Sentences with phrase «about radiation effects»

Featuring an enhanced wireless digital technology, it can transmit clear and crisp images securely at 2.4 GHz without you having to worry about any radiation effects.

Not exact matches

How about cosmic microwave background radiation, time dilation in supernovae light curves, the Hubble deep field, the Sunyaev - Zel «dovich effect, the Integrated Sachs - Wolfe effect, the hom.ogeneity of stars and galaxies, etc, etc...

All the stories I hear about the effects of the radiation in the ocean and diseased shrimp from farm raised leaves me scratching my head about what's safe!

Parents who are concerned about the effects of baby monitor radiation should also make sure no cell phones, cordless phones, or wifi devices are in their home.

Japanese researchers are about to launch one of the most ambitious epidemiological studies ever attempted on the effects of low - dose radiation.

As a result, several thousand of Fukushima's 2 million residents have been thrust into the middle of a vigorous scientific debate about the health effects of long - term exposure to low levels of radiation.

A series of secret nuclear disasters has spawned a unique database about the effects of radiation.

Results of research on the voles, presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the Study of Evolution in Montreal last month, raises questions about the full effect of radiation on animal populations and on humans.

Although Mycio's account suffers from a shortage of hard science about the effects of radiation on these people, her finely detailed first - person investigation of the ecology of the world's most famous disaster area has a haunting grandeur that should appeal to naturalists and fans of the apocalypse alike.

The treatment's effect on the original tumor was less dramatic, but still impressive: The combination of Listeria and radiation shrank the tumor by 64 %, and Listeria alone by about 20 % compared with saline - treated mice.

It may be surprising to learn that much remains unknown about radiation's effects on materials.

As the area of this cloud cover grows, it reflects more of the shortwave radiation; but as the clouds get taller, their greenhouse effect becomes more significant, counteracting about half of their total cooling effect.»

Until a reactor at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant exploded on April 26, 1986, spreading the equivalent of 400 Hiroshima bombs of fallout across the entire Northern Hemisphere, scientists knew next to nothing about the effects of radiation on vegetation and wild animals.

At 3 p.m. on Thursday, join Florida State University geochemist William Burnett to chat about how radiation can affect ocean chemistry and its possible effects on marine ecology.

She educates about the health effects of wireless radiation, the impending cancer tsunami and PEMF (pulsed electromagnetic fields) that restore human health on the cellular level.

In this case, there are serious questions about radiation, its effects on the body and how to protect oneself in both the short and long term, provoking an unnecessary run on...

These effects can be expected to occur to some degree usually about 2 weeks after starting radiation, and can last up to a few weeks after radiation is completed.

We've been told that he is otherwise healthy, and our veterinarian has told us about the possibility of radioiodine therapy, but we're concerned about the effects of the radiation on him and our family.

I'd love to know more about the details: is this case like a perfectly elastic collision, or are there subtler effects on the radiation's characteristics (polarization, phase shifts, frequency shifts?)

I have asked a few oceanologists about skin effect and downward mixing of energy from short and long wave radiation, but there seem to be as many opinions as there are oceanologists.

I stumbled across Steve Carson's wonderfully detailed and expository blog on atmospheric radiation and energy transfer effects this morning while googling something about Grant Petty's textbook, A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation, something I've challenged myself to make a serious... Continue reading →

Looking in a textbook about atmospheric physics, meteorology or climate physics it is getting quite clear that atmospheres are more complex then just reducing their thermal structure on the effects of solar radiation and greenhouse gases alone.

While they are apparently called General Circulation Models (GCM's), when it comes to CO2 effects they are apparently only about radiation at the top of the atmosphere (TOA).

Here's a hint: begins with a G. 3) So after all that blabing about moon, mercury and venus it is still hard to see how the obscure part of Venus (which is not recieving any direct radiation from the Sun) is still over 400 Celcius when on a plante much closer to the same sun temperatures plunge to a a hundred negative... since the Greenhouse effect does not exist it must be MAGIC, pardon me, SCIENCE.

The casual disregard of the internal variations / cycles and the «elmination» of any external factors (galactic radiation effects are a very very interesting for me at the moment - especially due to the inverse relationship with solar output) disguise the level of ignorance that we have about the climate as a whole.

The basic effect of 2xCO2 on temperature is about 0.9 degr.C, based on radiation properties.

I say you can't because your AGW Greenhouse Effect claims about the electromagnetic radiation from the Sun are fiction, therefore the whole AGW Greenhouse Effect claim is fiction.

It lasts just nine years in Earth's atmosphere but is about 34 times more potent at trapping infrared radiation (the greenhouse effect) than carbon dioxide, which is more abundant and lasts longer.

