Sentences with phrase «how radiation effects»

Not exact matches

How about cosmic microwave background radiation, time dilation in supernovae light curves, the Hubble deep field, the Sunyaev - Zel «dovich effect, the Integrated Sachs - Wolfe effect, the hom.ogeneity of stars and galaxies, etc, etc...

Chemotherapy and radiation can cause devastating side effects to children, and it's not clear how beneficial the treatments are for this disease.

Investigating how space radiation affects astronauts and learning ways to mitigate those effects are critical to further human exploration of space, and NASA needs to consider these risks as it plans for missions to Mars and beyond.

But if it interacted with radiation in the early universe, it could have an effect similar to that of relativistic particles, changing how the energy in the early universe is divided up among its components.

As a result, changes in Antarctic clouds, such as the amount of ground they cover or how much radiation they absorb, can have ripple effects as far away as the tropics.

At 3 p.m. on Thursday, join Florida State University geochemist William Burnett to chat about how radiation can affect ocean chemistry and its possible effects on marine ecology.

Morever, larger trees transpire, or release, more water into the atmosphere, cooling the land and supporting cloud formation, which effects how much solar radiation is reflected back to space and impacts precipitation.

By obtaining continuous estimates of how much surface solar radiation would have occurred had clouds not been present, they were able to determine the effect of clouds on the solar radiation reaching the surface.

In this case, there are serious questions about radiation, its effects on the body and how to protect oneself in both the short and long term, provoking an unnecessary run on...

Basic Radiation Calculations The foundation of any calculation of the greenhouse effect was a description of how radiation and heat move through a slice of the atmosphere.

We know how much radiation comes from the sun, and we know the effects of CO2, but there are pretty large error bars on aerosols that this mission could help with.

Here's a hint: begins with a G. 3) So after all that blabing about moon, mercury and venus it is still hard to see how the obscure part of Venus (which is not recieving any direct radiation from the Sun) is still over 400 Celcius when on a plante much closer to the same sun temperatures plunge to a a hundred negative... since the Greenhouse effect does not exist it must be MAGIC, pardon me, SCIENCE.

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).

The obvious conclusion is that if we are significantly changing how the planet atmosphere absorbs radiation and we don't have a clue about the effects, then we should be very afraid.

The best papers I've read (so far) that seek to explain how things like the DALR and wet air lapse rates effect the actual transport of heat from the solar - heated surface and atmosphere to where it is ultimately lost via radiation are really quite good.

We know with absolute certainty that a doubling of CO2 can produce no more than half a degree C (actually the number is a lot closer to 0.3 °C) because the 14.77 micron band of the Earth's radiation is already so close to saturation that there is not enough energy left in this band to have any further significant effect regardless of how much the CO2 concentration increases.

Optical depth is a measure of how opaque the atmosphere is to long - wave radiation, and so is a measure of the strength of the greenhouse effect.

You can come up with numbers like 7 C by seeing how much effect removing CO2 has on the outgoing radiation, which is 27 W / m2 for a standard sounding, equating to needing 7 degrees cooling to restore the balance.

Axel Kleidon and Maik Renner of the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry in Jena, Germany, used a simple energy balance model to determine how sensitive the water cycle is to an increase in surface temperature due to a stronger greenhouse effect and to an increase in solar radiation.

When Eli last left the bunnies, he was pointing out how gravity explains much of the greenhouse effect, well, except for the part that you need some things in the atmosphere that absorb IR radiation from the surface.

This is how I see the logic behind your description of the effect of evaporation on the cooling of the ocean and the interaction between evaporation and back radiation, but maybe I have misunderstood all the thing.

The model was designed to illustrate one single characteristic of CO2, that being how it reacts with long wave radiation in the context of the «greenhouse effect».

Notice how the two fainter lines at the top are the separate effects of the warmer surface and the higher atmospheric temperature creating more longwave radiation.

An increase in DLR DIRECTLY effects the amount of radiation the ocean radiates and hence how quickly it cools.

Thus solar activity has associated positive feedback when more active and negative feedback when less active, dramatically magnifying Earth's thermal response to changes in solar activity and explaining how fractions of Wm - 2 change in direct solar radiation translate to many Wm - 2 effect between positive and negative phases of relative solar activity.

If we don't understand the total effect of thermal radiation then how can we understand the bigger picture?

What is a good source to explain the very basics of radiation effects of how greenhouse gases trap heat?

Also, since you agree with P&O's description of how the greenhouse effect works (i.e. downward long - wave radiation warms the lower atmosphere and the ground), will you retract statements like the following «-LSB-...] I demonstrate that the down - welling radiation hypothesis divulged by the proponents of the anthropogenic global warming [is] incompatible with the laws of thermodynamics.»

See Figure 9.3 in the IPCC for the shortwave radiation effects as a result of Pinatubo and how the simulations that included Pinatubo correctly modeled the shortwave radiation effects as a result of aerosols.

Also, since you agree with P&O's description of how the greenhouse effect works (i.e. downward long - wave radiation warms the lower atmosphere and the ground), will you retract statements like the following «-LSB-...]