Sentences with phrase «much radiation they emitted»

This is why (absent sufficient solar or other non-LW heating) the skin temperature is lower than the effective radiating temperature of the planet (in analogy to the sun, the SW radiation from the sun is like the LW radiation, and the direct «solar heating» of the part of the atmosphere above the photosphere may have to due with electromagnetic effects (as in macroscopic plasmas and fields, not so much radiation emitted as a function of temperature).

Not exact matches

The Sun is close to being a «black body» — that is, the light it emits is very much like that from a hypothetical black surface that absorbs all the radiation falling on it.

The reactors spewed just a tenth of the radiation emitted by the Chernobyl disaster, winds blew much of that out to sea, and evacuations were swift.

The actual data did not look like much, mostly line graphs showing the intensity of radiation emitted by the stars at various wavelengths, but the meaning hidden behind those numbers had us talking all at once, lost in the fever of discovery.

The UV LED device also emits a much narrower band of UVB light and thereby decreasing likelihood of skin damage that can occur when the skin is exposed to higher wavelengths of UV radiation.

The higher it is, the more intense the radiation is, just like a hot bar of metal emits much more heat than a cold one.

To determine the location of a star's habitable zone, one must first learn how much total radiation it emits.

The same may be required of some of the equipment used in drilling, which can eventually emit much higher levels of radiation than the water itself.

Webb's giant sunshield will protect it from stray heat and light, while its large mirror enables it to effectively capture infrared light, bringing us the clearest picture ever of space objects that emit this invisible radiation beyond the red end of the visible spectrum — early galaxies, infant stars, clouds of gas and dust, and much more.

Life could eventually spread farther when such stars evolve pass their flare stage, since spectral - type M stars emit much less ultraviolet radiation once they quiet down.

That the nebula is so much brighter than the star shows that the star emits primarily highly energetic radiation of the non-visible part of the electro - magnetic spectrum, which is absorbed by exciting the nebula's gas, and re-emitted by the nebula, at last to a good part in the visible light.

This star, found in the constellation of Pegasus, is much more like our Sun with respect to its temperature, size, rotation speed and emitted radiation.

However, scientists have observed that the radiation being emitted by the accretion disk around Sagittarius A * is much less than one would expect.

Isn't one important feature of cooling the stratosphere by emitting heat absorbed by ozone from incoming shortwave radiation, that this cooling has little effect on lower parts of the atmosphere since there is not much mixing between these air masses?

Barton, For the atmosphere to be in thermodynamic equilibrium, the greenhouse gases must be emitting as much radiation as they absorb.

What other things in the Earth system will change when it warms up that will affect how much SW radiation is reflected back into space [eg ice - albedo feedback, cloud changes] or affect what proportion of emitted LW radiation is allowed to escape to space [eg Water Vapour, cloud changes].

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.

A huge laser delivers a large amount of energy in a short time to heat the walls of the larger chamber, and the radiation emitted from those walls in turn drives the small capsule to a very small size, increasing the density of the gases inside to much higher density than lead and heating it at the same time to very high temperatures required for fusion to occur.

So actually the local radiation field is much simpler that what you're trying to describe: in the transparent windows, it's just the emitted intensity from the source (sun + ground), and in the opaque lines, it is nearly isotropic with the excitation temperature of the molecules close to the local kinetic temperature if collisions are numerous enough, with a small anisotropy linked to the net radiation flux.

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).

Why is this so much warmer than the 255 K effective temperature of the thermal radiation emitted to space?

Miskolczi's optical thickness is how much of the surface emitted IR radiation reaches the top untouched and is equivalent to 15 %.

graph 2 «99 % of sun's radiation fall between 0.2 — 5.6 um; 80 % — 0.4 — 1.5 um» and those wavelengths have an energy peaking at 10 ^ 9 times as much energy at the visible wavelengths compared to the peak energy of the infrared wavelengths emitted by the earth.

Much of our knowledge about the atmosphere is obtained from observing the radiation it emits, using satellites that orbit the earth in space.

