Sentences with phrase «than the ground temperature»

Why is the area under the curve greater than he ground temperature?

The deficiencies noted include the result in the semi-gray model of a surface air temperature less than the ground temperature.

Not exact matches

Unlike previous Pliocene models, this «no ice» version returned temperatures 18 to 27 F warmer than today's average annual temperatures for the Canadian Arctic and Greenland, coming closer to what the historical data pulled from the ground said.

«We also found out that the forest plays a dominant role in controlling warm near - ground temperatures in the summer, more than local topography.

The researchers believe the retreat — and the move to higher elevations — may reflect the fact that bumble bees evolved in cooler climates than many other insects that haven't yet lost ground, and so are especially sensitive to warming temperatures.

Heatwaves from Europe to China are likely to be more intense and result in maximum temperatures that are 3 °C to 5 °C warmer than previously estimated by the middle of the century — all because of the way plants on the ground respond to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Several image artifacts have proven more complex than when observed during ground testing, as a result of their interactions with starlight and the greater thermal stability in flight, which causes the temperature - dependent artifact variations to be on the timescales of transits.

Both should be room temperature or no higher than 76 degrees F. I used real ground coffee, not instant.

Likewise, short - legged dogs that scrape their bellies on the snow and cold ground are going to lose temperature more quickly than larger dogs.

Thus the near - ground layer's increment in absorptivity is multiplied by a higher temperature than its increment in emissivity, for a net gain in energy.

In # 78 Chris wrote:... «But with every year that the global temperature fails to break new ground (say +0.50 on the Hadley measure) the more receptive I will be to arguments for lower - than - consensus climate sensitivities».

a switch from grounded ice, or ice shelves, to open waters in the Ross embayment when planetary temperatures were up to approx 3 °C warmer than today and atmospheric CO2 concentration was as high as approx 400 p.p.m.v.»

- temperature sensors on satellites report much less warming in the upper atmosphere (which the theory of global warming predicts should warm first) than is reported by temperature sensors on the ground.

But in the transparent windows, the radiation field is «hotter» (being a combination of reflected SWR and emitted «hot» ground LWR), so in the lines, it is «colder»: the lines appear thus as absorption lines from the space, with a lower brightness temperature than the continuum.

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.

SO just HOW can we justify that that the outflow in the computer MUST be less than inflow for the 250 years of the computer run, when clearly the daily temperature cycle will reestablish the equilibrium (at least for the atmosphere & ground — not sure about deep ocean equilibrium, BUT I also know that there is MUCH MUCH MORE energy stored in the Land (eg solid iron core of earth) than in the ocean & the GCMs do NOT address this either).

If so I'd be inclined to answer «no» on the ground that (a) the surface of Venus is some 350 °C hotter than that of Earth, and yet (b) Venus's temperature profile is essentially the same shape as it would be if the surface of Venus were 350 °C cooler.

It is more efficient in the winter to draw heat from the relatively warm ground than from the atmosphere where the air temperature is much colder, and in summer transfer waste heat to the relatively cool ground than to hotter air.

The ice normally reflects more heat and sunlight back into space than open ocean or bare ground, so when it is reduced, the Earth gets a small incremental heat flux that will result in an increase in temperatures.

As the gas can be distributed at a lower temperature than antifreeze, the temperature difference between the ground and the gas is greater than it would be with antifreeze, hence allowing more heat to be collected.

Adding CO2 increases IR emission by the atmosphere, even as the temperature stays fixed, which is the effect that causes downward IR to increase, and the mechanism does not rely on the atmosphere to warm faster than the ground, which is what you seem to be saying.

In Nunavut, there are more than 100 boreholes that have measured ground temperatures since 2000.

He fails to recognize that the incremental power reflected away from clouds is greater than the surface power trapped by them, or at least this is the case when the temperature is greater than 0C and the ground is snow / ice free.

Did you know that the temperature at the top of the Eifel tower in Paris (324 m) is on average 2 DegC lower than the temperature at the ground.

Even the standard radiative GHG effect of 33 or something K is on very shaky ground, i mean the explanation for higher than black - body temperature of the surface (the average) using only radiative «forcing».

even though the temperature of the cloud is lower than the ground.

Now, as you say, there are all sorts of problems with the historical records of sea level but — just as with temperatures — it is likely that measurements from the satellites will be more accurate and less prone to random variation and sampling error than measurements from ground based sensors.

Moonbats: «Jacobson found that domes of increased carbon dioxide concentrations — discovered to form above cities more than a decade ago — cause local temperature increases that in turn increase the amounts of local air pollutants, raising concentrations of health - damaging ground - level ozone as well as particles in urban air.»

If the ground - level temperature remains the same, then the steady - state temperature difference will be the same as before, but with a longer distance, so the temperature lapse rate would be less than the adiabatic lapse rate.

- Now the ground or skin temperature generally varies more in day to night cycle than air temperature, but this surface temperature has far less heat capacity than the atmosphere - it's couple inches of matter.

I prefer to start the no - warming period with 2001 because satellite curves that are more accurate than ground based curves used by the Met Office show that the temperature dips to the preceding La Nina level on both sides of the 1998 super El Nino peak.

Now the ground or skin temperature generally varies more in day to night cycle than air temperature, but this surface temperature has far less heat capacity than the atmosphere - it's couple inches of matter.

