Sentences with phrase «temp increase resulting»

We have had some warmers on here recently talking about a «doubling of CO2 ″ and the estimated temp increase resulting eg «only 0.5 or maybe 1.5 C».

Not exact matches

I have increased cooking temp while decreasing time, increased time and decreased cooking temp... This time I cooked them at 300 degrees for 20 min while using my convection (professional range)... Still same results.

High temp increases heart rate, burns calories, and increased blood and oxygen flow can relieve chronic joint and muscle pain / stiffness, Helps lower blood pressure by dilating blood vessels; results in lowered cortisol, increased relaxation afterwards.

After checking the temperature with a different thermometer and getting the same result, we moved the dog to the table, warmed the dog with many blankets, and used hot water bottles next to her body to increase the temp.

Increased global temp may result in: Increased frequency / violence of severe weather Drought / Desertification / loss of biomass Loss of fresh water Increased disease from vector - borne diseases Species extinction on a large scale.

The result I got was an increase in temp in basin 1 of 6degsF and in basin 2 the increase in temp was 48degsF.

There doesn't appear to be any lag by my analysis...... The resulting chart shows a virtually instantaneous response of dCO2 to temperature...... remember, we are looking at the rate of increase of CO2 vs temp, so an instantaneous response makes a lot of sense.»

Anotherwords, co2 would have to go to 780 ppm from the 390 ppm it currently is, to result in another 1 degree increase in temp.

His position: • No evidence of increasing lake clarity as a result of secchi measurements since 1946 • The interplay of stratification and plankton productivity are not «straightforward» • Challenges O'Reilly's assumption on the correlation of wind and productivity - the highest production is on the end of the lake with the lowest winds • A strong caution using diatoms as the productivity proxy (it is one of two different lake modes) • No ability to link climate change to productivity changes • More productivity from river than allowed for in Nature Geopscience article • Externally derived nutrients control productivity for a quarter of the year • Strong indications of overfishing • No evidence of a climate and fishery production link • The current productivity of the lake is within the expected range • Doesn't challenge recent temp increase but cites temperature records do not show a temperature rise in the last century • Phytoplankton chlorophylla seems to have not materially changed from the 1970s to 1990s • Disputes O'Reilly's and Verbug's claims of increased warming and decreased productivity • Rejects Verburgs contention that changes in phytoplankton biomass (biovolume), in dissolved silica and in transparency support the idea of declining productivity.

Why isn't a TCR type of simulation, but instead using actual history and 200 year projected GHG levels in the atmosphere, that would produce results similar to a TCR simulation (at least for the AGW temp increase that would occur when the CO2 level is doubled) and would result in much less uncertainty than ECS (as assessed by climate model dispersions), a more appropriate metric for a 300 year forecast, since it takes the climate more than 1000 years to equilibrate to the hypothesized ECS value, and we have only uncertain methods to check the computed ECS value with actual physical data?

I already mentioned Spain and Northern Ireland here as well: http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok Put your results together with mine and we find: minimum temps have not been increasing in line with modern warming.

I've just been noticing that minimum / nighttime temps seem to have increased more than max / daytime temps which has resulted in higher av mean temps.

From 1978 — 2008 there was an increase of around 50ppm which resulted in a rise of 0.45 in temp.

From 1910 -1940 there was a CO2 increase of 10ppm which resulted in an 0.5 C increase in temp.

From 1880 — 1910 there was a CO2 increase of 9ppm which resulted in a 0.15 C drop in temp.

Nir Your logic surrounding the increased Co2 seems flawed, ie that it must result in an observed increase in the global mean temp.