Sentences with phrase «surface temperature of»

The surface temperature of the plant has not risen for (say) 11 years — I hate cherry picking the 1998 el nino.

Clearly, we have to stay below the surface temperature of the sun, but is there a thermodynamic limit below that point?

The equilibrium surface temperature of this planet is, of course, 235 W / m2.

When we lower the emissivity of the surface from 1 (blackbody) to 0.9425 we need an increase of surface temperature of approx. 5 degress C to achieve the same level of radiation.

In a perfect greenhouse, one shell gives a surface temperature of two times the incoming radiation, two shells give us a surface temperature of three times the incoming radiation, three shells gives four times, and so on.

The surface temperature of the underside of the fiberglass batt insulation is also much colder than the floor sheathing — within one or two degrees of the ground temperature.

A perfect greenhouse with two shells would give a surface temperature of 3W, or 705 W / m2.

For the year to date, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature of 58.3 degrees F tied with 2003 for the fifth - warmest January - August period on record.

Now the story is «The world's ocean surface temperature was... the warmest on record averaged for any June - August» and «the global land surface temperature of 58.2 degrees F was 1.33 degrees F above the 20th century average of 56.9 degrees F, and ranked as the fourth warmest August on record.»

If it's not the «greenhouse» effect, I'd like to hear a better explanation / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / The surface temperature of Venus appears to be generated by pressure; the surface pressure on Venus is about 92 times that of Earth.

Average surface temperature of Earth is 288 K.

How fast will the surface temperature of the planet rise or fall as a response to shifting properties of the «shell» (for example, when the mix of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is changed)?

@ - «Next — If the surface temperature of planet isn't warming — why is ice melt an issue — for options see the previous question.»

When you compare this with the actual surface temperature of ~ 288 K and the temperature in absence of the greenhouse effect but no change in albedo of ~ 255 K, what we can say is the follows: The greenhouse effect due to all the greenhouse gases (water vapor, clouds, and the long - lived GHGs like CO2 and CH4) raises the temperature of the Earth by an amount of ~ 33 K (which is 288K — 255K); the albedo due to cloud reduces the temperature by ~ 17 K (which is 272 K — 255 K); the net effect of both the GHGs and the cloud albedo is ~ 16 K (which is 288K — 272K).

But from Fig. 2 (d), we know that the surface temperature of a greenhouse system with a single shell, as shown in the drawing, is 2W (470)-- 2Lr (80)-- La (67)-- Lt (102) = 221 W / m2.

This is far below the known surface temperature of the Earth.

Separately, the global land surface temperature of 58.2 degrees F was 1.33 degrees F above the 20th century average of 56.9 degrees F, and ranked as the fourth warmest August on record.

Juice says: July 25, 2011 at 2:17 pm... What phenomenon causes the surface temperature of Venus to reach 460 C?

«The Pacific Decadal Oscillation is a climate index based upon patterns of variation in sea surface temperature of the North Pacific from 1900 to the present (Mantua et al. 1997).

First of all: An ENSO index such as NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies are in fact a measure of the sea surface temperature of the NINO3.4 region.

Still, the average surface temperature of the moon is -23 °C in spite of it's smaller albedo.

I believe NASA refers to the surface temperature of the earth as «combined Land - Surface Air and Sea - Surface.»

We had a recent discussion of the surface temperature of the moon here at Rabett Run,

This textbook spends only a short paragraph (page 417) on the greenhouse effect: «the absorption by the air [of the radiation of the surface] and the reemission by a cooler layer allows keeping a surface temperature of 288 K.

The warming in Western Europe since about 1995 can be related to an increase of about +1 °C of the surface temperature of the North Atlantic — following an equivalent cooling over 1970 - 1995 - and an increase of the insolation with less aerosols.

Yet for some reason people persist in saying the surface temperature of Venus, which is closer to the sun and has an atmospheric pressure 96times that of Earth at sea level, is the result of «a runaway Greenhouse Effect».

