Sentences with phrase «point of fact temperature»

Regarding your second comment, in point of fact temperature increase is linear with logarithmically increasing CO2: climate sensitivity, you may recall, measures global mean surface temperature increase per doubling of atmospheric concentration of CO2.

Regarding your second comment, in point of fact temperature increase is linear with logarithmically increasing CO2: climate sensitivity, you may recall, measures global mean surface temperature increase per doubling of atmospheric concentration of CO2.

Not exact matches

In fact, this study showed that all regions with above - average temperature are located near volcanic hot spots, which points to mantle plumes as the culprit for the excess volume of magma in these areas.

And of course, exceeding the 1.5 °C threshold for even an entire year would not mean that global temperatures had in fact risen to that point, never (at least within our lifetime) to drop back below it as it's too short of a timeframe to make that determination.

«The beauty of spin ice is that the remaining degree of disorder in this low - temperature phase makes these two points independent of each other, apart from the fact that they attract each other from a magnetic point of view because one is a north and one is a south,» Castelnovo points out.

«The beauty of spin ice is that the remaining degree of disorder in this low - temperature phase makes these two points independent of each other, apart from the fact that they attract each other from a magnetic point of view because one is a north and one is a south,» Castelnovo says.

On particular case in point was this past winters extremely warm periods, in fact as I can recall Michael Mann write, about North Americas sea of red temperature anomalies of January as something which is supposed to happen «20 years» from now.

In fact, the solubility of carbon dioxide in water increases, geometrically, as water temperature decreases, reaching maximum solubility at the freezing point.

With 755 horsepower the 2019 Chevrolet Corvette zr1 is the most powerful Corvette ever it's also the most technologically advanced behind me are the rolling s's at Road Atlanta and we're here to see if we can reach to the supercar levels of performance afforded by this thing's massive power big tires and the tall wing on the back after that we'll take to the streets to see if a car this powerful can behave itself in public this is a monster of a car I've had some brief track opportunities moving this morning to get used to the pace of this machine which is phenomenal we're gonna warm up as we get out to the road Atlanta and sort of build up to the pace that this car can operate at now initially when you hop in this car you have this shrine to the engine right above you you see the line of the hood it kind of dominates the center of the view you can see over it it doesn't affect visibility but it's immediately obvious and that kind of speaks to what makes this car special it's a monster of an engine listen to that [Music] that is tremendous tremendous acceleration and incredible power but what I finding so far my brief time here at the Atlanta is that everything else in the car is rut has risen to match hurt me while I lay into it on the back straight look you know 150 mile - an - hour indicated we're going to ease up a little bit on it because I need to focus on talking rather than driving but like I was saying the attributes of the rest of the car the steering the braking capability the grip every system of this car is riding to the same level of the power and I think that's what makes it really impressive initially this is undoubtedly a mega mega fast car but it's one that doesn't terrify you with its performance potential there's a level of electronic sophistication that is unparalleled at this price point but it's hard not to get you know totally slipped away by the power of this engine so that's why I keep coming back to it this car has an electronically controlled limited slip differential it has shocks filled with magnetically responsive fluid that can react faster to inputs and everything this car has a super sophisticated stability control system that teaches you how to drive it quick but also makes you go faster we haven't even gotten into exploring it yet because the limits of this car are so high that frankly it takes a while to grow into it but [Music] I think what's impressive about this car is despite how fast it is it is approachable you can buy this car to track dates with it and grow with it as a driver and as an owner I think that's a really special [Music] because you will never be more talented than this car is fast ever unless you are a racing driver casually grazing under 50 miles an hour on this straight okay I'm just going to enjoy driving this now [Music][Applause][Music] this particular Corvette zr1 comes with the cars track performance package a lot of those changes happen underneath the sheet metal but one of the big differences that is immediately obvious is this giant carbon fiber wing now the way this thing is mounted is actually into the structure of the vehicle and it makes you know loading the rear hatch a bit more difficult but we're assuming that's okay if you're looking for the track performance this thing delivers also giving you that performance are these Michelin Pilot Sport cup tires which are basically track oriented tires that you can drive on the street but as we wake our way to the front of the thing what really matters is what's under the hood that's right there's actually a hole in the hood of this thing and that's because this engine is so tall it's tall because it has a larger supercharger and a bunch of added cooling on it to help it you know keep at the right temperature the supercharger is way larger than the one on the zo six and it has a more cooling capacity and the downside is it's taller so it pops literally through the hood the cool thing is from the top you can actually see this shake when you're looking at it from you know a camera from the top of the vehicle this all makes for 755 horsepower making this the most powerful Corvette ever now what's important about that is this not just the power but likewise everything in the car has to be built to accommodate and be able to drive to the level of speed this thing can develop that's why you had the massive cooling so I had the aerodynamics and that's why I had the electronic sophistication inside [Applause] we had a lot of time to take this car on the track yesterday and I've had the night to think about things Matt today two crews on the road and see how this extreme performance machine deals with the sort of more civil minded stuff of street driving the track impressions remain this thing is unquestionably one of the most capable cars you can get from a dealer these days a lot of that's besides the point now because we're on the street we have speed limits they have the ever - present threat of law enforcement around every corner so the question is what does this car feel like in public when you slow this car down it feels like a more powerful Corvette you don't get much tram lining from these big wheels though we as the front end doesn't want to follow grooves in the pavement it is louder it is a little firmer but it's certainly livable on a day to day basis that's surprising for a vehicle of this capability normally these track oriented cars are so hardcore that you wouldn't want to drive them to the racetrack but let's face it you spend more time driving to the track than you do on the track and the fact that this thing works well in both disciplines is really impressive I can also dial everything back and cruise and not feel like I'm getting punished for driving a hardcore track machine that's a that's a really nice accomplishment that's something that you won't find in cars that are this fast and costs maybe double this much the engine in this car dominates the entire experience you can't miss the engine and the whole friend this car is sort of a shrine to it the way it pops out of the hood the way it's covered with coolers around the sides it is the experience of this car and that does make driving this thing special and also the fact that it doesn't look half bad either in fact I think it has some of the coolest looking wheels currently available on a new car this car as we mentioned this car has the track package the track package on this car gives you what they call competition bucket seats which are a little wide for my tastes but I'm you know not the widest person in the world this automatic transmission works well I mean there's so much torque again out of this engine that it can be very smooth and almost imperceptible its clunky on occasion I think I'd might opt for the manual although Chevy tells me about 80 % of its customers will go for the automatic I don't think they're gonna be disappointed and that's gonna be the faster transmission drag strip on the street - and on the racetrack man it was a little bit more satisfying to my taste though we've talked about the exhaust I have it set in the track setting let's quiet it down a little bit so you can hear the difference now I've set that separately from everything else so let's put it stealth what happened to the engine sound that's pretty that's pretty amazing man stealth is really stealth and then go back to track Wow actually a really big difference that's that's pretty great the Corvette has always been a strong value proposition and nowhere is that more evident than this zr1 giving you a nearly unbeatable track performance per dollar now the nice thing is on the road this doesn't feel like a ragged edge track machine either you could genuinely drive it every day the compromises are few and that's what makes this car so special if you like what you see keep it tuned right here and be sure to visit Edmunds.com [Music]

