Sentences with phrase «planetary temperatures so»

Then they settled down to calculate the likelihood that a proportion of past heatwaves or floods could be linked to a measured average rise in planetary temperatures so far of 0.85 °C.

Not exact matches

«There's a perception that Venus is a very difficult place to have a mission,» says planetary scientist Darby Dyar of Mount Holyoke College in South Hadley, Mass. «Everybody knows about the high pressures and temperatures on Venus, so people think we don't have technology to survive that.

The bitterly cold temperatures that make Titan so forbidding for life in some ways make it more intriguing to people like Toby Owen, a planetary scientist at the University of Hawaii and a Cassini coinvestigator.

Although both worlds are similar in size and density, our planetary neighbor has temperatures so high they can melt lead, winds that whip around it some 60 times faster than the planet itself rotates and an atmosphere that slams down with more than 90 times the pressure found on Earth's atmosphere.

Such a large temperature difference indicates that the planet's atmosphere absorbs and re-radiates starlight so quickly that the gas circling around it in the outer atmosphere cools off quickly — unlike Jupiter, which appears to have a relatively even temperature within planetary bands of atmospheric circulation.

She is a planetary scientist at Mount Holyoke College in South Hadley, Mass. «Everybody knows about the high pressures and temperatures on Venus, so people think we don't have technology to survive that.

So we will all have a handle or knowledge of planetary temperature changes from these volcanic outputs.

In fact there is a gravitationally induced temperature gradient (aka lapse rate) in any planetary troposphere, and thermal energy absorbed from solar radiation in the upper troposphere can flow up that sloping thermal profile restoring thermodynamic equilibrium as it does so, and even entering the oceans.

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.

If so, please start by reading my paper «Planetary Surface Temperatures.

So why would you think that just because high solar activity corresponded with different planetary temperatures at different times, that was somehow an argument against solar activity as a driver fo climate?

So why would you think that just because high solar activity corresponded with different planetary temperatures at different times, that was somehow an argument against solar activity as a driver of climate?

The «unnatural» warming so far seen is however trended strongly to the alterations to the planetary surface by Humanity over the past 400 years and the rebalance towards greater kinetic induction (in its cumulative effect) is now producing observable alterations not only to the Land Surface median Temperature, but to the Ocean (vie conduction / convection) and a still unconfirmed claim of a small overall rise in Median Atmospheric Temperature, which if «true» would place the Planetary Biosphere on the «Human Population Plot» with regard to «warminplanetary surface by Humanity over the past 400 years and the rebalance towards greater kinetic induction (in its cumulative effect) is now producing observable alterations not only to the Land Surface median Temperature, but to the Ocean (vie conduction / convection) and a still unconfirmed claim of a small overall rise in Median Atmospheric Temperature, which if «true» would place the Planetary Biosphere on the «Human Population Plot» with regard to «warminPlanetary Biosphere on the «Human Population Plot» with regard to «warming».

Second, ignore the inconsistencies, and just assume those pesky CO2 molecules are so clever that they can change the trajectory of planetary temperature trends every few decades, from warming to cooling, back to warming, then just «flatline» for fifteen years or so.

Unfortunately many proponents of AGW are so willing to misuse Dr. Brown's elegant refutation of Hans Jelbring's E&E paper to conclude that GHG's must therefore be responsible for the temperature lapse rate observed in planetary atmospheres.

As planetary temperatures rise, so does the likelihood of...

Remember, more than 90 percent of human induced planetary warming goes into the oceans, while only 2 percent goes into the atmosphere, so small changes in ocean uptake can have huge impact on surface temperatures.

In this paper, Broecker correctly predicted «that the present cooling trend will, within a decade or so, give way to a pronounced warming induced by carbon dioxide», and that «by early in the next century [carbon dioxide] will have driven the mean planetary temperature beyond the limits experienced during the last 1000 years».

To claim that the global avg temp might as well have decreased 0.7 degrees as increased 0.7 degrees since preindustrial times flies in the face of basic physics, namely that the planetary temperature is governed (a.o.) by the planetary energy balance, and that this balance has substantially changed over the past 100 or so years due in large part to anthropogenic climate forcings, with a bit of help from natural climate forcings.