Effectively, infrared radiation emitted to space originates from an altitude with a temperature of, on average, — 19 °C, in balance with the net incoming solar radiation, whereas the Earth's surface is kept at a much higher temperature of, on average, +14 °C.

This much is true, and the only way that this imbalance will be eliminated will be for the Earth to heat up sufficiently that the rate at which thermal radiation is emitted will compensate for the increased opacity of the atmosphere to thermal radiation.

The Earth is much cooler than the Sun, this means that the energy re-emitted from the Earth's surface is lower in intensity than that emitted from the Sun, i.e. in the form of invisible infra - red (IR) radiation.

In other words CO2 which absorbs strongly the 15µ IR, will emit strongly almost exactly as much 15 µ radiation as it absorbs.

«The top - of - atmosphere (TOA) Earth radiation budget (ERB) is determined from the difference between how much energy is absorbed and emitted by the planet.

Much of this IR is at wavelengths at which other atmospheric constituents do not interact, so if CO2 is exposed to a warmer surface like the earth, it will absorb radiation that would otherwise pass through into the cold of space AND likewise if CO2 is exposed to the cool of outer space it will emit vast quantities of IR at wavelengths which other gases can not emit.

Rich In other words CO2 which absorbs strongly the 15µ IR, will emit strongly almost exactly as much 15 µ radiation as it absorbs.

Each higher and cooler layer in turn emits thermal radiation corresponding to its temperature; and much of that also escapes directly to space around the absorption bands of the higher atmosphere layers; and so on; so that the total LWIR emission from the earth should then be a composite of roughly BB spectra but with source temepratures ranging ove the entire surface Temeprature range, as well as the range of atmospheric emitting Temperatures.

Then that lowest atmosphere layer emit and a 50 - 50 split sends it half up and half down; and the up ward is again absorbed by a higher and now cooler layer; which in turn emits but now at a lower temperature; until finally some much higher and much cooler layer gets to emit radiation that actually escapes to space and that radiating temperature is the one that must balance with the incoming TSI insolation rate.

CO2 (which doesn't contribute much to the heating because it doesn't absorb in UV wavelengths) facilitates cooling by virtue of its ability to emit infrared radiation to space in proportion to local temperature.

What I think you meant is that at equilibrium they absorb exactly as much radiation from each other as they emit to each other, so there is no net flow of heat.

Lost vegetation creates hotter surfaces that not only heat the air more severely during the day but also emit much more infrared radiation at night.

It stands to reason that if a human optimum emites 100w / m2 of radiation through a duration, that earth is emitting much less per square metre.

But there may be a difference in how much energy is emitted as radiation versus hot gas.

The shell will still have to emit the total radiation of the planet to space, but the planet will not be warmed as much by the radiation of the shell.

However, once equilibrium is as close as it can be then theoretically, re-radiation should occur at night, or at the point when the temperature goes down, and presumably this is where the greenhouse effect should be felt the most — yet matter emits heat very quickly — and quickly thermalise to new temperatures, so as not to give off that much radiation.

One particularly thorny aspect of the MJO is determining how much heat is transferred between the ocean and throughout the atmosphere by convection and how much heat is absorbed or emitted in the form of radiation.

Greenhouse gases allow much of the Sun's shortwave radiation to pass through them but absorb or trap the longwave, infrared radiation emitted by the Earth's surface.

If you used a parabolic mirror aimed at a warm wall to heat water you could heat it to the temperature of the wall then the heating stops because the object being heated, now at the same temperature as the heat source, emits back as much radiation as it receives.

(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.

By capturing thermal radiation (heat energy emitted from the earth's surface components and re radiating it in all directions — part of the same process that is accepted (somewhat like the «earth revolves around the sun accepted») to keep the planet much warmer than it would otherwise be in the absence of any of these molecules — it actually «cools.»

EVEN IF we attribute ALL that radiation between 8 - 14 um to N2 & O2, the much more common N2 & O2 molecules are emitting much less energy.

* 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).

The temperature determines how much long wave IR radiation is emitted by the surface and greenhouse gases.