Sentences with phrase «more radiation from the atmosphere»

Not exact matches

When the team looked at the overall balance between the radiation upward from the surface of the ice sheet and the radiation both upward and downward from the upper levels of the atmosphere across all infrared wavelengths over the course of a year, they found that in central Antarctica the surface and lower atmosphere, against expectation, actually lose more energy to space if the air contains greenhouse gases, the researchers report online and in a forthcoming Geophysical Research Letters.

Geoengineering schemes use two ways to offset this process: They either remove the gases from the atmosphere, allowing more radiation to exit, or deflect a portion of the sun's light — about 1.8 percent should do the trick — reducing the amount of radiation absorbed by the earth.

Now, a new study suggests that one such «coronal mass ejection» in 2015 temporarily weakened Earth's protective magnetic field, allowing solar plasma and radiation from the same storm to more easily reach the atmosphere, potentially posing a danger to astronauts.

This weakened shielding would have allowed more energetic particles into the upper atmosphere, which would have begun to break down the ozone layer that protects Earth from harmful UV radiation, Meert says.

But some regions may become redder and darker than others because parts of the atmosphere collapse, exposing those spots to more surface - darkening radiation from space, researchers report March 22 at the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in The Woodlands, Texas.

As less radiation reaches the surface, the atmosphere may become more stable and clouds more persistent than usual, and less water will evaporate from the surface, a finding corroborated by Qian's China study.

Under ultraviolet light examination, transient dark and bright stripes mark Venus» atmosphere, indicating regions where Solar ultraviolet radiation is either absorbed or reflected, respectively (more from Venus Express and APOD).

First of all, it provides shelter from radiation, but more importantly it protects the atmosphere and oceans.

Surface radiative energy budget plays an important role in the Arctic, which is covered by snow and ice: when the balance is positive, more solar radiation from the Sun and the Earth's atmosphere arrives on the Earth's surface than is emitted from it.

BPL: We know from radiation physics that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, therefore putting more in the atmosphere should cause warming.

What the CO2 (both «cold, hot and warm CO2 ′) and other gasses do is to make the atmosphere more optically thick to thermal IR radiation emitted (mainly) from the Earth's surface [note2] which has consequences for the equilibrium temperature profile of the atmosphere.

Less TOA cooling will occur if bands are placed where, in the upper atmosphere or near TOA, they absorb more of the increases in radiation from below from surface + tropospheric (+ lower stratospheric) warming.

More importantly, it isn't just the surface that is adjusting its outgoing radiation to the increased CO2, but the entire troposphere, and most of that radiation is emanating from the high atmosphere.

In the atmosphere, a portion of the nitrogen winds up as nitrous oxide — laughing gas — which is not only a greenhouse gas that is 300 times more potent that carbon dioxide, but also destroys ozone, the gas that keeps us from getting more of a dose of UV radiation.

The effect of more CO2 is an insignificant increase in the radiation emitted from the coldest, lowest radiance layer of the atmosphere, «too tiny to matter.»

Increased amounts of gases such as carbon dioxide make the atmosphere absorb long - wavelength radiation from the surface more strongly and also emit more radiation back down towards the surface.

The spacecraft's Atmospheric Infrared Sounder, an instrument that measures infrared heat radiation as it leaves the atmosphere, is expected to provide vastly more and better temperature and humidity readings worldwide than are available now from weather satellites and other sources.

The more important parts concern the radiation from atmosphere (both from gases and from clouds).

The full picture is a bit more complex as some radiation can escape to space from all altitudes of the atmosphere and the surface.

This is about the radiation from the Earth to space, which is prevented by the atmosphere's greenhouse gases, and as we pour more and more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, less energy will be sent into space.

No publication discusses a greenhouse effect specifically at the poles, so don't bother me with links to all the «runaway greenhouse» garbage (which I've studied for thousands of hours) because there's only 1W / m ^ 2 going in from the Sun, and so no more coming out into the atmosphere, and so no more coming down again as back radiation.

The warmer body cools more slowly as a result because a ready source of energy from incident radiation is quicker to just «reflect» back into the atmosphere, rather than have to convert its own thermal energy to radiated energy.

