Sentences with phrase «not equal temperature»

Factually, Climate does not equal temperature * period *.

Not exact matches

This shows that the crystal structure is cubic (three right angles, three equal edges) at high temperatures, since the kinetic energy of the atoms still suppresses the Jahn - Teller effect and magnetic ordering can not become established.

That doesn't sound like much, but it equals the temperature rise since the end of the last ice age, and the consequences could be devastating.

A smaller temperature gradient suggests weaker convection, though there's a lot going on though so «all else equal» arguments don't prove much.

If we abandon the models and simply extrapolate the trend, shouldn't that by now, unless there is a huge or unknown temperature lag, give us a target with a similar range, and that range would more or less equal the estimated natural variation?

And of course — «all other things are not equal», as so many other climate effects also have their impact on the global mean surface temperature.

When both mixtures reach an equal temperature (see specific recipe) begin to stir the lye into the oil, do this SLOWLY, and remember that you should always add lye to other materials, not the other way around, pouring a liquid into lye crystals can cause it to splash and can burn your skin.

By comparison, playing «Shadowgun» on the ASUS Infinity for an equal amount of time resulted in a temperature of 96 degrees on the back left, which was noticeable, but not uncomfortable.

Of information I have seen, is that recent archeological finds indicate that without doubt recent temperatures are approaching or equal to periods of higher if not highest temperatures for up to about 12000 years.

Doesn't using a «baseline for anomaly calculation» «equal to the time span being analyzed» decrease REAL extreme weather event probabilities much the same way as using a sliding baseline minimizes the slope of temperature increase?

But wouldn't a closer model be the first order ODE, where the difference between absorbed solar power and lost black body power has to equal the change in temperature with respect to time multiplied by the terrestrial and atmospheric combined heat capacity:

... For example, the formula given by JBS that T = (e + f - ef) / (e * (2 - e)-RRB--RRB- **.25 * TB can't really be correct since setting the solar input fraction f to zero does not reproduce temperature of the earth TB unless the emissivity e is equal to unity.

The foundation for ghe - theory is the claim that the surface is hotter «than it should be», which is equal to saying that the laws of nature doesn't apply for surface temperature.

The contiguous US is about average, not even in the top 50 warmest years, with the mean temperature about equal to that of the 1949 20th century mean.

C (0) would vary if latent heat uptake varies over T or t (thus n), but we can let C (0) be constant and just have some additional C (k) with variable C (k, j, n) values to take care of that (but wouldn't the temperature of those reservoirs always be equal to T (0, n) anyway?)

Depending on the lapse rate in the stratosphere, the hill in the downward flux could reverse at some point, particularly if their is a large negative lapse rate in the base of the stratosphere — but I don't think this tends to be the case; anyway, let's assume that the CO2 valley in the TRPP net upward flux only deepens until it saturates at zero (it saturates at zero because at that point the upward and downward spectral fluxes at the center of the band are equal to the blackbody value for the temperature at TRPP).

So the intensity of radiation (at some frequency and polarization) changes over distance, such that, in the direction the intensity is going, it is always approaching the blackbody value (Planck function) for the local temperature; it approaches this quickly if the absorption cross section density is high; if the cross section density is very high and the temperature doesn't vary much over distance, the intensity may be nearly equal to the Planck function for that location; otherwise its value is a weighted average of the Planck function of local temperature extending back over the path in the direction it came from.

The skin layer planet is optically very thin, so it doesn't affect the OLR significantly, but (absent direct solar heating) the little bit of the radiant flux (approximatly equal to the OLR) from below that it absorbs must be (at equilibrium) balanced by emission, which will be both downward and upward, so the flux emitted in either direction is only half of what was absorbed from below; via Kirchhoff's Law, the temperature must be smaller than the brightness temperature of the OLR (for a grey gas, Tskin ^ 4 ~ = (Te ^ 4) / 2, where Te is the effective radiating temperature for the planet, equal to the brightness temperature of the OLR — *** HOWEVER, see below ***).

When there aren't any gaps in space with zero optical thickness (there is approximately a gap above TOA) and temperature varies continously over space (at sufficient spatial resolution, this is generally true everywhere within the climate system), increasing optical thickness eventually saturates the fluxes going in opposite directions, at which point they become equal, so that the net flux is zero.

A smaller temperature gradient suggests weaker convection, though there's a lot going on though so «all else equal» arguments don't prove much.

-- What's the mean avg growth in global CO2 and CO2e last year and over the prior ~ 5 years — What's the current global surface temperature anomaly in the last year and in prior ~ 5 years — project that mean avg growth in CO2 / CO2e ppm increasing at the same rate for another decade, and then to 2050 and to 2075 (or some other set of years)-- then using the best available latest GCM / s (pick and stick) for each year or quarter update and calculate the «likely» global surface temperature anomaly into the out years — all things being equal and not assuming any «fictional» scenarios in any RCPs or Paris accord of some massive shift in projected FF / Cement use until such times as they are a reality and actually operating and actually seen slowing CO2 ppm growth.

