Sentences with phrase «greater radiation heat»

Not exact matches

Incredible as it may seem, heat radiation is the greatest source of uncertainty when projecting which asteroids could hit Earth in the far future.

It creates a much greater blast effect than infrared radiation, or heat — which was the primary means of destruction from the bombs we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Superior is also warming because of a decline in cloud cover over the Great Lakes in recent years; more heat from solar radiation hits the lakes, Lenters said at a limnology meeting in Honolulu in March.

This happens in part because trees in warmer, maritime forests radiate heat in the form of long - wave radiation to a greater degree than the sky does.

It should be pointed out here, that the amount of change in downward heat radiation from changes in cloud cover in the experiment, are far greater than the gradual change in warming provided by human greenhouse gas emissions, but the relationship was nevertheless established.

Even the radiator's heat radiation cooling capacity is more than 25 percent greater than the previous Titan to help enhance performance and meet SAE J2807 compliance.

Re 9 wili — I know of a paper suggesting, as I recall, that enhanced «backradiation» (downward radiation reaching the surface emitted by the air / clouds) contributed more to Arctic amplification specifically in the cold part of the year (just to be clear, backradiation should generally increase with any warming (aside from greenhouse feedbacks) and more so with a warming due to an increase in the greenhouse effect (including feedbacks like water vapor and, if positive, clouds, though regional changes in water vapor and clouds can go against the global trend); otherwise it was always my understanding that the albedo feedback was key (while sea ice decreases so far have been more a summer phenomenon (when it would be warmer to begin with), the heat capacity of the sea prevents much temperature response, but there is a greater build up of heat from the albedo feedback, and this is released in the cold part of the year when ice forms later or would have formed or would have been thicker; the seasonal effect of reduced winter snow cover decreasing at those latitudes which still recieve sunlight in the winter would not be so delayed).

Re 346 ziarra, again: «The radiation from a cooler upper atmosphere can warm the surface because it counteracts the even greater amount of radiation in the other direction, thus reducing the net flow of heat.»

The cell also overcomes some of the major problems with current solar tech like wear out or damage from high heat that comes from the absorption of great amounts of ultraviolet and infrared radiation that can't actually be turned into electricity due to a narrow band gap (the wavelength of light that can effectively be used to generate electricity).

So if there were, say, a decadal - scale 1 % -2 % reduction in cloud cover that allowed more SW radiation to penetrate into the ocean (as has been observed since the 1980s), do you think this would have an impact of greater magnitude on the heat in the oceans than a change of, say, +10 ppm (0.00001) in the atmospheric CO2 concentration?

Thermal means «of heat», it is the direct heat energy of the Sun, transferring the Sun's great heat by radiation.

Now, look at the figures they give for the Sun's energy at TOA in KT97 and ilk — AGWSF has given the total amount of energy which includes the great heat radiation of longwave infrared to shortwaves only.

The heat capacity of the ocean is 1,000 x greater than the atmosphere, ocean is over 70 % of earth's surface and earth is warmed by radiation from sun and GHE.

The extended time during which the plant can run without solar radiation and the improved efficiency of using solar heat mean that Gemasolar's production is much greater than that which can be achieved with other technologies in an equally powerful facility.

The inflowing Pacific Waters spread across half the Arctic Ocean with a heat equivalent equal to, and up to twice as great, as possible heat estimated from CO2 back - radiation.

Urban areas are also less adept at getting rid of heat through thermal radiation because they produce a greater volume of emissions that trap the heat.

Therefore in a situation where the incoming radiation is greater than the outgoing, this must be a symptom of a change in the system (i.e. outgoing radiation is being converted to heat) and isn't the mechanism that actually instigates the change.

So there is now an increased radiation flux downward, which will heat up both the lower atmosphere and also the ground directly (if the optical depth between the photosphere and the ground is not too great).

The reason, Werner said, is because the loss of snow and ice makes the earth's surface less reflective, meaning solar radiation — or heat — is absorbed in greater amounts by the exposed dark ocean or tundra.

The atmosphere is analogous to a flexible lens that is shaped by the density distribution of the gas molecules, of the atmosphere in the space between the sphere holding them, and space; Incoming heat gets collected in many ways and places,, primarily by intermittent solar radiation gets stored, in vast quantities, and slowly but also a barrage of mass and energy fluxes from all directions; that are slowly transported great distances and to higher altitudes mostly by oceanic and atmospheric mass flows.

But the dry air column holds a lot less energy so when the sun goes down and the surface is no longer heating it through conduction and radiation the column cools rapidly hence the great diurnal temperature range of the desert and the almost total lack of diurnal temperature change over the ocean.

My field geologist gut instinct tells me that the great forcings of major glacial periods (insolation, albedo, etc.) are regional and radically focused direct surface application or radiation of extra heat as compared with the well mixed, relatively homogeneous and isotropic CO2 tropospheric increase.

What I do know is that the figures you mention that are magnitudes greater are (similar to problem 1) the result of the current heat content / temperature of the oceans and not of a forcing from something that changed the amount of SW radiation reaching the surface.

(Example: Why does a human feel comfortable naked in a room at a temperature of about ~ 25 C when, given our skin temperature, we emit radiation at a rate of several hundred Watts, much greater than our metabolic production of heat of ~ 100 W.

However, my main point was not so much about the «make up» of ozone but more about the possibility that as long as oxygen atoms and molecules absorb enough energy from UV radiation to alter their structure it may be that they also produce an increase in their heat content, which should be greater at any points nearest to the source — i.e..

Tim may have been forced into this revision since he has commented several times that radiation can not heat an object to a temperature greater than the temperature of the radiating source.