Sentences with phrase «than surface temperatures from»

Not exact matches

In the study, scientists from the Potsdam - based Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research, and Harvard University show that sea surface temperatures reconstructed from climate archives vary to a much greater extent on long time scales than simulated by climate models.

Temperatures inside the earth are much hotter than on the surface and can range from 1,470 to 2,200 degrees Fahrenheit (800 to 1,200 degrees Celsius).

The companion lies a bit farther from the star than Pluto is from the sun; it has a surface temperature of about 1400 degrees Fahrenheit, and its mass is 2 percent of the sun's and 20 times Jupiter's.

As of March 2013, surface waters of the tropical north Atlantic Ocean remained warmer than average, while Pacific Ocean temperatures declined from a peak in late fall.

Long - term data from a wind farm at San Gorgonio, California, confirmed his earlier model predictions: surface temperatures behind the wind turbines were higher than in front during the night, but as much as 4 °C lower by day.

Pielke, who said one issue ignored in the paper is that land surface temperature measurements over time show bigger warming trends than measurements from higher up in a part of the atmosphere called the lower troposphere, and that still needs more explanation.

The visualization shows how the 1997 event started from colder - than - average sea surface temperatures — but the 2015 event started with warmer - than - average temperatures not only in the Pacific but also in in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans.

Past eclipses have revealed that the corona's temperature distribution is patchy: rather than a smooth transition from relatively cool to sizzling hot, the corona has areas of higher and cooler temperatures that don't seem to depend on their proximity to the sun's surface.

Nathaniel Johnson and Shang - Ping Xie at the University of Hawaii studied satellite and rain - gauge data from the last 30 years and found that sea surface temperatures in the tropics now need to be about 0.3 °C higher than they did in 1980 before the air above rises and produces rain (Nature Geoscience, DOI: 10.1038 / ngeo1008).

Four of these new planets are less than 2.5 times the size of Earth and orbit in their sun's habitable zone, defined as the range of distance from a star where the surface temperature of an orbiting planet may be suitable for life - giving liquid water.

The team analyzed an index of sea surface temperatures from the Bering Sea and found that in years with higher than average Arctic temperatures, changes in atmospheric circulation resulted in the aforementioned anomalous climates throughout North America.

The tiny diamond probes can measure temperatures ranging from 120 K to 900 K -LRB--- 153 °C to 627 °C)-- as cold as the poles of Mars and almost 200 ° hotter than the surface of Venus.

In the space of just four minutes, the probe slowed from an entry speed of 170 000 kilometres an hour to just 400 km / h, decelerating at up to 250 g and turning into a fireball more than twice the temperature of the Sun's surface.

Nevertheless, Earthlings would not mistake Gliese 581g for their home planet — in addition to its so - called super-Earth dimensions, it orbits a star far smaller and dimmer than the sun, and its average surface temperatures would vary dramatically, from well below freezing on its night side to scorching hot on the day side.

I am very cuious if you found a variance between Upper Air and Surface warming... I calculated total amospheric refraction temperatures, ie from data extracted by analyzing optical effects, some of my results show an impressive yearly warming trend, much stronger than the surface basSurface warming... I calculated total amospheric refraction temperatures, ie from data extracted by analyzing optical effects, some of my results show an impressive yearly warming trend, much stronger than the surface bassurface based one.

«Because the TRAPPIST - 1 star is very old and dim, the surfaces of the planets have relatively cool temperatures by planetary standards, ranging from 400 degrees Kelvin (260 degrees Fahrenheit), which is cooler than Venus, to 167 degrees Kelvin -LRB--159 degrees Fahrenheit), which is colder than Earth's poles,» Barr said.

Upon your arrival to the second planet from the sun, you'd be greeted by surface temperatures comparable to those in a pizza oven, and a carbon - dioxide atmosphere more than 90 times denser than ours here on Earth.

The size of the temperature increase was calculated from thousands of measurements from more than 6,000 weather stations, ship - and buoy - based observations of sea surface temperatures, and measurements across Antarctic research stations.

Cassini first revealed active geological processes on Enceladus in 2005 with evidence of an icy spray issuing from the moon's south polar region and higher - than - expected temperatures in the icy surface there.

The new study used calculations and models to show that the cooling from this change caused surface temperatures to increase about 25 percent more slowly than they would have otherwise, due only to the increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

The physical processes by which energy might be added into the glacier material include: (A) convection between the glacier surfaces and local surrounding atmosphere and water, (B) direct radiation onto the exposed surfaces of the material, (C) addition of material that is at a temperature higher than the melting temperature onto the top of the glacier (rain, say), (D) Sublimation of the ice directly into the atmosphere, and (E) conduction into the material from the contact areas between the glacier and surrounding solid material.

It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.

Jacob (and many, many others) seem to think that if model A, when run from 1900 to present, predicts the relatively flat, global average surface temperature record over the past decade, is a better match to reality than model B which does not.

AR5: It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.

More than 95 % of the 5 yr running mean of the surface temperature change since 1850 can be replicated by an integration of the sunspot data (as a proxy for ocean heat content), departing from the average value over the period of the sunspot record (~ 40SSN), plus the superimposition of a ~ 60 yr sinusoid representing the observed oceanic oscillations.