Ray, I think Lee Grable's point is important: The fact that we use the term «global temperature» to mean the average temperature on a two - dimensional surface rather than the three - dimensional ocean plus land plus atmosphere system of the earth has the potential to allow confusion.

On particular case in point was this past winters extremely warm periods, in fact as I can recall Michael Mann write, about North Americas sea of red temperature anomalies of January as something which is supposed to happen «20 years» from now.

My point with the water vapor was based on the fact that the maximum amount appears to increase as a percentage of the current maximum thereby allowing for rates of temperature increase somewhat greater than linear at higher temperatures.

Another point: could the slowdown in moisture exchange with temperature increase be due to the fact that there are still only the same numbers of nuclei for rain drops to form around?

In fact, Marohasy points out that a lack of rising temperatures for recent decades is so common in paleoclimate reconstructions that tendentious climate scientists have necessarily added heavily adjusted, hockey - stick - shaped instrumental records (e.g., from NASA GISS, HadCRUT) on to the end of the trend so as to maintain the visualization of an ongoing dangerous warming.

It's very clear from the following graph that temperatures are lower in recent months (in fact, lower than at any point) than they were a decade ago, according to any of the four main observations.

Other experts point out one of the biggest natural factors behind the plateau is the fact that in 2008 the temperature cycle in the Pacific flipped from «warm mode», in which it had been locked for the previous 40 years, to «cold mode», meaning surface water temperatures fell.

This despite the fact that such a «forcing» should have, according to the current paradigm, lead to global mean temperatures about 68 degrees colder than the present, which would have lead to a completely frozen Earth, with the mean temperature at about 54 degrees below the freezing point of water.

Prempting Cohenite, The facts you point to, increases in atmospheric CO2, despite contradictory temperature numbers, leads to, at least, That our present model of the earth climate is wrong.

