Sentences with phrase «point temperature difference»

Not exact matches

Like the Earth's atmosphere, plasma likes to swirl because of temperature and pressure differences from point to 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]

Your doctor's office will quote a baseline temperature several digits long for when you should bring your baby in for an exam or not — those additional decimal points make a difference with babies.

Before allowing the temperature to respond, we can consider the forcing at the tropopause (TRPP) and at TOA, both reductions in net upward fluxes (though at TOA, the net upward LW flux is simply the OLR); my point is that even without direct solar heating above the tropopause, the forcing at TOA can be less than the forcing at TRPP (as explained in detail for CO2 in my 348, but in general, it is possible to bring the net upward flux at TRPP toward zero but even with saturation at TOA, the nonzero skin temperature requires some nonzero net upward flux to remain — now it just depends on what the net fluxes were before we made the changes, and whether the proportionality of forcings at TRPP and TOA is similar if the effect has not approached saturation at TRPP); the forcing at TRPP is the forcing on the surface + troposphere, which they must warm up to balance, while the forcing difference between TOA and TRPP is the forcing on the stratosphere; if the forcing at TRPP is larger than at TOA, the stratosphere must cool, reducing outward fluxes from the stratosphere by the same total amount as the difference in forcings between TRPP and TOA.

An important point is that the temperature difference between lower latitudes and the Arctic (at least for land based) is smaller now than in the 1930 - 1940's.

Hand pointed out that the statistical tool Mann used to integrate temperature data from a number of difference sources â $ «including tree - ring data and actual thermometer readings â $ «produced an «exaggerated» rise in temperatures over the 20th century, relative to pre-industrial temperatures.

* There is too much conflicting evidence about climate change to know whether it is actually happening * Current climate change is part of a pattern that has been going on for millions of years * Climate change is just a natural fluctuation in Earth's temperatures * Even if we do experience some consequences from climate change, we will be able to cope with them * The effects of climate change are likely to be catastrophic * The evidence for climate change is unreliable * There are a lot of very different theories about climate change and little agreement about which is right * Scientists have in the past changed their results to make climate change appear worse than it is * Scientists have hidden research that shows climate change is not serious * Climate change is a scam * Social / behavioural scepticism measures * Climate change is so complicated, that there is very little politicians can do about it * There is no point in me doing anything about climate change because no - one else is * The actions of a single person doesn't make any difference in tackling climate change * People are too selfish to do anything about climate change * Not much will be done about climate change, because it is not in human nature to respond to problems that won't happen for many years * It is already too late to do anything about climate change * The media is often too alarmist about climate change * Environmentalists do their best to emphasise the worst possible effects of climate change * Climate change has now become a bit of an outdated issue * Whether it is important or not, on a day - to - day basis I am bored of hearing about climate change

At one point of the paper Miskolczi presents correct arguments based on the physical understanding that the equality is not true when there are temperature differences.

Well, take another look — belief in AGW is irrelevant, the point is that the poster's conclusion that temperature = AGW + SAW was its premise, and this has been explicitly confirmed by Vaughan Pratt: «The sawtooth was created as the difference between Hadcrut3 and AGW.

However, the differences point to uncorrected raw temperature errors and both days are unadjusted in Perth ACORN.

Heat flux is the difference in temperature between two points through which the heat passes.

Pat, the lag to which you allude, in fact, makes a minor but significant difference to «the result» (meaning the correlation between CO2 and temperature in the record), but whether or not it does is really very much beside the point.

«From a temperature comfort point of view, we're really happy, but we're more interested in whether the heat recovery ventilation units actually provide the level of fresh air comfort, and whether people notice the difference.»

Pat, I am no expert in this field at all, but you appear to be confounding the issue of absolute temperature determination with the calculation of temperature * anomalies * - differences from one point in time to another.

I am still waiting for word on what the global temperature anomaly for the month was, but I suspect it will be fairly close to normal, which means that on average the temperature of the Earth will come in at ~ 12.0 °C which is 4 °C colder than it will be in 6 months from now, but because of how they talk about temperature, I will be the only one pointing out the difference between the actual temperature and the anomaly temperature.

So the point is that, if there's a detectable difference between the calm - day and windy - day temperatures curves, you're likely looking at the UHI; or for Tmin, the UHI + NSTI.

Global warming will clearly change the temperatures and influence the patterns of precipitation, but it won't make any difference to the available hours of sunlight at any point on the globe.

Same point for a document co-authored by contrarian John Christy («Executive Summary: Temperature trends in the lower atmosphere — Understanding and reconciling differences», table 1 on page 5):

In my comment above I should have pointed to my surmise that the Marvel approach in looking for statistically significant differences in forcing efficacies is limited by the noise in the temperature series from the individual forcings.

«Radiative energy transport, on the other hand, depends only on the difference of the local matter and radiation temperatures at a single point in space.

His point seemed to be, in part anyway, that after 30 years the difference in temperature is no more than a fairly ordinary yearly transition one sees every 8 years, on average.

