Sentences with phrase «without knowing the temperature»

If the radiator is clogged, the lower radiator hose will probably be cool (or most likely look warm) to the touch (though don't just go grabbing it without knowing the temperature of it... may be a little uncomfortable).

Not exact matches

I always knew I wouldn't be able to stand being in a relationship with the alpha; I'd just convinced myself that I could play with fire without being burned.Now I figure I need to find a guy who's set at the right temperature for me.

The rule then was that, since baked items bake at temperatures high enough to kill most known bacteria, you could bake and decorate cakes at home without a license (this was in 1996, so check again to be sure).

... some of the things you suggested in your blog are known to pose a health risk to your child and family, such as co-sleeping in the same bed (lowest SIDS risk is same room / different bed), or washing cloth diapers in a household washer without appropriate temperature / soap / rinse etc..

«Parents whose homes are still without electricity don't know how they're going to keep their kids warm tonight as temperatures are predicted to dip into the single digits.

Nine thousand years ago, they survived frigid year - round temperatures in animal - skin tents some 500 kilometers north of what is now the Russian mainland, and they were the only people ever known to hunt large numbers of polar bears without firearms.

Normal SCN cells in the lab keep cycling in synchrony without regard to temperature pulses, but research from another group showed that they could be «reset» by temperature changes if they could no longer signal to each other.

It's known to conduct electricity without loss, but only at extremely cold temperatures, and in a way that could not be entirely explained by established theories; that's why it's called an unconventional superconductor.

It is well known that this compound, with the chemical formula K3C60, can behave as a superconductor - that is, conduct without dissipating energy - below a critical temperature of 20 degrees Kelvin, i.e. around -253 degrees Celsius.

And it is still one of the most common problems brewers face, often without knowing that cold temperatures are causing their brewing issue!

The name of the filtering isn't really that important because as far as I know all these filtering processes are done without the use of high temperatures and acid, and thats the important thing.

This recommendation is based on the observation that most fish oil capsules are stored at room temperature and the oil may go rancid without you knowing it.

Winter comes late in London, so my outfit was inspired by autumn comforts — you know, when the temperature drops a few degrees so you can throw on a down filled jacket and a chunky knit without shivering or sacrificing your style?

I can even appreciate that a toaster will do a better and more efficient job than an oven for toasting bread without knowing the surface temperature at which bread burns..

With temperatures below zero it's always difficult to get going even if the engine itself starts without hiccups and I'd like to know what to do better so that I don't need to wait ten minutes before...

This is how I knew what it was like to fast without water in temperatures of 140 degrees Fahrenheit.

Nine thousand years ago, they survived frigid year - round temperatures in animal - skin tents some 500 kilometers north of what is now the Russian mainland, and they were the only people ever known to hunt large numbers of polar bears without firearms.

Ewa Demianowicz, campaign manager for HSI / Canada, said: «It is heartbreaking to know that these dogs were left outside without suitable refuge from the extremely low temperatures this winter.

Heat pumps do operate spontaneously, if you have a high temperature reservoir and a low temperature reservoir, so I don't know why you would exclude them from the solution to your puzzle, but I'll try again without using a heat pump.

Since the 155 W / m2 GHE is the GHE forcing based on the present climate (in the sense that removing all GH agents (only their LW opacity, keeping solar radiation properties constant) results in a forcing of -155 W / m2 at TOA for the present climate, and we know that without any GHE, in the isothermal blackbody surface approximation, the temperature will fall approximately 33 K without any non-Planck feedbacks), it can be compared to smaller climate forcings made in the context of the present climate (such as a doubling CO2.)

In this way, after a relatively short time, you can determine the surface temperature by energy balance without knowing much about the details of what is going on deeper down.

Soon knew that the relevant data series for discussing the AO influence on Western Hudson Bay temperature (and by proxy, sea ice) was from Churchill and despite being reminded of the fact by the first set of reviewers, nonetheless continued to only show the AO connection to a site 1000 miles away, which had a much higher correlation without any discussion of whether this other data was at all relevant to Churchill or the bears nearby.

There is a natural greenhouse effect without, which surface temperatures would be too low (~ 256K) for presently known life forms.

The specific latent heat is the amount of energy required to convert 1 kg (or 1 lb) of a substance from solid to liquid (or vice-versa) without a change in the temperature of the surroundings — all absorbed energy goes into the phase change — is known as the specific latent heat of fusion.

That makes that the emissions factor is larger than the increase attributed to temperature... Which shows my point that the mass balance is impossible to close without a sink which is larger than what temperature allegedly causes + a part of the emissions together... Thus nature is a net sink for CO2, no matter what temperature does (within limits of course).

And Stefan, something tells me I should not engange stefan again, but you know that evaporation occurs at a constant temperature, it removes heat but can proceed without lowering the temperature.

Since we don't know what A and B are, it is hard to argue this without going through every possible A and B. However, I think B must be my «the sawtooth was created as the difference between temperature (Hadcrut) and AGW».

