Sentences with phrase «depth getting to the surface»

Not exact matches

In addition to getting learning much from my pasture I have been in Bible study groups for years and still believe I'm just scratching the surface of understanding the vastness and depth of the Bible.

The best depth finders can not only help you find where the fish are but can also tell you how far down under the surface you need to go to get them.

«Any photosynthetic system on Europa would have to live at a depth removed from the high radiation bombarding the ice surface and still get light,» Baross says.

When you take away all of the friction, like when I'm on this sliding surface, my body is going to resolve all that rotation and I'm going to get to a depth where I'm just going to find out where I no longer need to apply any rotational forces to the ground because this has shown me where that position is.

Plastic surfaces get texturing that gives depth and appeal and speaks to the quality of materials you'll find throughout.

You'll get to swim to a depth of 20 feet (6 m) below the surface of the water, allowing you to get a closer look a the marine species that live at the Hol Chan Reserve.

Houser goes on to say, «The story is not directly impacted by decisions you took in the main game... tons of details and mysteries from the main story get explained, so it will add a lot of color to the main story... We feel like we've only scratched the surface in terms of the depth and detail in [Liberty City].»

The humans fare just a touch better, but are still nothing more than vague personalities that have no notable depth to them past some surface traits, though it's nice to see another familiar character in the form of Olympia Vale get fleshed out just a bit.

«In the 20th century, it was impossible to get away from the notion that the canvas or the painted surface was no longer beholden to illusionistic depth,» he tells me.

Without a visual anchor, viewers can only drift within the spaces in which grid and cross intermingle, uncomfortably caught between two - and three - dimensional spaces where boundaries between pictorial depth and surface flatness begin to get fuzzy.

Getting back to basics, a painting is «spatial» because it is an object existing in the world; it has dimensions, width, height and at least virtual depth (although it's usually seen as surface).

In the pure radiative equilibrium, you can get it into a range where the grey model gives you surface warming and stratospheric cooling (that's in one of the problems), but you have to work at it a bit, and also remember to plot things in pressure coord, not optical depth coordinates.

You should get a more rapid response to solar that penetrates to that «surface» which is at depth, than AGW which is a response to the energy accumulated at that depth.

Perhaps they don't want to believe in invisible fairies that eat the blue photons that make it through the surface of water before they get down to a kilometer of depth, because God knows there ain't no blue photons left to speak of by the time you get down that far.

The answer that seems to fit that question is Miskolczi's GHG stabilisation model: total [H2O] falls to get constant IR optical depth corresponding to 1.87 average absorption events per photon emitted from the surface, a physical constant from the minimisation of free energy!

That is how warm surface waters get down to depth.

It seems that we can explain this only if solar heat accumulates at the sea surface and doesn't get released to the atmosphere or transferred to greater depth.

My big question is about whether conduction and convection are as efficient at getting energy to the surface as sunlight is at adding energy at depth.