Sentences with phrase «then gives a surface temperature»

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.

Not exact matches

Could the Ice models be forced to an «ice free» state at the ides of March, then run backwards to see what the conditions would have to be (IMHO, primarily ocean surface temperature and profile with depth) at the end of the previous September to give this result when run forward?

If this is true, then how come the surface temperature is given as over 900F?

But if as Kevin Trenberth argues that for every «1 degree Celsius sea surface temperature anomalies gives 10 to 15 percent increase in rainfall», then the science is correct about AGW and the sceptics are just raving on.

The atmospheric heating and cooling rates are then passed back to the atmosphere structure module that calculates how much the surface and atmospheric temperatures would change during the 30 - minute times step given the radiative heating and cooling rates.

Then try 1365/4 for the flux and emissivity of 0.88 (which is closer to that of rock and soil) and you get 287.6 K which is very close to the assumed mean surface temperature and thus obviates any need for that «33 degree of warming» In fact the 0.88 should be even lower and that gives higher temperatures above 290K.

When this water condenses this latert heat is given up so if this happens near the surface then local air temperatures will increase slightly.

So it's all gases at greatest density will be doing the same thing around the planet at the same time (*) and as these change with differences in density in the play between gravity and pressure and kinetic and potential from greatest near the surface to more rarified, less dense and absent any kinetic to write home about the higher one goes, then, energy conservation intact, the hotter will rise and cool because losing kinetic energy means losing temperature, thus cooling they which began with the closest in density and kinetic energy as a sort of band of brothers near the surface will rise and cool at the same time whereupon they'll all come down together colder but wiser that great heights don't make for more comfort and giving up their heat will sink displacing the hotter now in their place when they first went travelling.

-- then what explanation (scientific if possible) can be given for the fact that, last year alone, parts of the USA had the highest surface temperatures on record, Australia had to rewrite their own temperature gauge because it was recording temperatures which went, for the first time in recorded history, off the scale they were so high and in the UK and Europe we experienced one of the longest heatwaves in decades?

Another interpretation is that given a certain energy imbalance at the top of atmosphere, if the heat is not manifested as surface temperature rise then it goes elsewhere.

Is it not then fair to state that the link between tropopause and surface is given by the radiative transfer equations along with the proper input in terms of ghg concentrations and spectroscopic properties, and starting atmospheric temperatures?

Re: Myrrh says (March 2, 6:42 pm): «So, if as Ira says «the filament of the incandescent light bulb is heated to temperatures similar to the Sun's surface», and we know such a lightbulb gives most of its energy in Heat and not Light, in Thermal IR, 95 %, and only a small amount in Visible, only 5 %, then what is really «the most» energy given off by the Sun?»