Knowing that there is no escape from THE FOUR LAWS WITHOUT WHICH NOTHING WHATSOEVER IN THE UNIVERSE THAT HAPPENS, HAPPENS — there simply is no change in temperature of anything without input of energy = work = quantity of heat, requiring accountancy in joule, and not that «phlogiston» of «feedback» without any energy dimWITHOUT WHICH NOTHING WHATSOEVER IN THE UNIVERSE THAT HAPPENS, HAPPENS — there simply is no change in temperature of anything without input of energy = work = quantity of heat, requiring accountancy in joule, and not that «phlogiston» of «feedback» without any energy dimwithout input of energy = work = quantity of heat, requiring accountancy in joule, and not that «phlogiston» of «feedback» without any energy dimwithout any energy dimension.

The 0.5 degrees surface C surface temperature change from a single ENSO is both irrelevant and, as generally accepted in the literature, overestimated for a 1 year period — it is your guess and without knowing your assumptions I can't comment.

Of course Ferdinand is right not to project catastrophism onto anthropogenic CO2 levels for as you likely know there is a inverse logarithmic relationship between changes in temperature and CO2 levels such that without the assumed positive feedback from water vapour there is no chance of runaway global warming, tipping points or whatever.

Choice 4: Why would we want to limit future temperature increase to 2 degC above pre-industrial temperature when: a) we don't know what pre-industrial temperature was, b) the most recent pre-industrial temperature occurred during the LIA, c) temperature rises representing a significant chunk of the remaining allowed increase have happened in the past without anthropogenic forcing, and, d) we really don't know how to achieve this goal?

Without trying to prejudice this work, but also because of what I almost think I know to be the case, the results of this study will show that we can probably say a fair bit about < 100 year extra-tropical NH temperature variability (at least as far as we believe the proxy estimates), but honestly know f *** - all about what the > 100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we now with certainty that we know f *** - all).

When I put this http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-Jun.htm on RealClimate, without the label, despite it being from the world best known temperature data, he said it was a fraud and proceeded with outburst of vulgar obscenities.

As John discussed in his post, there are some issues with this hypothesis (i.e. we know observed forcings like solar irradiance and aerosols can explain most past short - term temperature changes without requiring major contributions from these «climate shifts»).

We already know that the sea surface temperatures associated with mass bleaching of much of the Great Barrier Reef in early 2016 would have been virtually impossible without climate change.

There are certainly no available figures that describe the sensitivity of the global temperature to variations in solar input and without knowing that level of sensitivity as a first step I fail to see how we can know anything useful about the sensitivity of the Earth to other influences

However, the reason I drew the pictures is so you could all stop pretending that you can do stat mech computations in your head without even knowing what molecular temperature actually is, and concentrate on easier stuff, like heat flow.

No, without radiative cooling (but assuming the same albedo for simplicity), the temperature of the Earth's surface would not be average 288 K but rather only ~ 255 K (really the average of the square of the temperature over the surface).

If you want to know what the Earth's surface temperature would be without an atmosphere, surely it would be instructive to look at the Moon.

What I'm trying to understand with some level of specificity (I know it's tough to be specific without going over my head) is how Hypothesis III is reconciled against longer - term temperature of temperature increase over the 20th century.

Steven Mosher is right, obviously, to value the numbers more highly than the narrative tonyb implies is «king of the lab» (but wrong if, for example, he tries to reconstruct Canada's temperature record without knowing which sites used the same candy thermometer as they employed in making maple syrop).

Robert, the problem is without actual measurements, you can't show it was warming, we don't actually know what the temperatures are.

Science: IPCC models climate without accounting for the known, dominant climate events of the past (e.g., the ice ages, the interglacial epochs, the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, sudden changes in the slope of temperature instrument record), and predicting only an unverifiable catastrophe.

It is known that surface tension decreases with decreasing temperature, the rate of decrease is different in different sources, but it is known that at low temperatures (can be around Tlim of -70 to -100 C), s becomes very low, even for pure water without surfactants, and may become even negative in some extrapolations to the low T, which prevents calculations at these T.

If we take a 10um layer and work out energy changes and therefore temperature changes we can do it without knowing what R1 is.

Unfortunately for Gary — well, unfortunately for his readers — without knowing the surface temperature plus temperature and humidity profiles in the atmosphere in the two cases we can't actually know what the theory predicts.

SoD: «If we take a 10um layer and work out energy changes and therefore temperature changes we can do it without knowing what R1 is.

GCRs could be influencing the temperature change without our having any way of knowing it.

Without the natural CO2 effect, they wouldn't get the surface temperature even within ten degrees, and it would snow in places that we know it doesn't for example.

If the author is already peddling denialism based on limited facts used out of context, and this new paper is published likely just to be used as the latest red herring distraction in the global warming argument by examining «Svalbard and Greenland temperature records» in a too limited time span without relevant context, which, just in case some may not have noticed does not represent the region known as planet Earth, uses too short a time span in relation to mechanism outside of the examined region because it is in fact a regional analysis; one is left with a reasonable conclusion that the paper is designed to be precisely what I suspect it is designed for, to be a red herring distraction in the argument between science and science denialism regarding global warming.