That doesn't sound like much, but it equals the temperature rise since the end of the last ice age, and the consequences could be devastating.

So with the «greenhouse gas effect» if I add more CO2 AND all other things remain equal, temperature will increase, but if clouds are a regulating mechanism, adding more CO2 doesn't have to change temperature at all, just the amount of energy required to maintain that temperature would be reduced.

In dry conditions could see scorching air temperatures, air temperature equaling sauna conditions, but wetter conditions will not permit high surface temperatures.

«uncertainty» equals no consensus but consensus is not proof this is just one classic example of just more humans trying to justify their existence and no the IPCC Judith Curry and everyone else involved continue dancing on the head of a pin whilst Mr Ordinary gets his wealth sequestrated in order to pay for these guys to indulge in their pet hobby when the person who is making their life possible derives no benefit whatsoever except higher and higher energy bills, more restrictions on their ability to travel whilst again the lauded few get to travel across the planet 1st class to tout their jaded theories of how what and where and all I hope and pray is that we get another five years of flat temperatures then you are all toast and in a great need of having to work for a living or get another hobby.

Because of these restraints the oceans locally can release only a small part of the total dissolved carbon dioxide and, more importantly, when averaged over a year the amount released equals the amount dissolved, i.e. there is not net addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from the oceans so long as the temperature averaged over a year remains constant from year to year.

Is anyone arguing that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas and that all else being equal, a shift in the earth's radiative equilibrium temperature upward would NOT be expected with this increase?

So, on those grounds, more GHGs could not affect equilibrium temperature because they provoke an equal and opposite system response to any effect they might have on the transfer of energy through the planetary system.

Again, consider that surface air temperatures does not equal the whole Earth system.

All else being equal, surface temperature would be 254 K, not 288 K.

Solar ponds seem to a have limit to how deep they can be, but if you only talking about say 2 ′ depth one can approach temperature equal or greater than any dark substance not under water [around 80 C].

Then applying Julio's argument to the «higher temperature earth — i.e., to the earth at temperature T2», won't the T2 earth behave like the T1 earth in that won't «Iout» for the T2 earth be equal to «0.8 * Iup» of the T2 earth, with the result that the T2 earth's temperature will rise approximately the same amount as the T1 earth's temperature rose to equalize the 20 % of the energy «trapped» by the glass?

The rest of the Northeast and New England, in a typical El Niño winter, have equal chances of seeing above - or below - normal precipitation and temperature, meaning they are not affected by El Niño as much as other locations across the country.

The Hockey stick in this paper doesn't even preclude the possibility of a Medieval Warm Period with about equal temperatures as in the 20th century, since the 20th century average temperature still lies within the upper half of the error band of Mann's Hockey Stick in the part of the reconstruction that covers the Medieval times.

To be clear, viewed in isolation with all other things being equal a warmer MCO is compatible with higher sensitivity, but the ratio of the MCO temperature to that current does not argue directly to the sensitivity one way or the other, but it does argue as to the ratio of the forcings.

I say no because for conduction to equalize the temperature there has to be equal freedom of motion in any direction and this clearly isn't the case.

This is how you can have a perpetual temperature gradient yet not be able to extract any work from it for a perpetual motion machine — a temperature gradient can be nullified by an equal but opposite gradient of energy in a different form.

Dear Dr. Curry: Tropical temperature trend (say 32 ⁰ N) is about equal to the weighted average temperature trend.

If the temperatures are not equal heat will flow.

In the real world, «all other things» are most definitely NOT «held equal,» the feedbacks are offsetting / negative feedbacks (which can be seen from the Earth's climate history, which does NOT show any effect of CO2 levels on temperature), and the «real world» effect is essentially nil.

The 1960s did not equal the 1950s in solar activity or temperatures, which were not «roughly constant» from 1950.

I can see that there would eventually be equal amounts of energy at each and every place in the atmosphere, but that energy does not translate directly into temperature.

That too should mean that all other things being equal, the temperatures during summer aren't more likely to be extremely high.

God's eighth commandment to Moses, «thou shalt not steal», of course consigned thieves to the higher temperatures of the netherworld, assuming equal temperatures for adultery (7th) and theft (8th).

The temperature change, ∆ T, from the mean temperature of the present (the year 2013), if the concentration N of CO2 is not equal to the present value, N = 400 ppm, is given by the simple equation

Current global temperatures are not the highest ever, and the rate of change is historically equaled.

Can you (emphasis on you) prove that the presence of any field (gravitational, electrostatic, or whatever you like) can create a situation where internal energy is equal everywhere even though the temperature is not?

The annual 1957 - 2006 temperature anomaly trend averaged over the 63 AWS stations is positive, but is not statistically different than zero for a p equal to or less than 0.05 when the trend regression data is adjusted for lag 1 auto correlation.

The fully relaxed state is maximum entropy and that is acheived when internal energy, not temperature, is equal everywhere.

Temperatures vary greatly in very short distances, thus one can not conclude that the temperature at location A will be equal to location B in short distances of feet, to surrounding general area of miles.