In scientific parlance, this is called «cherry picking», and explains how Whitehouse can assert that «since [1998] the global temperature has been flat» — although he is even wrong on this point of fact, because as the graph above shows, 2005 was warmer.

Rosco pointed out that the fact that the carbon dioxide has a lower specific heat is cancelled out by the fact that it has a greater mass, i.e., the higher mass of the carbon dioxide slows the speed at which it warms because it takes more thermal energy to raise the temperature of a body with a higher mass.

The Moon's blackbody temperature is -2.5 °C but the mean temperature I quoted from elsewhere -LRB--23 °C) is just a meaningless average of some published max and min values (I learned this fact after you pointed out this oddity).

He made the point well that much of the argument about climate consists of the scientists having to refute claims made by sceptics based on minutiae without regard for the bigger picture (2008 being colder than 1998 despite the general warming trend, or corrections upwards to the temperature of a single Tasmanian weather station despite the fact overall there was no bias).

Neither of these arguments address the issue of whether UHI is affecting measured minimum temperatures, but they may in fact be more important points to make about measured trends in minimum temperatures than the one Parker is trying to make.

In fact, via Anthony Watts, here is the world map of temperature measurement points that have data for all of the 20th century (of whatever quality):

NT, the very fact that people voted in a party saying that they would put in place an ETS (if that is the reason they were voted in), that will accomplish nothing in terms of changing global co2 levels or temperatures, pretty much proves my point....

One of the most interesting things about the climate debate is that in one place it involves people arguing about point A (in this case sensitivity), by assuming that B is well known (in this case temperature change), while not far away people are hotly debating B. Most of AGW science, including F&G, is based on assuming that the surface statistical model means are facts.

Ergo, not withstanding all the points raised above, the IPCC FAR projections have not in fact been falsified - even without adjustments to use historical forcing data, and even ignoring the fact that it was not intended as a projection of future temperatures (but only of the GHG impact on future temperatures).

In point of fact across lines of latitude the more surface water that's present the lower the average annual temperature.

That's the point of my question — how do you claim to get 0.00 accuracy in order to claim that you know, for a scientific fact, that a «global mean temperature» for say 1940 can be calculated, compared to a «global mean temperature» for 2010, and the «difference» is 0.75 degrees Celsius, when the inputs aren't accurate to that level?

The second question is, postulating that the temperature record from satellites is absolutely accurate and unfudged, and in light of the fact that climate changes historically occur naturally with periods of hundreds to thousands of years, do you think that the 31 annual data points available from the satellite record are adequate to establish long term climate trends and that the trends are a consequence of human activity?

In fact, given the nature of the forcing, you will not get an inflection point and a reversal in the temperature, i.e. a cooling, if and only if concentrations of the gas increase exponentially with temperature.

I think it is time for a general update due to subsequent developments (especially the current 2 year global cooling trend and a quieter sun with cooling oceans after an 8 year temperature plateau which tends to show that my point about solar and oceanic influences on global temperatures has some merit) and the fact that I can make the essential points more simply by condensing them into a series of bullet points as follows:

You are confirming the point made in my original article that some people are determined to «break» Mann's Hockey Stick regardless of the facts and regardless of independent temperature reconstructions that show similar results.

Henrik Svensmark points to the fact that the temperature on earth have not increased in 10 - 15 years, even if the amount of CO2 have gone sharply up.

The lack of understanding on the trade off of convection vs radiation, the lack of reasonable understanding of cloud dynamics, and the two facts that temperature has not risen significantly the last decade and total water vapor seems to have not increased either seem to make all of your arguments of little point.

One of the points which seemed to get lost in the complexity of the paper (but is still key) was the fact that the peninsula was heavily oversampled, having a high density of temperature stations.

This second point applies to Earth despite the fact that Earth has backradiation which the Moon does not have; so any point on Earth will have incident solar, reflectivity, regolith absorption and back radiation confounding any application of SB to calculate temperature at that site.

Sad isn't it when both SoD and Kloor find it necessary to go for brownie points, and clarify, clarify and clarify again that they ARE part of the Good Guys Brigade indeed, and have NO DOUBTS about the greenhouse effect, or the fact that increasing anthropogenic GHGs has been a significant contribution to rising temperatures of the last 100 years.

However, the point I am making is that the efforts of the IPCC to define climate sensitivity will have no policy value if that which we measure (and the way in which we measure and calculate it) to achieve our records of global mean surface temperature is not in fact a true reflection of the heat energy at the surface.

In point of fact, the graph in WP looks very much like the temperature record from 1910 - 2000.