Sentences with phrase «more surface radiation»

More back radiation needs to be compensated for by more surface radiation.

To get more surface radiation you need to increase the temperature to generate it.

Not exact matches

Only astronauts are more exposed: Ten days in space delivers about 4.3 mSv to the skin alone, which is 4.3 years» worth of cosmic radiation on the surface of Earth.

The more highly exposed fields around Fukushima showed similar results, with most of the radiation in plants accumulated on their surfaces.

They've found that one of the biggest challenges to lunar settlement — as vexing as new rocketry or radiation — is how to live with regolith that covers virtually the entire lunar surface from a depth of7 feet to perhaps 100 feet or more.

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.

On the other hand, small stars tend to be more active than stars the size of our Sun, sending out more solar flares and potentially more radiation toward a planet's surface.

Greenland's surface is absorbing more solar radiation as melting increases grain size and brings old impurities to the surface.

Although Proxima Centauri's dimness provides the planet with a balmy climate, the star is prone to outbursts of harsh X-ray and ultraviolet radiation, which could damage any chance of life on the planet — X-rays hit the surface 400 times more often than those from the sun pummel Earth.

The larger grains create a less reflective surface that allows more solar radiation to be absorbed.

So some of the more promising surfaces are undergoing environmental durability testing in conditions that mimic rain, humidity and ultraviolet radiation.

To study such things as the structures of crystals and reactions on the surfaces of semiconductors, scientists now demand more intense beams of radiation than ever before.

An X-ray spectrometer onboard the spacecraft measured the X-ray radiation from the planet's surface, produced by solar flares on the sun, to determine the chemical composition of more than 5,800 lava deposits on Mercury's surface.

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.

After spending one year mapping Bennu's surface, OSIRIS - REx will drift down to a carefully chosen spot — within the lip of a shallow crater would make sense, since materials there are more shaded from the sun's destructive radiation.

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.

The results, said co-author and PNNL laboratory fellow Ruby Leung, «strongly suggest that increasing aerosol concentrations (particles, mainly soot and sulfur, that pollute the air) in the past has produced a fog - like haze that has reduced solar radiation (surface heat from sunshine), despite more frequent clear days that should lead to increased solar radiation.»

Method: To learn more about the amount and causes of dimming and brightening, the team analyzed incoming solar radiation collected at 12 surface sites across the United States from 1995 through 2007.

When greenhouse gases increase, more longwave radiation is directed back at the ocean surface, which warms the cool - skin layer, lowers the thermal gradient, and consequently reduces the rate of heat loss.

For example, if global warming were due to increased solar output, we would expect to see all layers of the atmosphere warm, and more warming during the day when the surface is bombarded with solar radiation than at night.

It produced radiation levels on the surface more than double any previously measured by the Curiosity rover's Radiation Assessment Detector, or RAD, since that mission's landing in 2012.

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 fSurface 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 fsurface than is emitted from it.

The best environment for such organisms, she told the UK newspaper, would be two to three meters below the planet's surface, where they are more likely to be protected from the sun's intense UV radiation.

Surface measurements find more longwave radiation returning back to Earth at these same wavelengths.

Surface measurements find more downward infrared radiation warming the planet's sSurface measurements find more downward infrared radiation warming the planet's surfacesurface.

A compilation of surface measurements of downward longwave radiation from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of more longwave radiation returning to earth, attributed to increases in air temperature, humidity and atmospheric carbon dioxide (Wang 2009).

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

Stomach cancer treatment for example may require a more invasive procedure than a small tumor on near the surface of the skin that can easily be treated with radiation.

To bring more energy into the system, that surface warming would have to cause the top - of - the - atmosphere radiation balance to change positively, but that would add to warming, amplifying the initial perturbation and leading to a runaway instability.

Lessons from simple toy models and experience with more sophisticated GCMs suggests that any perturbation to the TOA radiation budget from whatever source is a pretty good predictor of eventual surface temperature change.

