Sentences with phrase «given the surface energy»

The initial inflation energy equals the Laplace pressure (P = 2 γ r), which, given the surface energy of water, is ~ 160 kilopascal in micron - radius bubbles and integrates to ~ 100 J l - 1 of internal volume, to which must be added the interfacial energy and the viscous and gravitational work of displacement.

Not exact matches

For Teilhard, the within and the without appear to expand in harmony, so that a constant proportion is maintained between the levels of complexity and consciousness in a given entity, while at the same time there is a seething energy beneath the surface that constantly strives to raise the whole to a higher level of integration.

On Earth, the plant pigment chlorophyll absorbs the most abundant and highest - energy colors that reach the planet's surface — red and blue, respectively — while reflecting green, giving vegetation its color.

Their lower energy density, i.e. the amount of energy that they can store in a given volume or surface area, has meant that they were not able to power sensors or microelectronic components.

«Our work highlights that there exists another set of important points on the potential energy surface of a given system, namely the BBP, which needs to be taken into consideration for mechano - chemistry applications,» said Wolfgang Quapp, a co-author of the paper who added that BBP is a new concept in mechano - chemistry.

A cosmic ray — usually a proton, but sometimes other particles — will slam into air molecules 50 miles or so above the surface, rapidly shedding energy and giving rise to a shower of billions of electrons, positrons, and muons that rain down onto the terrain below.

«In conclusion, we demonstrated how sub-natural line width vibrational resolved RIXS gives direct experimental access to the ground state potential energy surface around selected atomic sites and moieties, not accessible with other techniques.

Ripples, wrinkles and sub-10-nanometer pores in the surface and atomic - level imperfections give LIG its ability to store a lot of energy.

It is vibrating molecules that give us the sensation of heat, and it is by this mechanism that heat energy is trapped by the atmosphere and re-radiated to the surface.

It ultimately doesn't do much to change the way the online modes feel — it's still the same old COD under the surface — but having actual characters and some weird gadgets to play with during matches gives the affair a little more energy — it's at least the most interesting Call of Duty multiplayer experience in years, even if it is still largely unchanged.

I paint with brushes and cloths but also sharp instruments to scratch into the paint to give energy to the surface.

Therefore, if conditions allow the glacier surface to warm to 0 C, the amount of ablation that can be sustained by a given energy input increases dramatically.

Absorption of thermal radiation cools the thermal spectra of the earth as seen from space, radiation emitted by de-excitation is what results in the further warming of the surface, and the surface continues to warm until the rate at which energy is radiated from the earth's climate system (given the increased opacity of the atmosphere to longwave radiation) is equal to the rate at which energy enters it.

Finally, to revisit the question originally posed @ 203: Assuming the IEO2011 Reference case of «1 trillion metric tons of additional cumulative energy - related carbon dioxide emissions between 2009 and 2035», and given that this case equates to following RCP8.5 until 2035 as previously demonstrated @ 408, what increase in average global surface temperature relative to pre-industrial would result by 2035?

For instance, can we build a satellite which will give us precise provable evidence of the energy from CO2 is being delivered to the surface.

Using (i) a state - of - the - art global climate model and (ii) a low - order energy balance model, we show that the global climate feedback is fundamentally linked to the geographic pattern of regional climate feedbacks and the geographic pattern of surface warming at any given time.

The essence of the greenhouse effect is that the atmosphere inhibits energy loss (to space) so that for a given rate of solar energy input, the temperature of the surface has to be greater in order to allow the necessary amount of heat to be lost per unit time.

Assuming the IEO2011 Reference case of «1 trillion metric tons of additional cumulative energy - related carbon dioxide emissions between 2009 and 2035», and given that this case equates to following RCP8.5 until 2035 as previously demonstrated @ 408, what increase in average global surface temperature relative to pre-industrial would result by 2035?

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.

National headlines accompanied the controversial use of sacred tribal lands for a proposed energy pipeline, while recent proposals have surfaced that would give away federally owned and protected land to states.

The implication is that when you dump more GHG in the atmosphere but don't give the ocean time to warm up, then the atmosphere needs to warm up until the sum of the energy lost to space and the energy lost to the ocean surface comes back into balance.

«Applying a 3.6 % cloud reflectivity perturbation to the shortwave energy balance partitioning given by Trenberth et al. (2009) corresponds to an increase of 2.7 Wm ⁻² of solar energy reaching the Earth's surface and an increase of 2.4 Wm ⁻² absorbed by the surface.»

The surface layer warms up during the day if in sunlight and radiates day and night to give up the energy it has taken in.

A stronger gravitational field will produce a lower, denser, warmer surface than a weaker gravitational field since the amount of solar energy retained by the atmosphere will be focused into a smaller volume and that amount of energy will be determined by the amount of mass available to absorb it at any given level of solar irradiation.

The error bars about the limitations of the measuring systems, but given that solar at TOA is very stable, if you claim that energy is not reaching the surface, then the imbalance is being stored in the atmosphere.

Given the dimensions involved (surface to TOA times the speed of light = a few (or possibly tens of) milliseconds) this delay as the energy flows through the system multiple times at nearly the speed of light does not emulate the effects of a thermal insulator which actually slows the velocity (rate of forward progress, distance travelled per unit time, etc.).

