Sentences with phrase «measured at earth surface»

As measured at earth surface, it really is +15 C.

Not exact matches

In the Earth Surface Dynamics Lab at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) the behavior of rivers is modeled through the use of artificial rivers — flumes — through which water can be pumped at varying rates over a variety of carefully graded sediments while drag force and acceleration are measured.

«This year, our balloon - borne instruments measured nearly 100 percent ozone depletion in the layer above South Pole Station, Antarctica, that was 14 to 19 kilometers (9 to 12 miles) above Earth's surface,» said Bryan Johnson, a researcher at NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colorado.

(The largest of them measured 30 nanoteslas, which is about 1/100, 000 th the typical strength of the planet's magnetic field measured at Earth's surface.)

Researchers tallied the figure by measuring the concentrations of beryllium - 10, an isotope produced naturally when cosmic rays strike rocks at Earth's surface, in sediments gathered from slopes and riverbeds (image).

For their paper, published in Applied Geography, researchers at the Earth Institute at Columbia University and Battelle Memorial Institute studied air temperature data from weather stations, land surface temperatures measured by satellites and socioeconomic data.

Since there's no direct way to measure time at the Earth's core, scientists used a measure called gravitational potential — how much work it takes to move an object from one place to another — to infer the time difference between Earth's core and its surface.

Pierre, could you comment on what, exactly, is new in the recent Philipona paper, compared with the two similar papers they published last year («Greenhouse forcing outweighs decreasing solar radiation driving rapid temperature rise over land», «Radiative forcing — measured at Earth's surface — corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect»)?

«This year, our balloon - borne instruments measured nearly 100 percent ozone depletion in the layer above South Pole Station, Antarctica, that was 14 to 19 kilometers (9 to 12 miles) above Earth's surface,» Bryan Johnson, a researcher at NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colorado, said, in the statement.

The concentration of radioactivity measured down Germany's deepest hole (5.7 miles) would account for all the heat flowing out at the earth's surface if that concentration continued down to a depth of only 18.8 miles and if the crust were 4 billion years old.47

Atmospheric scientists measure the amount of CH4 gas in the atmosphere and use these data, along with models of atmospheric transport, to estimate the amount of CH4 released at Earth's surface.

We use satellites like GRACE (Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment), which measure variations in mass at the Earth's surface.

Personally, I find it quite remarkable that we were able to predict the concentration of a gas in the atmosphere measured at a particular point on the Earth's surface nearly a year in advance.

The study simply wasn't aimed at identifying any causes of mass loss — it merely observed these losses using NASA's twin GRACE satellites, which measure mass and gravitational changes at the Earth's surface, and tied them to the resulting polar motion.

Scientists have directly measured the increasing greenhouse effect of methane at the Earth's surface for the first time.

As a result, the global balance of energy fluxes within the atmosphere or at Earth's surface can not be derived directly from measured fluxes, and is therefore uncertain.

Whatever happened to the concept of simply measuring the temperature at times and places on the earth surface that conform to the sampling requirements of standard sampled data system theory; i.e. Nyquist.

The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth's surface.

Sea surface temperature (SST) measured from Earth Observation Satellites in considerable spatial detail and at high frequency, is increasingly required for use in the context of operational monitoring and forecasting of the ocean, for assimilation into coupled ocean - atmosphere model systems and for applications in short - term numerical weather prediction and longer term climate change detection.

The coldest surface air temperature ever measured on Earth was at the Vostok Station in 1983, a reading of T = -89.2 C (or 184K), which is reasonably close to CO2 snow deposition temperature of 133K (1 bar) or 152K (10 bars).

Atmospheric scientists measure the amount of CH4 gas in the atmosphere and use these data, along with models of atmospheric transport, to estimate the amount of CH4 released at Earth's surface.

Dr. Svalgaard face the facts, and facts are, as by now you know far better than I do (thanks to the work Vukcevic has done) that: It appears that the temperature natural change in the N. Hemisphere directly correlates to the combined changes in two magnetic fields as measured at the Earth's surface: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm To paraphrase Dr. Svalgaard of Stanford: If correlation is really good, one can live with an as yet undiscovered mechanism.

«The coldest surface air temperature ever measured on Earth was at the Vostok Station in 1983, a reading of T = -89.2 C (or 184K), which is reasonably close to CO2 snow deposition temperature of 133K (1 bar)...»

It appears that the temperature natural change in the N. Hemisphere directly correlates to the combined changes in two magnetic fields as measured at the Earth's surface The combination is physically invalid and made - up, possibly for the purpose of producing a correlation: «hmmm, let's see what combination of data would give me a correlation...»

