Sentences with phrase «energy out of the surface»

In fact, even if the surface is colder than the boundary layer, latent heat transport can take energy out of the surface, provided the boundary layer is sufficiently dry.

Not exact matches

Seeds only have so much energy stored before they need to generate more from light, so plant them too deep and they will run out of energy before they reach the surface.

High - energy protons and electrons come screaming out of the reconnection site, flow along the loop, and crash into the denser plasma at the sun's surface.

In other parts of the world, clouds can cool the surface because their white color reflects solar energy back out into space.

The rapid energy variations, the team reports in the 20 April issue of The Astrophysical Journal, are caused by hot spots on the stars» surfaces rotating in and out of view.

All these applications come out of the specific properties of quasicrystals, that they are poor conductors of heat, they have very low - energy surfaces, they have low friction and they have low adhesion properties.

In active regions, where temperatures can reach millions of degrees, massive eruptions on the surface called flares spew out charged particles and high - energy radiation.

Hurricanes are powered by energy pulled out of warm seawater, so sea surface temperature data collected by satellites is fed into forecast models to estimate their intensity.

Researchers at the Department of Energy's SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory are trying to find out why uranium persists in groundwater at former uranium ore processing sites despite remediation of contaminated surface materials two decades ago.

«The amount of energy being emitted by these eruptions implies lava fountains gushing out of fissures at a very large volume per second, forming lava flows that quickly spread over the surface of Io.»

When an icy impact occurred, the impactor's kinetic energy became heat energy, instantly melted some ice, gouged out a crater, and kicked up into Mars» thin atmosphere large amounts of debris mixed with water (liquid, ice crystals, and vapor)-- and complex organic molecules that obviously came recently from life.127 Then, the dirt and salt - water mixture settled back to the surface in vast layers of thin sheets — strata — especially around the crater.

And they both serve the same purpose of moving some of that frenetic energy to the surface and out of our bod.

They don't have to be scientists to understand that the higher energy waves of visible light from the Sun can penetrate through CO2, H2O, CH4, NOZ etal in the atmosphere, but the lower energy radiation of infra - red waves, from Earth's surface, have problems getting back out through these molecules, and a new energy balance has to be established in the form of rising temperature.

In equilibrium, all fluxes into the surface will be balanced by fluxes out of the surface (including momentum, etc, as well as energy), so whatever lies beneath the surface gives the surface an effective heat capacity and also (in the oceans) some ability for local / regional imbalances to be balanced globally, with all of that responding to forcings and PR+CR and other feedbacks at the surface.

Your factor of 0.84 gets washed out by this surface area limit on energy transport.

The planets» distance from the sun and the brightness of its surface dictates how much energy it receives from the sun, as the light gets dimmer when it spreads out in space, as described by Gauss» theorem.

Thus, for a well - coupled convecting troposphere, one defines the climate sensitivity (in the absence of feedback) as 1 / [d (SB) / dT] = 1 / (4 * sigma * T ^ 3), where T in this case is actually the emission temperature of the planet where infrared radiation leaks out to space (analogous to the photosphere of the sun, where eventually the outer layers of the sun become optically thin to visible radiation, and allow that energy to escape to space), not the surface temperature.

From Figure 1, looking at just the energy flows into and out of the earths surface and ignoring the higher fluxes just in the atmosphere we have (all in W / M ^ 2 and rounded off)

While a global temperature metric for the near - surface tropospheric temperatures is awkward in that it does not account for changes in local climates, it is useful from the most important and broad perspective... as one more metric to indicate total energy flow in and out of the Earth system.

There would be little or no energy cycling between the mass bulk of the atmosphere and the surface so the surface need only be warm enough to provide the necessary radiation out at the top of the atmosphere.

Third, as Roger Pielke Sr. is fond of pointing out, very little of the global energy imbalance actually goes into heating the surface and atmosphere.

As far as TOA is concerned energy out is still equal to energy in, no magical surplus in the system there then, so surface heat is still being whisked away by convection — which of course is dominant.

It turns out that about two thirds remains in the upper ocean between the surface and a depth of 700 metres, while the remaining one third of that heat energy goes deeper into the ocean — between 700 and 2000 metres.»

The AGW Greenhouse Effect energy budget has taken out, excised, the real heat from the Sun which is capable of heating matter and does reach the Earth's surface to heat land and water and replaced it with the claim that visible light heats the matter of the Earth's surface, this is impossible in the real world.

If you support AGW / CAGW or think that their version of the energy budget of «Shortwave in Longwave out» (which is the Visible light from the Sun heats land and oceans and direct invisible longwave infrared doesn't reach the Earth's surface and so plays no part in heating land and oceans) is real world science, then my science challenge to you stands:

His exposition does not deal with the real situation of the atmosphere, which is in effect a layer of gas dealing with an infrared energy flux emanating from the Earth's surface and which passes out into the void of space.

Latent heat of vaporization at the surface, especially over the oceans, carries a tremendous and not easily quantifiable amount of energy straight through the CO2 like it wasn't there and releases it much higher up where the path out the door to space has much less resistance compared to ground level.

Yes, the same amount of energy has to get out into space at the same rate, over the long term, but the absorption by greenhouse gases requires the surface temperature to be higher in order to radiate at a sufficiently higher rate (than would otherwise be the case) to make up for the fraction absorbed.

As Frank pointed out in a comment at Science of Doom, the change in downwelling longwave radiation is only redistributing energy, contributing to some warming at the surface, perhaps with some effect on ocean overturning, and changing the lapse rate.

