Sentences with phrase «thus give a temperature»

If it is, it will lose heat to space and thus give a temperature reading that is too low — maybe several degrees too low on a clear night.

Not exact matches

when they warmed his body and gave him oxygen on the way to the hospital he woke up, everyone screamed it's a miracle... then science had to step in and explain it wasn't a miracle, the temperature of the water lowered his core temperature so low that his body required less oxygen, thus he didn't recieve enough brain damage to cease funtioning.

For their part, roll - in refrigerators give operators the opportunity to hold larger quantities of menu items or ingredients at food - safe temperatures while often keeping these items close to staff, thus enhancing productivity.

This study reveals the dynamics of the receptor at close to its operating temperature and thus gives a more realistic picture of its physiological function than it was possible before with conventional deep freeze analyses in liquid nitrogen at minus 173 degrees Celsius.

Pasteurization is a process that uses really high temperature to kill all of the microbes in the material, but it also makes sure that all of the protein is protected, thus giving you a pure, microbe-less, nutrition - packed egg white.

Thus, even if it is rigorously demonstrated that for a given glacier a causal connection between the «global average» temperature and the decrease in the mass of a glacier exists, extrapolation to other glaciers is not recommended.

Thus, the simplest thing to do is to: a) construct a time series of annual global temperature averages, add a random component to each year (value drawn from a gaussian with the given standard deviation and mean zero).

Thus, Victor the Troll, to contradict all that you wrote @ 221, «the dissipation of aerosols from any given eruption IS caused by a lack of volcanic activity,» and global temperatures CAN «rise above (the) level» «they would have been had the volcanoes not occurred» because the impact of previous volcanism would have also dissipated in the interval.

Thus, given the height and value of the emission temperature, we can get a simple estimate for the surface temperature: 255K + 5.5 km * 6K / km = 288K (= 15oC; close to the global mean estimated from observations given by NCDC of ~ 14oC).

You stated: «Thus, given the height and value of the emission temperature, we can get a simple estimate for the surface temperature: 255K + 5.5 km * 6K / km = 288K (= 15oC; close to the global mean estimated from observations given by NCDC of ~ 14oC).»

(A lapse rate feedback doesn't directly change fluxes but it changes the relationships of temperatures between vertical levels, so that for a given temperature at one level, a lapse rate feedback changes temperature at another level and thus affects LW fluxes.)

Thus there is convection within the troposphere that (to a first approximation) tends to sustain some lapse rate profile within the layer — that itself can vary as a function of climate (and height, location, time), but given any relative temperature distribution within the layer (including horizontal and temporal variations and relationship to variable CSD contributors (water vapor, clouds)-RRB-, the temperature of the whole layer must shift to balance radiative fluxes into and out of the layer (in the global time averae, and in the approximation of zero global time average convection above the troposphere), producing a PRt2 (in the global time average) equal to RFt2.

The ability of a band to shape the temperature profile of the whole atmosphere should tend to be maximum at intermediate optical thicknesses (for a given band width), because at small optical thicknesses, the amounts of emission and absorption within any layer will be small relative to what happens in other bands, while at large optical thicknesses, the net fluxes will tend to go to zero (except near TOA and, absent convection, the surface) and will be insensitive to changes in the temperature profile (except near TOA), thus allowing other bands greater control over the temperature profile (depending on wavelength — greater influence for bands with larger bandwidths at wavelengths closer to the peak wavelength — which will depend on temperature and thus vary with height.

Thus, the concept of an emissions budget is very useful to get the message across that the amount of CO2 that we can still emit in total (not per year) is limited if we want to stabilise global temperature at a given level, so any delay in reducing emissions can be detrimental — especially if we cross tipping points in the climate system, e.g trigger the complete loss of the Greenland Ice Sheet.

And it comes from Emanuel I believe, which is to say the Pacific and Indian Oceans are already warmer, thus this is an opening in the natural system that needs to catch up given the rising global mean temperature.