Moreover if the surface temperature of the oceans determines the temperature of the air, it is not the temperature of the air but the insolation and the clouds that drive the changes of the ocean heat content.

Ramanathan explains [10] «Reduction on OLR: At a global average surface temperature of about 289 K the globally averaged emission by the surface is about 395 + / - 5 W / m ² whereas the OLR (outgoing longwave radiation) is only 237 + / - 8 W / m ².

My next question about the situation revolves around the fact that the Nino 3.4 Index is merely a linear transform of the sea surface temperature of the Nino 3.4 area.

The biggest error of all the errors in the physics of the radiative greenhouse conjecture is that they «explain» the surface temperature of 288K using Stefan - Boltzmann calculations based on the direct solar radiation PLUS about TWICE as much supposed thermal energy input from the colder atmosphere.

The less atmosphere the less consistent the surface temperature of earth will be (the difference between the lowest and highest temperature will be greater).

A higher surface temperature of 159.3 F (70.7 C) was recorded by a Landsat satellite in 2004 and 2005 in the Lut Desert in Iran.

After four and a half billion years, a vanishingly insignificant rate of cooling of one millionth of a degree or so per year reduces the surface temperature of the Earth to a point where human survival is possible, even quite comfortable.

With an avg surface temperature of the oceans of ~ 290K without atmosphere they would radiate directly to space ~ 400W / m ^ 2 (and start cooling down rapidly).

At Crater Lake, annual snowfall has decreased each decade since the 1950s, and the surface temperature of the water has increased by 6 degrees Fahrenheit.

If the atmosphere were then optically thin and had a low emissivity (which I would think is likely unrealistic) then it would have an adiabatic - like lapse rate, but the atmospheric temperature would drop from a surface temperature of 255 K, to even lower temperatures.

Therefore the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere does determine the surface temperature of the planet (amongst other effects like albedo).

So daytime temperature should reach around the moon's surface temperature of 120 C. On moon if the sun is blocked for two hour one lose about 100 K. Or lower from 120 C to 20 C. Roughly, with bare rock, I would guess two hour after sun goes down one should have surface temperature of around 20 C. And probably rest of nite it cool another 50 K.

This means that our atmosphere must be responsible for a mean surface temperature rise of 91K in order to reach the universally agreed surface temperature of 288K - not the 33K those who constantly refer to the contribution of GHE's claim for atmospheric contribution.

The term global warming is now popularly used to refer to the recent reported increase in the mean surface temperature of the earth; this increase being attributed to increasing human activity and in particular to the increased concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide) in the atmosphere.

Correlation has been discovered between number of sunspots and surface temperature of Earth.

Warmth builds up underground from the first days of spring when the surface temperature of the earth starts to increase, to high summer, when the rays of the midday sun penetrate down into the ground.

While I don't doubt the way the amount of IR absorption by CO2 increases due to spectral detuning (I'll accept the quantum mechanics expert's opinions on that), for the life of me I can't see why that should carry over to the average surface Temperature of the whole planet.

This is 32 K colder than the observed average surface temperature of 287 K (14.0 oC with 1997 averages of 14.6 oC in the northern hemisphere and 13.4 oC in the southern hemisphere).

Without these gases most life on Earth would not be possible, as the surface temperature of the Earth would likely be about 60 degrees Fahrenheit colder.

The surface temperature of the Earth is 33K warmer that it would be in the absence of greenhouse gases.

In 1976/77 the surface temperature of a vast area of the Pacific Ocean abruptly warmed by several degrees as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation shifted from «cool phase» to «warm phase».

The absence of cavity insulation yields the highest condensing surface temperature of any of the designs presented.

And there is no chance of the «temperature» at 50,000 ft ever equalling the suposed average surface temperature of +15 oc (ISA defined atmosphere), no matter how sensitive your thermometer.

In turn it led to him imagining that the high surface temperature of Venus was from its «surface black body» IR being absorbed by the CO2 leading to the temperature gradient to the tropopause.