So, without any external heat source and none from the planet all that's in play here is the heat this chilled out band of brothers gains on the way down, heavier and sinking gaining kinetic energy and therefore temperature the denser they get until finally at the surface becoming too hot they expand and rise slipping out of their restricting gravity and rude neighbours bumping into them they get themselves some space and cool off, then coming back off their high when they realise just how cold and lonely they are, getting nostalgic again for their noisy neighbours who won't stick to their side of the road, forgetting, we do forget just how horrible horrible past experiences were, that they'll just get all hot and bothered again.

Without them, there would only be radiation from the surface to get rid of the solar energy — the GHGs collect translational and vibrational energy from the atmosphere and toss it out the window, albeit in very sloppy fashion, spilling almost as much on the ground.

The radiation theory assumes that the 1 kg of air is absorbing 390 joules / second of energy from the warm surface and emitting 390 joules / second of energy up and out.

As EA Wrigley points out in his new book Energy and the English Industrial Revolution, the 11 million tonnes of coal mined in England in 1800 produced as much energy as 11 million acres of woodland (one third of the land surface) would have generateEnergy and the English Industrial Revolution, the 11 million tonnes of coal mined in England in 1800 produced as much energy as 11 million acres of woodland (one third of the land surface) would have generateenergy as 11 million acres of woodland (one third of the land surface) would have generated (7).

(1) They imply that solar energy absorbed by the surface comes back out of the surface in the same region, thus playing a part in determining local temperature.

Anyway, as I make the point here, The Greenhouse Effect is non-existant regardless of this mangling of real world physics, the comic cartoon of shortwave in and longwave out is stupid enough in claiming «that visible light heats ocean and lands and the heat direct from the Sun, thermal infrared, doesn't reach the Earth's surface and doesn't play any part in heating land and ocean», but, this warmist comic cartoon energy budget misses out the whole of the Water Cycle!

If you can prove that the earth as seen from space actually isn't -18 C or that earth's surface actually isn't +15 or that the ERBE data is wrong and the earth doesn't actually absorb more energy than ist radiates in areas of high ghg concentrations and that it does actually absorb more than it radiates in areas of low ghg concentration, then there might be some value in figuring out why via your experiments.

Heuristically, the gross moist stability is the difference in energy content between the air flowing out of the ITCZ in the upper branch of the Hadley cell and the air flowing into the ITCZ near the surface; it is also a measure of the efficiency of the Hadley cell in moving energy.

the sea surface temperature hasn't changed in over 140 years), or is it the net energy released by the ENSO cycle has balanced out to zero (in which case how was that net energy release calculated for the first part of the record)?

Since the steel shell has a larger radius, it's surface area is larger than that of the earth, and so for the TOTAL ENERGY emitted to remain constant, as required by the First Law, the shell must radiate less W / m2 than did the earth, so that when multiplied by the shell's larger surface area, the total energy emitted still comes out theENERGY emitted to remain constant, as required by the First Law, the shell must radiate less W / m2 than did the earth, so that when multiplied by the shell's larger surface area, the total energy emitted still comes out theenergy emitted still comes out the same.

A similar situation has played out in West Virginia, where the idea of providing energy through alternative energy sources using reclaimed surface mines is not new.

Sorry if I'm being a bit thick but if we start with 235 joules worth of energy at the surface, then the other 235 joules that were transmitted downwards came from the original 235 to begin with, so then we have created energy out of nothing.

Then, when that potential energy descends it has to be added back to the surface energy budget as kinetic energy and then also added back to the top of atmosphere energy budget because it radiates straight out from the ground to top of atmosphere instantly at the speed of light.

During the up and down cycling process potential energy is not available to the exchange of radiation in and out of the Earth system but it does become available for radiating out to space when it is returned downwards and converted back from potential energy to kinetic energy again at the surface.

The reason it exists is that upward evaporation and radiation from the surface pulls energy out of that 1 mm layer faster than conduction and convection can bring energy up from below.

You seem to think that a measure of radiation from a planet's surface somehow indicates the energy being transferred by such radiation out of the surface.

more carbon dioxide in the lower atmosphere means more little «point sources» for more absorbed EM in the infrared part of the spectrum, (infrared that re-radiated from the earth's surface after sunlight hit it and got absorbed); and since point sources radiate in a spherical pattern, that means more «back radiation» to earth, on balance... and this changes the «standing pattern» of energy flow in and out of the earth system, creating a time differential, so it starts to re-adjust...

On the other hand, there are only two exits from the Atmosphere for radiative energy, 1) out the Top of the Atmosphere (TOA) to Space and 2) out the Bottom of the Atmosphere (BOA) to the Surface.

Energy in = energy out is not technically true though, the heat that reaches the surface is attenuated as the surface warms and cools, for example heating of the ocean surface and ground suEnergy in = energy out is not technically true though, the heat that reaches the surface is attenuated as the surface warms and cools, for example heating of the ocean surface and ground suenergy out is not technically true though, the heat that reaches the surface is attenuated as the surface warms and cools, for example heating of the ocean surface and ground surface.

It is not just a «delay»; the greenhouse effect reduces the rate of energy loss out into space (for a fixed surface temperature), requiring a higher average surface temperature to restore radiative balance.

-- The surface is, in the EFC, shown to absorb 168 W / m ² of incoming Solar radiation, but does not even attempt to conserve any energy as it gets rid of (24 +78) = 102 W / m ² via thermals and «evapo - transpiration» and then in stead of being contented with radiating away the remaining 66 W / m ², it sends out a whopping 390 W / m ²