Sentences with phrase «rates in volcano»

Are you looking for the best auto insurance rates in Volcano?

Not exact matches

Quartz crystals cover surface rims of eruption sites, so by analyzing them, the researchers were able to determine the rim growth rates times of the volcano based on the concentration of titanium in the crystals.

Tambora merits an Index score of 7, making the eruption approximately one thousand times more powerful than the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull, which disrupted trans - Atlantic air travel in 2010 but rated only a 4; one hundred times stronger than Mount St. Helens (a 5); and ten times more powerful than Krakatoa (a 6).

In Australia, one of its biggest markets, it carries on with either a 4.5 - liter twin - turbocharged diesel - powered V8 engine tuned to make 268 horsepower — six more than last year — and a volcano - awakening 480 lb - ft of torque, or a 4.6 - liter, gasoline - burning V8 rated at 304 ponies and 323 lb - ft of twist.

Most folks in Dallas won't miss volcano coverage in a Texas home insurance policy, and if excluding volcano damage from your policy will lower your rate, chances are that will be money well saved.

«I liked having the option of joining excursions or doing your own activities» «Perfect choice of sightseeing and activities - a 10 star rating» «We loved the aerial tram ride, volcano visit and swimming in the Pacific Ocean»

It feels as if volcanoes in our region are going off at a high rate right now - but it's reasonably normal activity for the «Ring of Fire» belt running around the Asia Pacific.

As a leading online hotels and travel guide, the volume of hotel reservations that we send to our selected hotels, apartments & resorts in Volcano means that we have negotiated the most competitive rates for our customers.

Caravan Tours has chosen four of the highest rated resorts in La Fortuna, a resort community at the base of Arenal Volcano.

Re # 173 (Dan Allan): Large - scale reasons for the chaos include planetary tilt (= seasons), a high rate of rotation (= major Coriolis effect), much more solar heat applied at the equator than at the poles, unevenly distributed land, air and water, a molten core resulting in tectonic activity including continental drift and volcanos, the occasional hammer from space, a really large satellite creating major tides in addition to minor ones from the sun, plus some stuff I'm probably forgetting.

I was wondering if it would not be possible, in a practical sense or even in just a theoretical one, to have enough stations situated in mountain ranges and island volcanoes to get a more reliable view of lapse rates and warming trends (starting now of course) in the lower part of the troposhere.

So, if each underwater artic volcano emitted 1 km3 a week (a rather large average flow) and did it for a year (about 52 weeks) you would need about 620 very active and extremely powerful volcanoes in order to warm the artic ocean by just 1 C (and that ignores surface cooling, in / out water flows and time rates that would require even more volcanoes.)

This is a coincidence and you are only analyzing over the thirty year satellite era but viewing your Adjusted GISS LOTI data for 60S - 60N with Secondary Volcano Adjustment in figure 28, the rate I noticed given in the equation of 1/4 ºC / century matches nearly exactly what you get in the trend of the 350 year long record kept in good old central England with little Pacific influence.

For example, in a volcano with an open vent that is producing sulphur dioxide, any jump in the rate of emission tends to signify that the volcano is about to erupt.

Was this «decay rate» offset in the past by slightly higher animal respiration than plant photosynthesis, plus unknown CO2 emissions from submarine volcanoes and fissures in Earth's crust?

Yes it can: if in one year all land vegetation on earth burns down or 1000 volcanoes emit 1000 times more than today in one year, the increase in the atmosphere will increase the sinks far beyond the «normal» exchange rate.

But how is it that they «just happen'to synchronize their CO2 emissions rates in such a way as to create a rise in CO2 that's coherent with each other, with observatories that aren't near volcanos, and that are consistent with the overall «Keeling curve» as well as human emissions.

Considering all the short - term factors identified by the scientific community that acted to slow the rate of global warming over the past two decades (volcanoes, ocean heat uptake, solar decreases, predominance of La Niñas, etc.) it is likely the temperature increase would have accelerated in comparison to the late 20th Century increases.

«In 1994, Nature magazine published a study of mine in which we estimated the underlying rate at which the world was warming by removing the impacts of volcanoes and El Niños (Christy and McNider 1994)... The result of that study indicated the underlying trend for 1979 - 1993 was +0.09 °C / decade which at the time was one third the rate of warming that should have been occurring according to estimates by climate model simulations.&raquIn 1994, Nature magazine published a study of mine in which we estimated the underlying rate at which the world was warming by removing the impacts of volcanoes and El Niños (Christy and McNider 1994)... The result of that study indicated the underlying trend for 1979 - 1993 was +0.09 °C / decade which at the time was one third the rate of warming that should have been occurring according to estimates by climate model simulations.&raquin which we estimated the underlying rate at which the world was warming by removing the impacts of volcanoes and El Niños (Christy and McNider 1994)... The result of that study indicated the underlying trend for 1979 - 1993 was +0.09 °C / decade which at the time was one third the rate of warming that should have been occurring according to estimates by climate model simulations.»

The oxygen content of the atmosphere is diminishing at a rate that corresponds to the increase in CO2, so the increase in CO2 is due to oxidation of carbonaceuos material of some kind, eg., burning, decay, etc., and not from, say, the oceans, volcanoes or some other geological process.

While lots of carbon cycles in and out of the atmosphere from photosynthesis and decay (most of that 95 % figure), the planet has a (comparably) very slow rate of removing carbon from the atmosphere and oceans for geological timescales — only enough to roughly cancel out volcanoes and other proportionally very small «old carbon» sources.

I thought that volcano forcing might well be the reason for the change in warming rate before and after 2005 in the CMIP5 RCP series.

I could see the volcano side being related to the mixing rate of dust in the atmosphere / stratosphere.