Tom Vonk is correct when he says that the following statements are over-simplifications and need corrections (in caps): «CO2 absorbs AND EMITS the outgoing infrared energy and warms the atmosphere TO A HIGHER TEMPERATURE THAN IT WOULD HAVE WITHOUT CO2» — or — «CO2 traps part of the infrared radiation between ground and the upper part of the atmosphere» AND IS THE MAJOR SOURCE OF INFRARED RADIATION FROM THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE TO SPACE.

The latter presenters are on more solid ground in rebutting the spike in temperatures over the last 2 and a half decades than the cosmic ray people.

For instance, ground source heat pumps tend to have higher efficiencies than air source units during the heating season due to the relative stability of ground temperatures below certain depths, though air source units — which involve much lower capital costs — have closed the gap in recent years as manufacturers have refined their design, and there is evidence to indicate that space heating demand in many Irish buildings may be peaking in Ireland's frequently relatively mild but windy weather, as the guide to air source heat pumps in Issue 24 of Passive House Plus discussed.

The Earth's albedo reflects away about 30 % of the Sun's 1,368 W / m ^ 2 energy leaving 70 % or 958 W / m ^ 2 to «warm» the surface (1.5 m above ground) and at an S - B BB equilibrium temperature of 361 K, 33 C cooler (394 - 361) than the earth with no atmosphere or albedo.

In conclusion, we have demonstrated that the temperature of the lower atmosphere should fall off approximately linearly with increasing height above ground level, whilst the pressure should fall off far more rapidly than this, and the density should fall off at some intermediate rate.

On a clear dry night, however, the ground temperature quickly inverts (becomes cooler than the bulk of the air immediately overhead) and radiation becomes far more important than convection.

For one thing turbulence instantly screws it up in the real world, moisture content screws it up, lateral transport screws it up, topology screws it up, the non-uniform temperature of the ground screws it up — the real atmosphere is constantly being kicked around between nearly isothermal and nearly DALR on any vertical column, with the actual measured thermal lapse rate rarely deviating by more than 10 - 20 % from isothermal on an actual vertical sounding of the atmosphere.

The layer where the DALR approximately holds is the troposphere, the layer with vertical convective mixing, and it goes away as the ground temperature drops — making it look a whole lot more like an effect, rather than a cause, of warmer ground temperatures.

TCR is more useful than ECS for forecasting temperature in 2100 since for the 70 years from now to 2085 CO2 will initially be increasing by 0.7 % a year, subsequently rising to 1.7 % by 2085, making 1 % a plausible middle ground if you feel obliged for some reason to use TCR.

These stem from a diversity of site - specific conditions, including, but not limited to: local vegetation; presence of building structures and contributions made by such structures involving energy use, heating and air conditioning, etc; exposure to winds, the wind velocities determined by climatic factors and also whether certain wind directions are more favored than others by terrain or the presence or absence thereof to bodies of water; proximity to grass, asphalt, concrete or other material surfaces; the physical conditions of the CRS itself which include: the exact location of the temperature sensors within it, the degree of unimpeded flow of external air through the CRS, the character of the paint used; the exact height of the instrument above the external surface (noting that when the ground is covered by 3 feet of snow, the temperature instrument is about 60 % closer to, or less than 2 feet, above an excellent radiating surface, much closer than it would be under snow - free conditions).

When you start at that height (which is around 6 — 8 km in the atmosphere) and work back down to the ground, the lapse rate means that the surface has a higher temperature than the non-greenhouse temperature of 255 K.

If the Earth's true emission temperature (which occurs somewhere at altitude in the troposphere) is less than the 255 K predicted by theory (assuming an albedo 0.306), then the Planck parameter may well be considerably less than the IPCC's value, in which event on this ground alone climate sensitivity may be well below its central estimate of 3.26 K per CO2 doubling.

The temperature gradient combined with the height difference between the surface radiating to space and the solid ground causes a temperature difference, maintained by the external work done by convection, that keeps the ground warmer than the radiating surface.

At the same time, most regions, in the face of warming temperatures, are losing snow cover on the ground that lasts longer than 30 days.

Therefore, if you work from the layer at which the radiation escapes into space (about 6 km) down to the ground, the negative lapse rate means that surface temperature has to be higher than the non-GHG temperature.

During extreme heat events, nighttime temperatures in the region's big cities are generally several degrees higher28 than surrounding regions, leading to increased heat - related death among those less able to recover from the heat of the day.36 Since the hottest days in the Northeast are often associated with high concentrations of ground - level ozone and other pollutants, 37 the combination of heat stress and poor air quality can pose a major health risk to vulnerable groups: young children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing health conditions including asthma.29 Vulnerability is further increased as key infrastructure, including electricity for potentially life - saving air conditioning, is more likely to fail precisely when it is most needed — when demand exceeds available supply.

Since the real radiative surface of the Earth is up in the atmosphere at altitude, then the natural adiabatic gradient caused by gravity guarantees that the ground surface, where humans live, will be warmer in temperature than the radiative surface at altitude, where the surface for photons is.

This is why gardeners will put water vapor in the air and water liquid on the ground around their garden on a clear cold night — it protects the local area from cooling as fast because water vapor and liquid both 1) cool much slower than dry air due to their massive heat capacity, and 2) cool even slower because they release their massive latent heat, which means that heat energy is released from them without requiring a drop in temperature — once they're in the latent heat release phase, they just keep shedding energy without dropping in temperature any further.