As others have noted, the IPCC Team has gone absolutely feral about Salby's research and the most recent paper by Dr Roy Spencer, at the University of Alabama (On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth's Radiant Energy Balance), for one simple reason: both are based on empirical, undoctored satellite observations, which, depending on the measure required, now extend into the past by up to 32 years, i.e. long enough to begin evaluating real climate trends; whereas much of the Team's science in AR4 (2007) is based on primitive climate models generated from primitive and potentially unreliable land measurements and proxies, which have been «filtered» to achieve certain artificial realities (There are other more scathing descriptions of this process I won't use).

Since Herschel's day, and Tyndall — he had a go at measuring the difference between light and heat, we know that visible light and the shortwaves either side which AGWSF claims «directly heat the Earth's surface matter» are not hot and don't have the power to heat matter which thermal infrared, simply called heat, does.

Now, add a source at greater than 15C (like a warm earth surface) and ad long as the rate of incoming 15 um radiation is greater than the 15 um radiation rate you already measured from your hohlraum there will be disequilibrium and the temperature of the hohlraum (not just the CO2 but all of the gas) will increase until the hohlraum is again emitting the same amount of 15 um radiation as is coming in.

An example to explain why this is a fallacy: if one were able to measure the temperature at a single point on the Earth's surface (say sea level) for a million years consecutively you would have a time series data set.

It is harder to measure the energy budget at the surface than at the top of the atmosphere because they can not be directly measured by passive satellite sensors and surface measurements aren't equally distributed across the earth's surface.

Satellite sensors that measure infrared radiation infer the amount of heat emitted from an object at the earth's surface.

The researchers, led by Berkeley Lab scientists, measured atmospheric carbon dioxide's increasing capacity to absorb thermal radiation emitted from the Earth's surface over an eleven - year period at two locations in North America.

Second, robotic probes have measured Venus» atmosphere to be about 97 % CO2, and we can see from the image above (click for a larger version) that the absorption spectrum for CO2 (at Earth temperature and pressure — Venusian temperature and pressure increases the width of the absorption bands, making CO2 a stronger absorber in Venus» atmosphere than in Earth's) strongly overlaps the peak emission spectrum of Venus» surface.

I think the 1C increase is as measured at the earth's surface, so not sure how useful that can be used for calculating increases in the total atmosphere.

The researchers, led by scientists from the US Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), measured atmospheric carbon dioxide's increasing capacity to absorb thermal radiation emitted from the Earth's surface over an eleven - year period at two locations in North America.

Zhao studied the internal waves by tracking them via the very slight bump the waves create on the sea surface (which he measured using NASA's record of Earth - observing satellite data — once again proving the program's utility), and looked at how their speeds changed over time.

This must be reduced somewhat if you're measuring the same thing at the Earth's surface, and reduced again if you're averaging over the whole planet, over all the seasons, over day and night and so on — I've seen the figure of 240W / m ² quoted for this kind of measurement.

It can be measured at the Earth's surface or high in the atmosphere.

Could we measure the change in density at the earth's surface?

Then please explain how it is that as measured at Earth» surface the GMT is ~ 288K and at a satellite in orbit 255K.

Natural capital degradation: comparison of measured changes in the average temperature of the atmosphere at the earth's surface between 1875 and 2005 and the projected range of temperature increase during the rest of this century.

If surface radiation has been measured and does indeed average 390 W / m ² then either the stated «input wattage» (your 170 Watts / m ^ 2) is incorrect or the «Earth System», Globe + Atmosphere, must be looked at as one complete unit where internal heat exchange uses or looses 390 — 170 = 220 W / m ², or — Kirchhoff was wrong but nobody, as far as I know, advocates that.

The Earth Surface has an emissivity in the mid - and far - infrared that has been measured at over 0.98 for the oceans and over 0.95 for most land areas.

As a practical matter, I think that Hansen's recent approach of looking at the fraction of the Earth's surface which is experiencing extreme warmth does a good job of making a global measure to compare with global warming.

Temperatures measured on land and at sea for more than a century show that Earth's globally averaged surface temperature is experiencing a long - term warming trend.

The UV index measures the amount of harmful radiation in sunlight reaching the earth's surface at a given location — where 0 indicates no risk, 1 - 4 indicates a low risk of overexposure and above 10 signifies an extreme risk.

http://www.gewex.org/bsrn.html Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN) About BSRN Because of the important role radiation plays in the climate system, the Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN) was established to provide a worldwide network to continuously measure radiative fluxes at the Earth's sSurface Radiation Network (BSRN) About BSRN Because of the important role radiation plays in the climate system, the Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN) was established to provide a worldwide network to continuously measure radiative fluxes at the Earth's sSurface Radiation Network (BSRN) was established to provide a worldwide network to continuously measure radiative fluxes at the Earth's surfacesurface.

The flux at the earth of 1.37 W / m ^ 2 is a measured entity, as such that flux can not account for a surface temperature of 15C (average).

It is not in anyway represented by the temperature that is measured at about 2m above the Earth's surface.