Note that the mass (m) of the atmosphere remains the same, surface pressure (P) remains the same at a given strength of gravitational field whatever the volume of an atmosphere and kinetic energy (T) for the atmosphere as a whole stays the same because no additional energy is being added to the system from outside.

Such lulls in solar activity, which can cause the total amount of energy given off by the Sun to decrease by about a tenth of a percent, typically spur surface temperature to dip slightly.

If you can follow the math in the link given, you find we are invoking an integration over the bounding surface of a 3 - dimensional object on which there are only two regions through which energy may enter or depart.

Now the Albedo (backradiation into space, energy losses) has to be subtracted with 30 % and the IPCC gives the figure of 242 W / sqm on the Earth» surface received and worked into the climate system after subtraction of the albedo.....

Give me one good reason why the ocean surface at, say 18C would not transfer thermal energy to colder regions below.

But the utter incoherence of views presented by deniers gives the game away even so (it's cooling, it's warming but the sun is responsible, it's warming but some unknown natural cycle is responsible, the «greenhouse» effect violates the laws of thermodynamics, but somehow the energy radiated back to the surface by the atmosphere simply vanishes, there is a greenhouse effect but negative feed - backs make it negligible, & c ad nauseam).

Where S is the solar constant of 1370 W / m ^ 2 on the projected area (PI * r ^ 2) of the earth, which when divided by 4 gives the solar energy per m ^ 2 on the spherical surface area (4PI * r ^ 2) of the earth.

Average values of the different terms in the energy budgets of the atmosphere and surface are given in the diagram.

That shortwave, mainly visible, is the claimed AGW Greenhouse Effect «standard energy from the Sun heating the Earth's surface» is ubiquitous, you're going to have to eliminate every text book mentioning this, every page on the net, every paper written in the last few decades where using this fake fisics basic is taken as a given...

Although it is a very minor part of the global energy system — a quick aside on surface temperature is useful given the undue attention it receives.

Trenberth's energy budget schematic appears to claim a quite assymmetrical atmospheric radiation distribution; since he gives an outgoing longwave flux of 235 W / m ^ 2 of which 40 W / m ^ 2 is actually a direct path from the surface; not an atmospheric radiation.

The surface temperature response, T, to a given change in atmospheric CO2 is calculated from an energy balance equation for the surface, with heat removed either by a radiative damping term or by diffusion into the deep ocean.

For Velasco et al.'s purposes, the state of a molecule is totally defined by its location and momentum, and the state of an ensemble of molecules is the combination of the individual molecules» states: for an ideal - gas ensemble consisting of N monatomic molecules, each of which is characterized by x, y, and z components both of position and of momentum, the ensemble's state can be represented by a point in 6N space, in which a surface I think of as a hyperparaboloid represents the states that exhibit a given total (potential + kinetic) energy.

So it's all gases at greatest density will be doing the same thing around the planet at the same time (*) and as these change with differences in density in the play between gravity and pressure and kinetic and potential from greatest near the surface to more rarified, less dense and absent any kinetic to write home about the higher one goes, then, energy conservation intact, the hotter will rise and cool because losing kinetic energy means losing temperature, thus cooling they which began with the closest in density and kinetic energy as a sort of band of brothers near the surface will rise and cool at the same time whereupon they'll all come down together colder but wiser that great heights don't make for more comfort and giving up their heat will sink displacing the hotter now in their place when they first went travelling.

e) That a warmer ocean surface increases the surface / space temperature differential yet does not give rise to a significant increase in loss of energy to space.

Another point is that, in concert with Rob Ellison, you overlook the fact that only about 50 % of the Earth's surface area is receiving energy from the Sun at any given time, whereas 100 % is emitting energy.

Another interpretation is that given a certain energy imbalance at the top of atmosphere, if the heat is not manifested as surface temperature rise then it goes elsewhere.

The TOA imbalance minus the net surface flux (from * all * fluxes, latent, radiative, etc.) gives the rate of change of the atmospheric energy content.

Theorem: The steady - state dissipation of a thermodynamic system due to an energy flux between two isothermal surfaces equals the maximum rate of work possible for a Carnot engine operating between these same temperatures given the same energy input.

Somewhere along the gradient (the surface if all outgoing energy directly radiated to space, or the AVERAGE altitude of outgoing to incoming energy balance for a real atmosphere), an absolute temperature has to be determined to give the rest of the slope actual temperatures.

Most of the «future» effect is already «dialed in», it is the observation of delayed effect that is being given «regard» as a «greenhouse issue», even as the «greenhouse effect» is seen as not possible, or that «greenhouse warming amplification» is not evidenced within possible surface incident energy (as Photons).

Let us assume a «natural» function, F (x, y, z, t) which describes the pattern of isothermal surfaces which would be expected in a given space, due solely to non anthropogenic energy flows.

Other characteristics of the Earth will affect the net position such as the distribution of the land and sea surfaces but given the predominance of ocean surfaces and the fact that most energy comes in at the equator which is mostly oceanic then it seems most likely that the net global effect of more greenhouse gases is actually a miniscule cooling rather than a miniscule warming.

So, we then have the solar input passing straight through yet a further 33 being recycled up and down through the atmosphere which gives a warmer surface but no change in top of atmosphere energy balance.