Sentences with phrase «because emission height»

Not exact matches

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.

Because at any given height temperature is not only dependent upon emission.

Again for the nth time: the height of the natural emissions is completely irrelevant, because these are more than compensated by natural sinks.

This exclusion is ridiculous, not least because aircraft emissions have a particular role in heating the planet, due to the height at which they are released, and the multiplying impacts of the water vapour and other gases the planes produce.

This wouldn't affect the average height of emission, because in these bands there would be zero emission (and zero absorption from the surface).

That ruins the entire thing, and I am sold on Miskolczi's paper that because of the conservation of energy, Eu at the top of the troposphere must be 1/2 of Su or hydrostatic stabilty will be affected and lower the effective emission height of the troposphere from convective overturn and release latent heat and clouds which have the same effect.

The emission from ~ 7um and ~ 15um bands is smaller than at the surface because the overall TEMPERATURE of air is smaller at that height (of emission to space).