My point at that time was that the number of CRN 1 and CRN 2 stations was very small and that given the noisy data for temperature trends amongst even closer spaced stations meant that in order to see a statistically significant difference due to CRN rating would require a very large difference in trends or a larger number of stations in those classifications.

«Everyone» may accept there are siting effects, well except for all those people presenting «mainstream climate science» papers and positions for years as evidence that Watts is full of it as siting has no discernible effects, people like Mosher etc have pointed to temperature record reconstructions done by individuals, often mentioned by Tami's Troupe over at Open Airy Mind and similar sites, that found siting made no significant difference in the trends, etc..

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?

Scientists generally supporting the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) findings on climate change see this correction of the UAH temperature analyses as a significant vindication of their findings on this issue and, as such, as a major rebuttal to climate contrarians who long had pointed to the differences in surface and upper atmosphere warming trends as supporting their viewpoints.

The analyses are based on calculating temperature differences at one point in time relative to the average over a certain period (anomalies) and creating a time series of averaged global temperature change.

Estimates of the difference in temperatures between the peak (high point) and trough (low point) of the solar cycle range between about 0.05 C to 0.1 C, holding everything else equal.

To add briefly to my earlier point about the difference between short term CO2 growth rate fluctuations due to temperature changes and their inapplicability to long term trends, if we regress CO2 flux rate against temperature, it will show that a rise in temperature induces a change in flux rate in or out of terrestrial or oceanic reservoirs.

Lansner and Pepke Pedersen (2018) point out that, due to the divergent rates of warming and cooling for land vs. ocean water, there is a significant difference in the range of temperature for the regions of the world influenced by their close proximity to oceans and coastal wind currents (ocean air affected, or OAA) and the inland regions of the world that are unaffected by ocean air effects and coastal wind because they are sheltered by hills and mountains or located in valleys (ocean air sheltered, or OAS).

So the point is this — even if Hypothesis C is correct, there may still be a difference between the response of the ocean temperatures below the surface — for back radiation compared with solar radiation.

They make up the difference by assuming 333 W / m ^ 2 LW RF measured by «pyrgeometers» pointing to the atmosphere («back radiation») provides extra surface heat when standard physics shows for a normal temperature gradient, an atmospheric RF can't transfer any energy to the surface.

And here's the kicker: remember, the whole point of the paper is to show there is no difference in temperature trends between specifically rural sites and the unknown mix of gridded networks, and then use this to claim that any UHI effect is very small.

[Response: Dear Isaac, you've got a potentially valid point, that hinges on the question which we have not really clarified yet: how important are differences in temperature, and how important is the absolute value of temperature (which does come in due to all the non-linearities, e.g. Clausius - Clapeyron, which are not just small second - order effects).

An interesting point that has occurred to Eli is that if there were no greenhouse gases, convection would be much higher because the temperature differences would be much higher and there would be no clouds (no water)

Every percentage point difference is a few degrees warmer or colder surface temperature if the difference is lasting across a number of years.

To me, your constant focus on more monhtly variation to explain trend difference, your focus on absolute temperatures in stead of temp anomalies when focusing on trend differences etc etc simply shows that you are fundamentally missing the point and seak where you should not be seaking.

I'm pointing out that time - series graphs of TLT anomalies and SST anomalies and land surface temperature anomalies can not be used to conclude that the reason for the differences is solely UHI, and that's what's been done in this post.

* According to the Berkeley group, the Earth's surface temperature will have risen (on average) slightly less than what indicated by NASA, NOAA and the Met Office * Differences will be on the edge of statistical significance, leaving a lot open to subjective interpretation * Several attempts will be made by climate change conformists and True Believers to smear the work of BEST, and to prevent them from publishing their data * After publication, organised groups of people will try to cloud the issue to the point of leaving the public unsure about what exactly was found by BEST * New questions will be raised regarding UHI, however the next IPCC assessment's first draft will be singularly forgetful of any peer - reviewed paper on the topic * We will all be left with a slightly - warming world, the only other certitude being that all mitigation efforts will be among the stupidest ideas that ever sprung to human mind.

Or perhaps you can point me to the dataset that shows, for several individual locations for the same period as the temperature set the: * CO2 concentrations (OK, we could use Mauna Loa for that) * Aerosols (sorry, can't use global records for that, there can be huge differences on a local scale) * Absolute humidity * TSI with correction for local albedo, including cloud albedo, and the place on earth.

If you know the standard - errors of the various data - point (i.e. global mean temperature) estimates, we can check if it's statistically significant via a difference in means test, while accounting for correlation in estimator distributions (it should be, unless NASA can't measure at all, which I sincerely doubt).

You then asked «Or perhaps you can point me to the dataset that shows, for several individual locations for the same period as the temperature set the: * CO2 concentrations (OK, we could use Mauna Loa for that) * Aerosols (sorry, can't use global records for that, there can be huge differences on a local scale) * Absolute humidity * TSI with correction for local albedo, including cloud albedo, and the place on earth» Well actually, I can and have for the USA in terms of CO2, humidity (RH but AH also if you insist), and albedo, not to mention actual solar surface radiation, and various other variables (eg windspeed), as I have previously reported here for quite a few locations, eg Pt Barrow.