Earth's Greenhouse Effect is described as all about radiant effects: Wiki: «The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all direcEffect is described as all about radiant effects: Wiki: «The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all direceffect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all directions.

The obvious conclusion is that if we are significantly changing how the planet atmosphere absorbs radiation and we don't have a clue about the effects, then we should be very afraid.

Land comprises only about 30 % of the Earth's surface, but it can have the largest effects on the reflection of global solar radiation in conjunction with changes in ice and snow cover, and the shading of the latter by vegetation.

Since there is about 50 % variable cloud cover at any given time and clouds can reflect over 99 % of the IR radiation from the Earth's surface clouds are responsible for a likely 90 % of the Earth's greenhouse effect.

«Now imagine that the internal radioactivity of the earth has been turned - off, and the sun's radiation has been turned off, -LSB-...] This was a followup on a discussion about the hypothetical gravito - thermal effect at equilibrium.

Methane gas lasts just nine years in Earth's atmosphere but is about 34 times more potent at trapping infrared radiation (the greenhouse effect) than carbon dioxide, which is more abundant and lasts longer.

I think that there is very substantial uncertainties about the effects of solar radiation management technologies.

«6: Incomprehensible...» ANSWER: figure 6 - A to 6 - D explain the basic physics of the radiative effect of trace gas in the air; cards n ° 14, 15, 16 explain further the basics that are supposed to be understood by anyone speaking or writing about radiation in the air.

You also have to bear in mind that UHI isn't just about having the potential to artificially raise maximum temperatures, but more significant is the effect it has on reducing the extremes of night time minimums; sun - warmed asphalt / concrete, radiation from warm buildings and warm air from AC vents are the key to the UHI effect.

Further, air has little heat capacity and the wavelength of re-radiated radiation from CO2 is such that it can not effectively penetrate the oceans (depth of penetration about 10 microns) and at most it simply boils off a small layer of the ocean which probably has a net cooling effect.

But, were the Sun's activity and total radiation to drop in the coming century to levels of the Maunder Minimum, solar effects might reduce the expected surface temperature effects of enhanced greenhouse warming — by at most about 0.5 °C.

The one certainty about climate over the past 31 years is that there has been no enhanced greenhouse effect from GHG emissions as claimed by the IPCC Since 1979 satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation have not shown any decreasi in OLR from the increased insulation ascroibed to the enhanced greenhouse effect resulting from the increase in GHG emissions.

As far as CO2 having any effect, up to about 50 W / m2 out of that 324 W / m2 back radiation is from the presence of CO2 molecules.

They do absorb and re-emit exponentially - decreasing amounts of photon, and, since re-emission is about half upwards and half downwards, some of those re-emitted (and re-emitted, and re-emitted,...) photons will add to the downwelling radiation and therefore contribute to the Atmospheric «greenhouse effect».

We can come to the «effects» of downward radiation later, but what about the discrepancy between your calculations and one sample measured spectrum?

Just down the road from us is Didcot A power station, a large coal - burning plant with poor pollution control and therefore with substantial effects on local air quality, as well as more substantial emissions of radiation than from any UK nuclear power station and a Co2 output of about 8 million tonnes a year.

Callendar's own calculations, giving a 2 °C temperature rise for a carbon dioxide doubling, were slated: one major criticism was that they dealt only with radiation and left out the effects of that other important way in which heat is moved around, convection, despite what Hulburt had already written about that.

He was right about so many things — the background nineteenth - century CO2 concentration level and its increase over the twentieth century; the importance of high - quality temperature data and the warming trend observed over much of his lifetime; the infrared spectroscopy of CO2 and its effect on «sky radiation»; and more.

«One of the perennial concerns about possibilities for modifying the earth's radiation balance has been that even if these methods could compensate for increased GHGs in the global and annual mean, they might have very different spatial and temporal effects and impact the regional and seasonal climates in a very different way than GHGs.

As indicated by the red curve in the graphic, the surface of the Sun is, in effect, at a temperature of 5525ºK (about 9500ºF), and therefore emits radiation with a wavelenth centered around 1 / 2μ (half a micron which is half a millionth of a meter).

CO2 at concentrations of just 300ppmv has a very strong effect on a narrow band of the Earth's thermal radiation centred on 14.77 microns taking over about 10 % of the Earth's greenhouse effect from clouds and water vapour.

The point about all this is that eli's criticism of Kramm is that Kramm alegedly mistook the heating effect of 2.7 u radiation as having a surface effect when it actually, according to eli, was the temperature 10 - 20 cm beneath the surface of the moon.