According to their modeling studies, the difference in the amount of incoming solar radiation, in this case, primarily in the ultraviolet (UV) wavelengths, during the minima and maxima of the 11 - yr solar cycle are large enough to produce a characteristic change in the winter circulation pattern of the atmosphere over North America... When the NAO is in its negative phase, more cold air can seep south from the Arctic and impact the lower latitudes of Europe and the eastern U.S., which helps spin up winter storm systems.

If almost all of the heat transfer from surface to upper atmosphere is by convection, then you can change anything you want about the radiation system, more GHG, less, it won't matter.

A sea surface temperature increase in the tropics would result in reduced cirrus clouds and thus more infrared radiation leakage from Earth's atmosphere.

If CO2 and H2O molecules now are cooled below the previous equilibrium point by having their radiation allowed to escape to outer space, then I believe these molecules must then tend to absorb more energy than yield energy with each interaction with the other components of the atmosphere until that atmosphere as a whole reaches a new thermal equilibrium where the net radiation going out and the net radiation coming in (primarily from the sun and the surrounding atmosphere) is the same.

The third experiment would explore the potential for making cirrus clouds in the upper atmosphere more porous to radiation bouncing back into space from Earth.

I agree with a lot of your assertions, e.g. the practical irrelevance of the adiabatic and hence essentially reversible ALR — the only mechanism that actually cools the atmosphere (permanently removes heat from it) is radiation, and that occurs in the upper troposphere where the atmosphere ceases to be opaque to e.g. LWIR (although it is more complex than this, this process occurs in depth and at different depths in different frequencies).

When you add GHGs to the atmosphere, it both emits more radiation towards space and earth and absorbs more radiation mostly from earth.

For example, in a warmer climate, more water vapor is evaporated into the atmosphere and since water vapor is a greenhouse gas in the sense of absorbing IR radiation, this is a positive feedback, in essence increasing the W / m ^ 2 from that due to CO2 alone.

The report, considerably more cautious, describes geoengineering as one element of a «portfolio of responses» to climate change and examines the prospects of two approaches — removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and enveloping the planet in a layer of sulfate particles to reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface.

The gas which absorbs the most heat (infrared radiation) is the most effective greenhouse gas as in the atmosphere it would absorb more infrared coming from the Earth's 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...

Net result of all this Photon energy from 15um Earth surface up going to increase in temperature of atmosphere and increasingly more radiation in wavelengths > 15um.

Otherwise, such a hypothesis does not even satisfy the First Law of Thermodynamics (basically, conservation of energy): Without substances in the atmosphere that absorb terrestrial radiation, the earth's surface at its present temperature would be emitting back out into space way more energy than it receives from the sun and hence would rapidly cool down.

But there's a much more radiation going in the opposite direction, from surface to atmosphere, so in terms of net heat flow, surface heats atmosphere.

All the energy stored in the atmosphere is sensible heat above the top of the troposphere, and increasing the CO2 content there increases the amount of radiation to space more than it increases the likelihood of absorption of IR from below, so the stratosphere cools — this has been observed.

Or demonstrate that the atmosphere is much more opaque than has currently been calculated (for all of the downward atmospheric radiation to take place from within a few tens of meters of the surface).

Such an increase is seen in the reanalyses, and the outgoing long - wave radiation has become more diffuse over time, consistent with an increased influence of greenhouse gases on the vertical energy flow from the surface to the top of the atmosphere.

That means that newly emitted longwave radiation from the Earth's surface will spend more time in the lower reaches of the Atmosphere and therefore contribute to heating the N2 and O2 and other components of the air more than before.

* The ground is a little warmer than the atmosphere, so that factor will mean some more photons going up than down (but since the back radiation is mostly from low layers, the atmosphere emitting the back radiation will not be that much cooler than the land so the effect from temperature will not be TOO great) * The ground is close to a black body for IR (emissivity = 1 for all IR frequencies), but the atmosphere has bands where it does not emit or absorb well (emissivity ~ 0) and other bands where it does emit or absorb well (emissivity ~ 1).

Thus, during convection, gravity is slightly decreasing the energy of the atmosphere, by changing the radiation balance in favor of more heat loss from the descending air than rising air.

In fact, the troposphere is mostly heated by convection from the surface with radiation having a net cooling effect, so the atmosphere as a whole emits more photons to space than it gains from the ground.

The atmosphere radiates to the earth, but it is always receiving more radiation from the earth.