When air surface temperatures are higher than the surface water temperature, then then the upwelling water will pick up energy from the air.

Item 8 could be confusing in having so many messages: «It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas... The best estimate of the human - induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period....

Because the wavelength of emitted EM radiation varies with the temperature of the source, it does so in the form of longer - wave IR than that received from the Sun — the Earth's surface is significantly cooler than that of the Sun.

El Niño: A phenomenon in the equatorial Pacific Ocean characterized by a positive sea surface temperature departure from normal (for the 1971 - 2000 base period) in the Niño 3.4 region greater than or equal in magnitude to 0.5 degrees C (0.9 degrees Fahrenheit), averaged over three consecutive months.

But if something causes heat to be transferred from the ocean surface into its deeps more rapidly than usual, ocean surface temperatures could rise more slowly, not rise at all, or even fall despite the increased backradiation.

Dr. Roz Pidcock, PhD in physical oceanography from the University of Southampton (http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/10/an-in-depth-look-at-the-oceans-climate-change-and-the-hiatus/): «Over the last 15 years or so, surface temperatures have risen much slower than in previous decades, even though we're emitting greenhouse gases faster than we were before.»

The famous «255 K» value for no greenhouse effect on Earth is an example of this, although in reality if we got that cold you would expect a snowball - like Earth and a much higher albedo from the increased brightness of the surface... and thus the «no - greenhouse temperature» would be even colder than 255 K.

If not for the temperature discontinuity, then the radiation coming from the surface would be less than what fits the linear T ^ 4 pattern, with the biggest difference at angles near vertical.

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.

If the surface temperature is slow to catch up to that imbalance then the energy imbalance remains large, and we can have sufficient net heating to cause much faster changes in the ice sheets than from the comparatively smaller imbalances caused by the changes in Earth's orbit associated with the glacial periods in the past.

I am very cuious if you found a variance between Upper Air and Surface warming... I calculated total amospheric refraction temperatures, ie from data extracted by analyzing optical effects, some of my results show an impressive yearly warming trend, much stronger than the surface basSurface warming... I calculated total amospheric refraction temperatures, ie from data extracted by analyzing optical effects, some of my results show an impressive yearly warming trend, much stronger than the surface bassurface based one.

If a significant fraction of this heat lost from the ocean went into the atmosphere one might have expected the surface air temperature to have increased faster during this period than during the subsequent period of the 1990s when the ocean heat content gained > 5 X 10 ^ 22 J, but this is not what was observed (see reference Figure 2.7 c in the IPCC TAR Working group I).

The overall spectrum emitted by the Earth is far from a planck distribution basically because the last diffusion surface varies with wavelength, opaque lines being emitted from the TOA, at its local temperature, much lower than the ground.

The land - only «amplification» factor was actually close to 0.95 (+ / -0.07, 95 % uncertainty in an individual simulation arising from fitting a linear trend), implying that you should be expecting that land surface temperatures to rise (slightly) faster than the satellite values.

Ray: «The IR flux from the warmer surface excites much of the CO2 — much more than would be excited at thermal equilibrium at the temperature of the atmospheric layer where the photon is absorbed.»

In that case it does not matter how the water is heated but simply the temperature of the layer of surface water down to a few multiples of the inverse of the IR absorption coefficient which is I think varies from around a few cm to less than 1 mm with increasing wavelength.

The observations from the Laptev Sea in 2007 indicate that the bottom water temperatures on the mid-shelf increased by more than 3 C compared to the long - term mean as a consequence of the unusually high summertime surface water temperatures.

[Response: Estimates of the error due to sampling are available from the very high resolution weather models and from considerations of the number of degrees of freedom in the annual surface temperature anomaly (it's less than you think).

Any energy from this source absorbed by CO2 and subsequently reradiated to the surface can do no more than restore part of the energy lost, and its concomitant drop in temperature.

This result is consistent with land surface temperatures reconstructed from tree rings, other terrestrial proxies, and documentary evidence also indicating greater regional variability than simulated by models at decadal and longer timescales (33 — 35).

Yet measurements from more than 3600 automated buoys throughout the ocean that dive down a mile and a quarter and take detailed temperature and salinity profiles every ten days show that the deeper strata are warming faster than the near - surface strata.

This means that the «pause,» or whatever you want to call it, in the rise of global surface temperatures is even more significant than it is generally taken to be, because whatever is the reason behind it, it is not only acting to slow the rise from greenhouse gas emissions but also the added rise from changes in aerosol emissions.

In the entirely subjective opinion of a particular group of IPCC authors, it's «extremely likely» (95 % certain) that «more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010» was caused by human - generated greenhouse gas emissions (see the bottom of p. 13 here).

In 2013, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report stated a clear expert consensus that: «It is extremely likely [defined as 95 - 100 % certainty] that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic [human - caused] increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.»

That warming on descent also reduces the rate of temperature decline with height which suppresses convection from the surface so that the surface on the day side then warms more than it otherwise would have done and the surface on the night side cools less quickly than it otherwise would have done..