I was thinking instead perhaps more easily controlled polar - orbit satellites might be used, which would rotate with some fixed ratio to their orbital period, casting greater shadows at higher latitudes... or some other arrangment... for a targetted offset polar amplification of AGW especially and in particular perhaps avoiding the reduction in precipitation that can be caused by SW - radiation - based «GE» (although aerosols that actually absorb some SW in the troposphere while shielding the surface would have the worst effect in that way, I'd think)... strategic distribution of solar shading has been suggested with precipitation effects in mind, such as here... sorry, I don't have the link (I'm sure I saved it, just as Steve Fish would suggest — but where?).

Also at the same time, the much higher daytime skin surface temperature (more than offsetting the somewhat colder night - time skin surface temperature which is often ameliorated by condensation and shallow fog layers) causes more infrared radiation to be emitted to space.

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.

The change in radiation balance is more heating of the oceans at one side (specifically high in the subtropics, as expected), but more heat released at higher altitudes, thus somewhere acting as a net negative feedback to higher sea surface temperatures.

Actually, though, most of the OLR originates from below the tropopause (can get up around 18 km in the tropics, generally lower)-- with a majority of solar radiation absorbed at the surface, a crude approximation can be made that the area emitting to space is less than 2 * (20/6371) * 100 % ~ = 0.628 % more than the area heated by the sun, so the OLR per unit area should be well within about 0.6 % of the value calculated without the Earth's curvature (I'm guessing it would actually be closer to if not less than 0.3 % different).

The effect where, adding a «new» absorption band and increasing the absorption, there may initially be warming of the colder layers, etc, followed by a stage of upper level or near - TOA cooling — this includes the warming from absorption from increased radiation from the surface + troposphere — which will be greater when more of the spectrum, especially near wavelengths where the emitted spectral flux change is greatest, has a greater amount of absorption.

The higher sea surface temperatures in the tropics (~ 0.85 K / decade in recent decades) have lead to an increase in LW (infrared) radiation, and a loss to space of some 3 W / m2 all over the tropics (50 % of the surface), which more than halves the — theoretical — global influence (~ 2.4 W / m2) of all extra GHGs together since the start of the industrial revolution.

Once the heated layer becomes more than a few centimeters thick, the heat loss of the skin layer due to downward conduction of heat by diffusion stops having any significant effect on the surface temperature, since rock is such a good insulator that the heat flux by conduction in rock is tiny compared to the heat loss by infrared radiation out the top.

Surface melt on the ice sheet is constrained by the albedo, but a lake is dark and could absorb much more solar radiation.

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).

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.

That means less radiation leaving the earth for outer space, So more energy stays in the earth atmosphere system making the surface warmer.

Dynamical upward transport by convection removes excess heat from the surface more efficiently than longwave radiation is able to accomplish in the presence of a humid, optically thick boundary layer, and deposits it in the upper troposphere where it is more easily radiated to space, thereby affecting the planetary energy balance.

``... peer reviewed science empriically shows that during the late 20th century warming there was an increase of 2.7 W / m ² to 6.8 W / m ² more solar radiation reaching the earth's surface, which was ~ 10 times greater than the increase in CO2 forcing..»

Meanwhile I've cited several that show that natural climate forcing, more solar radiation reaching the earth's surface, increased by ~ 10 times more that CO2 forcing increased during the late 20th century warming.

Darker surfaces absorb more incoming solar radiation.

Just face reality and admit that peer reviewed science empriically shows that during the late 20th century warming there was an increase of 2.7 W / m ² to 6.8 W / m ² more solar radiation reaching the earth's surface, which was ~ 10 times greater than the increase in CO2 forcing.

More seriously, there was a dependence on an S - B calculation of up - welling radiation based on the surface temperature measurement, in order to determine the net radiation.

Also during 1992 and 1993, ash and other particles from the volcano created a haze around the planet and slightly reduced the sunlight reaching Earth's surface and made the sun's radiation less direct and more diffuse.