no later than Q2.