Sentences with phrase «not linear»

I understand that there is not a linear relationship between CO2 concentration and Earth's average temperature; that as CO2 concentration increases, the marginal effect on temperature decreases due to saturation of spectral lines.

His galvanometer response is not linear so the primary purpose of the adjustable shades was keep the radiative energy input to the face of the galvanometer in a range where you got maximum needle deflection from minimal change in radiation.

And this process is not linear, as the processes resultant from a net ongoing energy change due a massive increase in external input (a multi million year change — increase — in lower atmospheric thermal radiation absorption and re radiation, in the sense of our geologically recent evolved «temperate» earth climate and global energy balance is massive) is not linear.

Just considering temperature, it is obvious that the relationship between tree ring thickness is inverse quadratic, not linear.

The response of the atmosphere to CO2 changes is not linear, but sub linear, roughly logarithmic, so the ratio of the forcing would be (again roughly)[log (392)- log (315)-RSB- / log (392) = 3.6 %

Also, to the extent that the dependence upon temperature is not linear, the error in the reconstruction will increase.

Therefore, your 100 % anthro attribution hypothesis can only be true if 1) aCO2 effects are not linear and 2) IPCC underestimates anthro aerosol effects

Web: If you are correct, then the aCO2 effects are not linear due to the 1910 - 1970 CO2 / Temp relationship if there is no net natural Temp increase and everything else is a wash.

Willis, the outgassing of water is not a linear function of temperature, although you can treat it as approximately linear in a small range of temperatures.

As Ferdinand Engelbeen says at January 5, 2013 at 12:11 am, it is not linear.

In that case there is not a linear effect between emissions and forcings, but that doesn't make it unimportant.

«Quite a key moment for me in the period around Copenhagen, where I started to realise that climate change was not linear,» she says.

It's not linear relationships in nature.

It is linear relationships in governed systems that don't work, not because the relationship is not linear or sorta linear, but because basically there is no relationship at all.

It's hoped that the expedition will loosely influence their work, but it's not linear.

Secondly, there is not a linear relation between WM ^ -2 and temperature, since radiation is proportional to T ^ 4.

Actually, you can't forecast anything anyway, because you are curve - fitting to something that looks like a mere 1 1/2 cycles of something, without a prediction - capable mechanism, and without anything that cross-checks it to anything outside those 1 1/2 cycles, on top of which the supposed underlying linear trend might be part of some other cycle and hence not linear at all,.

Turbulence is not a linear function of wind speed.

Anybody can say human influence is not linear.

An important issue raised is that we must be careful not to forget that the loss of polar ice is not linear.

Although the insolation changes are not linear, to a good approximation the changes I calculated are between -2.0 and +1.1 W / m2.

If the actual anthropogenic warming response is not linear, the difference will remain in the residual and it was added back.

Not only are the insolation changes not linear, but also the consequences are not to be expected to be linear, as I explain in the essay.

It's not a linear rise.

You need to look at tools for identifying a periodic (or quasiperiodic) signal on top of a base trend that is NOT linear; because there's a heck of a lot more going on with climate that you can capture on such scales with one line a sine wave.

Sensitivity in chaotic systems is not linear.

Richard, for the last time, the trend in atmospheric CO2 levels since 1958 is not linear, it is slightly exponential with a lot of ups and downs, but no matter what curve you may use to fit the real trend, the increase rate per year doubled over the past 40 years.

sorry Kr their models are not linear so by the time we hit half a century they will be out by approx 100 % given the last 10 years out by over 400 %.

You claim it is «not linear».

I think what is suggested that for a doubling of CO2 (say) the affect of the absorption is not linear, but logarithmic, that is to say it diminishes in effect at higher concentrations, (given a near saturated absorption).

There are also significant uncertainties associated with some radiative forcings (aerosols in particular), and the possibility that climate feedbacks are not linear (e.g. discussed in Long and Collins 2013).

If you don't want to see that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is NOT linear, that is up to you.

The reasons enhanced GH warming does not produce a runaway warming are varied but the most basic answer is that CO2 forcing is logarithmic, not linear, so each additional ppm has less effect than the last.

There is also ample evidence to show the warming is not linear as they try to show but cyclic — with periods wher the warming has either stalled or reversed.

Unfortunately for Amman, this rule applies only to linear regressions; as the hockey stick was clearly not linear, it couldn't apply.

R, Gates, «But the effects clearly are not linear, and thus, when we get an ice free summer Arctic later this century while there might be natural variability involved in deciding the exact year, the fact of an ice free summer Arctic at all this century will be 100 % anthropogenic.»

But the effects clearly are not linear, and thus, when we get an ice free summer Arctic later this century while there might be natural variability involved in deciding the exact year, the fact of an ice free summer Arctic at all this century will be 100 % anthropogenic.

Thus, it is clear that the change in temperature with respect to changes in CO2 is logarithmic, not linear.

But the forcing for CO2 is not linear but logarithmic: df = 5.35 * ln (C / C0), where C and C0 are the final and initial CO2 concentrations.

The increase in the atmosphere is not linear, it is a near fixed percentage of the emissions and a fixed percentage of a non-linear increase is a non-linear increase.

Currently, there is no empirical evidence that the CO2 atmosphere / sink system is not linear by this definition.

Climate response to increased greenhouse gas forcing is not linear.

The 20th century warming trend is not a linear affair.

Willis says climate sensitivity is not linear, and decreases with temperature rise http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/18/the-fatal-lure-of-assumed-linearity/

I feel that since temperatures are not linear spatially and the sample size changes so much over time, homogenizing temperature data is basically making up data that doesn't exist.

As Pekka has said elsewhere in this thread, the underlying trend is likely not linear.

It's definitely NOT linear.

Linear thinking never leads to truth because life is not linear, but our brains have been trained since grade school to think in a linear fashion.

(Remember that the temperature is logarithmic in the amount, not linear.)

In theory the climate system is complex and not linear — so there is abrupt change and not «global warming».