Sentences with phrase «less radiation back»

Not exact matches

«Maybe people could control robotic machines from Jupiter's outer moon Callisto, where the radiation is much less powerful, especially on its back side,» Martin suggests.

«Reduce the water vapor and you have less long - wave radiation coming back down to warm the troposphere,» Rosenlof says.

First, they reflect a certain fraction of radiation back into space, which means that the earth receives less of the sun's energy.

To a much lesser extent, aerosols also absorb infrared radiation reflected back from the ground.

Storm clouds play a big role in keeping the planet cool by reflecting heat back into space — but they're not as effective farther north or south, where there's less solar radiation anyway.

''... Satellite measurements confirm less longwave radiation is escaping to space... Surface measurements find more longwave radiation returning back to Earth at these same wavelengths.»

While other greenhouse gases make up less of the atmosphere, they account for about 40 percent of the greenhouse gas radiation sent back to Earth.

1) Greenhouse gasses absorb infrared radiation in the atmosphere and re-emit much of it back toward the surface, thus warming the planet (less heat escapes; Fourier, 1824).

This is reflected in radiation trends of 5 W / m2 IR radiation back to space and 2 W / m2 less reflection of sunlight for the period 1985 - 2000, which results in 3 W / m2 net loss to space.

Now, when the energy received directly from the Sun at the surface of Venus is less than 10 % of what we receive on Earth, then there is less than 10 % coming back as back radiation — far less in fact.

To me, it is more likely the fluctuation in E-UV coming from the sun that causes the warming and cooling effects by changing the reactions that are happening on TOA, i.e. O3, HxOx and NOx are rising now, causing more back radiation of F - UV, meaning less energy going in the oceans.

The back - radiation explanation of the greenhouse effect that people used to prefer until recently is less satisfactory because it has the kinds of problems I pointed out 16 months ago in an article on this blog, which was received at the time with only slightly more enthusiasm than Galileo's heliocentric account of planetary motions: at least no one suggested I be placed under house arrest for it!

The effect of that is less solar radiation being reflected away back into the space and that is what causes the temperature of the Earth's surface to rise.

''... Satellite measurements confirm less longwave radiation is escaping to space... Surface measurements find more longwave radiation returning back to Earth at these same wavelengths.»

More radiation is directed back towards the surface, less makes it up into the upper atmosphere.

The back - radiation can not be more energetic than the source, and in fact, must be of lesser energetic state than the original source»

The back - radiation can not be more energetic than the source, and in fact, must be of lesser energetic state than the original source, for it has shed some energy by collision with other forms of matter (absorbed, re-radiated, etc...).

The resulting cold conditions around the world led to less longwave radiation back to space, and less convection and fewer clouds over the Pacific leading to increase absorbed solar radiation.

So, to repeat, any warming caused by back - radiation will never warm the earth more (usually less) than the degree to which it was initially warmed by the sun, before it radiated heat away.

For this reason, the shell will receive less W / sqm from Earth radiation than is emitted by the surface, because the radiation will spread out by the inverse square law just as sunlight gets less intense the further from the sun you get, and the shell will radiate more to space than back to Earth.

However, if the model doesn't contain mistakes, at least I have provided more support for Hypothesis C — that the back radiation absorbed in the very surface of the ocean can change the temperature of the ocean below, and demonstrated that Hypothesis B is less likely.

I understand therefore their results so that with the 100 W / m ^ 2 greater back radiation the upper ocean layer «works» in one regime around some mean value of the surface skin layer while under the sunny day with less back radiation the same layer oscillates around another mean value of the surface layer.

So, the Sun heats the ocean, but it heats it more because of the warming effect of the back radiation makes the ocean's cooling less efficient.

Call it «less cooling» or «back radiation» or «invisible pajamas» but the measurements and the math arrive at the same conclusion.

The back radiation from the atmosphere must be less than the original 184 w from the sun.

So, the «back radiation» from the greenhouse gas can only heat the surface (at best) to less than the surface radiating temperature which «warmed» the greenhouse gas.

Both terms, down welling and back radiation, seem less than appropriate to me.

In the second example, an empty lunar lander cools off to less than of liquid nitrogen to -226.4 °C in 50 seconds, all due to the effects your view of «back radiation».

Where there is no solar radiation, thesurface energy balance shows that the back radiation is less than the heat loss due to emission, evaporation and convection.Hence the surface temperature and evaporation rate are lower.

While other greenhouse gases make up less of the atmosphere, they account for about 40 percent of the greenhouse gas radiation sent back to Earth.