Sentences with phrase «temperature which»

Clogged filters make it difficult to keep your home at a comfortable temperature which can result in an increase to your utility bills.

But the quietly forget that they are talking about +1 at the «effective black body» temp of the earth, which is -19 as opposed to the average surface temperature which is +15.

But now, if we put a whole lot of similar neutral particles close to each other, and bestow on them a Temperature which is not zero K, then we expect these particles to have on average an energy kT per degree of freedom of which there are at least three in ordinary three d space.

Part of the problem was to explain why we as a species ought to be concerned with predicted rises in mean temperature which appear to be rather small, maybe only one or two degrees.

Recorded observations show an increase in air temperature which is associated with an earlier onset of hop phenological phases and a shortening of the vegetation period.

1 extra W / m2 of forcing gets balanced by having a higher temperature which then puts up losses by 1 W / m2.

There is a seasonal cycle in global mean temperature which means that on average, July and August are roughly 3.6 ºC (6.5 ºF) warmer than December and January.

I have given a number of links above to where this issue has been debated before and it is summed up by this: The AGW GMST is incorrect because it does not allow for this effect, that is: (A + B) ^ 4 > A ^ 4 + B ^ 4; as Mait shows you can have an average temperature which does not reflect the radiative balance of the Moon and vice-versa.

So, the «back radiation» from the greenhouse gas can only heat the surface (at best) to less than the surface radiating temperature which «warmed» the greenhouse gas.

My response is that it is that temperature which allows us to feed, house and clothe 10 billion people by mid century.

It would not surprise me if we were 1 to 3K out on the true and accurate global average temperature which wis within 10 % of the assessed 33K figure.

I've read that CO2 lags temperature which means it can't be a cause of temperature increasing but here we all are, CAGW proponents and skeptics alike totally ignoring that assertion which means to me that it must be irrelevant.

Once radiative equilibrium is reestablished, this is a very helpful picture because we have just shifted the altitude higher from which the earth radiates but have kept the same temperature which means the surface must be warmer because it is connected by the lapse rate.

Anyone who has studied climate for even a short while should know that there are natural fluctuations in global temperature which have little or no bearing on long - term trends — mainly the solar cycle and ocean oscillations.

Pentane is generally used as a solvent and only rarely as a fuel because it is a colorless liquid at room temperature which can be easily evaporated away.

An example of this in the climate change war is the use of temperature which is a poor metric for the actual science which requires enthalpy; or such a claim automatically has assumptions, stated or not, that can be challenged.

Increases in temperature which are blasted over the various media are not significant within the tolerances of the the equipment being used and not scientifically statistically significant in many cases.

Methane hydrates have now reached a temperature which will no longer allow its former retention in hydrate form on the sea floor.

Applying the adiabatic lapse rate from the effective radiating height to the surface as per the S - B Law then gives a surface temperature which is some 33C higher than it «should» be.

By retaining this top half of the thermal resistance one would have access to the actual surface temperature which would be more correct for calculating the upward surface radiation.

In terms of nature, we have had global temperature which have been 2 C warmer.

It is the changing temperature which:

Cells with an oxide ion - conducting electrolyte require a high operating temperature which will cause the synthetic fuels to split.

Over a long period of time its environment has deteriorated so that we now expect that it is measuring a temperature considerably higher than the temperature which would have existed if the environment at that location had remained unchanged.

You can show that it does by illustrating water vapour as being very «thick» at the bottom of the graph and very «thin» at the top because water vapour declines with temperature which declines with altitude.

So really there are only one or two steps here — antropogenic CO2 leads to increased precipitation in some parts of the world, or anthropogenic CO2 leads to increased temperature which leads to increased precipitation.

I draw your attention to my post at June 28, 2014 at 11:43 am and its link that discusses a «climategate» email from 2003 showing my interaction with compilers of global temperature which complains about the data changes.

«antropogenic CO2 leads to increased precipitation in some parts of the world, or anthropogenic CO2 leads to increased temperature which leads to increased precipitation.»

I feel that in order to see distinct - although irregular - climate cycles it is useful to go as far back as possible and to home in on individual data sets that can be qualified, as opposed to relying on a single global temperature which is a composite record of very dubious provenance.

In other words, a single shell greenhouse system simply isn't efficient enough to give a surface temperature which is warm enough to allow for the known losses.

For your analysis, assume that each Postulated Future Trend is a linearized fit of the series of smaller localized variations in temperature which will actually occur between 2007 and 2100.

If global warming is marked by Arctic Amplification, this tends to flatten the slope of potential temperature which reduces the intensity of potential subsidence:

This is enough to allow for the known losses, and still give a surface temperature which matches that of the Earth.

The sea level figures are virtually impossible to increase much more under current conditions as the laws of physics and massive rise in temperature which would be required to melt that much in such a short period eliminate such conditions.

It allows us to calculation the amount of radiation which is emitted by a body at a certain temperature, or the temperature which a body needs to emit a certain radiation.

30) The slight increase in temperature which has been observed since 1900 is entirely consistent with well - established, long - term natural climate cycles

However, England is talking about the yearly to decadal variations in surface temperature which are strongly dominated by internal variability due to an unevenly heated, water - covered planet.

Then logically it will never be possible to observe a rise in temperature which can be shown to be caused by adding CO2 to the atmopshere.

Hence it is air temperature which controls the value of this greenhouse effect variable.

Water vapour has a far great cooling effect, because it reduces the thermal gradient, and so the thermal plot intercepts the surface at a temperature which is about 30 % lower than would be the case with a dry atmosphere.

Just like the temperature which Judith Curry has been discussing at her blog recently, not the deflection which you attempted.

Yes the very top of the Uranus atmosphere is at a temperature close to the radiating temperature which is a little colder than 60K.

Jo, correct me if I'm wrong or speaking out of line but I have discussed with my esteemed collegues, and after a long and satisfying session of wanking each other off we came to the conclusion that to a certain extent (although we aren't certain of the extent of the certainty) for a long period of time the best we can hope for, at least in terms of [our] grandchildren, is to stabilise the planet and it will stabilise at a temperature which is probably 2 degrees or more above the pre-industrial!

The molecule's thermal energy is KE i.e. temperature which is ~ speed of the molecule, this speed decreases as the molecule climbs against the gravity field, hence T decreases, even in equilibrium.

One driver of this is anomalies in sea surface temperature which effect large scale atmospheric circulation and, in turn, influence precipitation.

It follows the hockey stick in as much that shows a steadily declining temperature which kinnard mirrors with steadily increasing ice,

Slowly rising temperature which, given global economic trouble, will have a hard time sustaining?

Our back porch has a sheet metal roof that radiates heat down about 30 + degrees hotter than the ambient temperature which on a plus 100 degree day is something to experience.

To add insult to injury we get an illustration with a spliced on instrument temperature which looks like we are experiencing a massive temperature spike (well, all of 0.4 C), when we all know full well that the smoothing effect of the sampling and the nature of the proxy itself has removed most variance (spikes) from the older part of the proxy record.

loltwat, that changes in solar magnetic activity have a profound effect on temperature which even you can see.