One of the early objectives of the new system would be to refine the model so that it better matched the measured temperatures, thus giving better estimated temperatures.

Thus the first year (s) temperature change is the most responsible for the first year (s) change in CO2 increase, but as the temperature influence is limited in time (a different, but constant temperature again gives a constant seasonal cycle, but at a different level), the next years that will not give a change in increase speed anymore.

And during the Eemian, the previous interglacial, temperatures were 1 - 2 degr.C higher than today, thus a constant increase of 5 ppmv / yr during about 15,000 years would give an increase of 75,000 ppmv CO2... That is physically impossible.

Thus 3,000 ARGO buoys do not give 3,000 independent estimates of the ocean heat content at a particular time; each observation gives a single estimate of the temperature at a particular location and depth.

Thus he seems to be well aware that the relationship is always broken when the atmospheric temperature differs from the surface temperature (the size of this difference is given by the theory he is using in his calculations).

The key is moving quickly to stabilize climate before temperature rises too high, thus giving these trees the best possible chance of survival.

Thus, the allowed emissions for a given temperature target are uncertain (see Figure 12.45)(Matthews et al., 2009; Zickfeld et al., 2009; Knutti and Plattner, 2012).

The criminal aspect is not only the failure of the alarmsits to observe these basic facts bu the Hockeystick fraud giving hundreds of times the weighting to faulty Bristlecone pine proxy data as to other sets in order to give a desired result, the blatant tampering of Data to warm the past with extremely dubious reasons, the NZ NWA scandal where they demonstrably altered data to fit the alarmist agenda, the Darwin Australia tampering, the crude attempt to prove a «hotspot» by making the base temperature representation red and thus appear hot in a now debunked graph etc Then there's the Nazi / Stalin / Lenin / Maoesque attempts to silence debate.

Thus its concentration (for given temperatures and pressures) remains more or less constant globally.

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.

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.

Thus, given the nature of our current method of classifying years as El Niño or La Niña, NCDC plans to re-examine and employ the best available definitions and datasets to robustly characterize the influence of El Niño and LaNiña on annual global temperatures.»

An estimate for the cold side temperature is given by the effective radiative temperature of the Earth of about 255 K. Thus the Carnot efficiency, i.e. the efficiency without any dissipation would be about 35/290 = 12 %.

Thus it's highly misleading to give the picture that we would have one output parameter — the average surface temperature — and uniform feedback reactions to that.

Thus given a total radiative forcing between the LGM and Holocene of approximately 6 W / m2, and a surface temperature change of approximately 4.5 °C, HS12 arrives at a climate sensitivity best estimate of 3 ± 0.5 °C for a 4 W / m2 forcing (which is approximately equivalent to a doubling of atmospheric CO2).

The documentary tells how the cold eventually dissipated at about 350 BC, giving way to warm temperatures and more precipitation (41:00) and thus transforming the Middle East and North Africa into «a paradise of crops» — all culminating with the Roman Empire, which ZDF erroneously characterizes as a society where «every citizen enjoyed the same rights» when in fact half of Rome's population were slaves.

The reason the air and water are warmer than they would be with no greenhouse gases (and thus have increased radiation both directions) is that the lapse rate combined with the high altitude of outgoing radiation to space gives a higher near surface temperature than otherwise.

i.e. if c is higher, then also dQ must be higher in order to get the same dT with the same m. Thus the same number of the longwave photons will give a smaller rise of temperature of water as compared to the material in the pavement.

All the other agents (collisions with asteroids, volcanoes, precession, etc) are mostly modifying the temperature profile during some longer or shorter periods of time giving thus deviations from the main temperature trend.

The use of scientific uncertainty in the SPM was thus limited and similar to the FAR: a range in the mean surface temperature increase since 1900 was given as 0.3 °C to 0.6 °C with no explanation as to likelihood of this range.