Sentences with phrase «effect of the radiation even»

Now, you, like myself, may wonder, why over exposure to the sun or tanning - bed UV rays can cause dark spots in only some individuals while others seem to be resistant to the harmful effect of the radiation even though they may expose their skin to the sunlight or computer radiation for a very long time.

Not exact matches

Even though computer screens don't give off radiation, the strain from staring over long periods of time can cause harm to your vision, though many effects are temporary.

Either they necessitate a deceptive «God», e.g. creating starlight «in transit» which means that for some light the star that supposedly sent said light would never have actually existed, or they would cause effect that should be evident but are not, e.g. temporarily fast starlight would effectively cook many things, such as life on earth, if the required light (and attendant gamma radiation) were compressed into a significantly shorter time frame (think of the radiation from the apparent 13 billion years of the universe arriving at the same time, or even over a 1000 years).

This energy may even have far - reaching effects outside the galactic center by driving energetic jets of radiation outward.

Over the past 5 years, a few promising candidate drugs designed to ward off the effects of radiation exposure have begun to undergo animal, and even human, testing.

Their nanoparticles also have potential to protect astronauts from long - term exposure to radiation in space and perhaps even slow the effects of aging, they reported.

Because of this effect, dubbed Hawking radiation, a black hole slowly evaporates, so that anything that enters is eventually released over billions or even trillions of years.

A practical dirty bomb's main effects would be from fear, not radiation, with both the Department of Homeland Security and the American Institute of Physics predicting few deaths from cancer or radiation poisoning, even in densely populated areas.

Even today, Trinity visitors look for the effects of radiation everywhere, including the scrub inside the interior perimeter close to the point of detonation, which is shorter than the vegetation on the rest of the plain.

The result is that Canadians — and the rest of the world — have been denied the chance to hear from some of the most authoritative scientific voices on important issues ranging from the Arctic ozone hole to radiation after the Fukushima Daiichi reactor accident in Japan, and even the effect of aquaculture on wild salmon.

Obviously CO2 is not just a lid on the atmosphere so there must be some effect of the vertical gradient (even if small), and since it depends on the absorption and reemission of radiation, there must be some effect by latitude.

Even if animals in the area are being affected by radiation in the area, the effects of this contamination are overshadowed by the fact that this area is now essentially a wildlife reserve relatively free of human disturbances.

Unfortunately, the overuse of antibiotics, antibacterial agents, and even the ever increasing practice of sterilizing food through radiation and pasteurization may have far more wide ranging health effects than anyone can imagine.

The researchers found the same effect whether or not the L. reuteri was alive, heat or radiation - killed, indicating that even structural components of probiotics can play a role in visceral sensitivity.

It was even given to victims of the Chernobyl disaster to counteract some effects of radiation poisoning.

d) the damaging effects of toxins are dose - dependent in a linear fashion down to zero, where even a tiny amount of a toxin, such as radiation or cigarette smoke, will harm some people... and

Obviously CO2 is not just a lid on the atmosphere so there must be some effect of the vertical gradient (even if small), and since it depends on the absorption and reemission of radiation, there must be some effect by latitude.

Although a libertarian might well agree that CO2 absorbs / scatters IR radiation, and that this will produce a warming effect, and agree that this effect could cause problems, and could even agree that it requires the intervention of some agency, he doesn't have to agree with Read that this represents either a global catastrophe in the making, or a palpable «limit to growth».

As such there is little point in SCIENCE to be made by quoting any reference to «greenhouse effects» (IPCC included) If you notice the plot of atmospheric absorbance within the link (*): - http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/113579/index.php#comments -: you will see that the supposed «greenhouse radiation» is not even seen being surface incident.

«Clean Coal» is NOT even remotely clean (see: mercury, acid rain, or strip - mining), and if you think nuclear power is clean: just look around at the effects of nuclear radiation, and birth defects in Iraq and Afghanistan (INCLUDING American soldiers and war veterans) from using depleted uranium munitions.

As far as water vapor in the tropics, they even say» In the humid equatorial regions, where there is so much water vapour in the air that the greenhouse effect is very large, adding a small additional amount of CO2 or water vapour has only a small direct impact on downward infrared radiation.»

While Earth's surface absorbs a significant amount of thermal radiation because of the blanketing effect of the atmosphere, it loses even more through its own emission and thus experiences a net loss of long - wave radiation.

It is not clear how much is the actual anthropogenic contribution to a changed radiation budget (again, even the sign of the anthropogenic effect is not known).

As more water vapor enters the atmosphere, that in turn absorbs more SW radiation, and, as this recent MIT study has shown, we might actually see that we have a seemingly paradoxical effect of the bulk of the warming then being in the SW, even as net LW actually increases with increasing GH gas levels:

In the summary of Chapter 7, one can read that the effects of variation in solar radiation are negligible You seem to miss the whole point.: «The Chapter 7 authors are admitting strong evidence («many empirical relationships») for enhanced solar forcing (forcing beyond total solar irradiance, or TSI), even if they don't know what the mechanism is.»

One can even see the comb effect where there are a number of absorbing lines close together (look below 8 microns) and the equivalent radiation temperature varies rapidly with wavelength between surface and tropopause temperature giving a very jagged plot until the lines get so close together that the interferometer can not resolve them and one gets a very noisy average.

However, even though surface temperatures of land and ocean may experience feedback effects, there are few possible feedbacks posited for the level of the atmosphere where the net radiation to space takes place, and this means that the 1.2 degrees C heating effect must be absorbed within the boundaries of the atmosphere somewhere.

Add to that the role of the moon and big planets, Jupiter and Saturn, and the effects on the geomagnetic field and galactic cosmic radiation and little is needed — indeed little room is left — for postulating a human causation as an additional factor let alone a rational explanation for all or even most of observed climate change.

So, reflecting radiation back into space could cool the planet on average, but it can not reverse the effect of the greenhouse gases — not even remotely.

But don't take to much notice of me as I also believe that Advection i.e. the kind of horizontal air movements that follow isobaric surfaces and therefore are predominantly horizontal) have got more of a Green House Effect (GHE) than does a radiation circuit, of say 324 W / m ² originally removed from the surface, and then returned via Green House Gases (GHGs)-- which, by the way, show no sign of having warmed at all (no hot spot) But even so, when somehow the same 324 W / m ² are delivered back to the surface for absorption it is supposed to be getting warmer.

Small increases in CO2 could cause small increases in temperature by slightly raising the average altitude of outgoing radiation, but it appears negative feedback from cloud variation reduces even this small effect.

«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.