So the delta wing at the back, which also includes a split flap for pitch and roll control allows us to control the pitch angle despite having a wide range of payloads in the nose and a wide range
of atmospheric densities.
Within that range
of atmospheric density, even higher concentrations of carbon dioxide wouldn't have been adequate to counteract the faint young sun, suggesting that methane, ethane or other strong greenhouse gases kept Earth from freezing.
The corresponding working quasilinear wave equation for the barotropic azonal stream function Ψm ′ of the forced waves with m = 6, 7, and 8 (m waves) with nonzero right - hand side (forcing + eddy friction) yields (34) u˜ ∂ ∂ x (∂ 2Ψm ′ ∂ x2 + ∂ 2Ψm ′ ∂ y2) + β˜ ∂ Ψm ′ ∂ x = 2Ω sin ϕ cos2 ϕT˜u˜ ∂ Tm ′ ∂ x − 2Ω sin ϕcos2 ϕHκu˜ ∂ hor, m ∂ x − (kha2 + kzH2)(∂ 2Ψm ′ ∂ x2 + ∂ 2Ψm ′ ∂ y2), [S3] where x = aλ and y = a ln -LSB-(1 + sin ϕ) / cos ϕ] are the coordinates of the Mercator projection of Earth's sphere, with λ as the longitude, H is the characteristic value
of the atmospheric density vertical scale, T˜ is a constant reference temperature at the EBL, Tm ′ is the m component of azonal temperature at this level, u˜ = u ¯ / cos ϕ, κ is the ratio of the zonally averaged module of the geostrophic wind at the top of the PBL to that at the EBL (53), hor, m is the m component of the large - scale orography height, and kh and kz are the horizontal and vertical eddy diffusion coefficients.
Not exact matches
Based upon this, we look forward to great acceleration
of both the fundaments and the application
of atmospheric pressure low -
density plasma research.
But in the case
of atmospheric pressure low -
density plasma, due to the influences
of changes in the
atmospheric pressure in a plasma as well as around the plasma, it was difficult to accurately measure electron
density.
Differences in moisture content
of the beans,
atmospheric pressure, relative humidity, temperature,
density of the coffee, and also what flavour qualities am I looking to develop and highlight in this coffee — these are now the questions that I consider every day.
CO2 at room temperature and normal
atmospheric pressure has a
density of 1.98 g / lt.
As a result
of atmospheric turbulence and
density fluctuations, the solar light rays are refracted.
In 2003, astronomers at the University
of Texas at Arlington performed refined calculations to determine that the habitable zone around 47 Ursae Majoris, where an inner rocky planet (with suitable mass and
atmospheric gas composition and
density) can have liquid water on its surface, lies between 1.05 and 1.83 AUs
of the star.
Many
of the planets discovered by EDEN around nearby stars will be suitable for in - depth
atmospheric characterization, mass, radius, and bulk
density measurements through follow - up observations with large ground - and space - based telescopes, such as NASA's James Webb Space Telescope.
Then the scientists divided the «
atmospheric» spectrum by the star's «clean» spectrum to determine the gas composition and
density of the atmosphere at different altitudes, as well as temperatures.
Using the bright light generated by these stars, researchers will be able to use spectroscopy — a technique that measures the absorption and emission
of light — to determine a planet's mass,
density and
atmospheric composition, which could provide insights into whether or not it harbors life.
It's something
of an abstract concept, but with real world implications, and the universality
of such physical models, based on things like radiative balance,
atmospheric composition and
density, distance from the local Sun, etc., is a very strong argument in favor
of general acceptance
of the results
of climate models and observations on Earth.
I suppose that with a sufficient change in the
atmospheric density by the addition
of a gas, one might expect changes in physical processes like thermal conduction and / or advection to make a difference but that isn't what the engineer was claiming by my reading.
Re 423 Chris G — whether the effect saturates at a given
density depends on the way the temperature is distributed; if the temperature from TOA downward is isothermal for a sufficient thickness, than the effect could be saturated at TOA (if starting from a large enough optical thickness per unit
atmospheric mass path, a change in the
density of the gas / etc that contributes optical thickness would then have little to no effect on the flux at TOA, which is what is meant by saturation.
The fundamental point is that the total
atmospheric warming arising as a result
of the
density of the atmosphere is a once and for all netting out
of all the truly astronomic number
of radiant energy / molecule encounters throughout the atmosphere.
i) CO2 and other trace gases are too small a proportion
of the atmosphere to make a significant difference to overall
atmospheric density even if their volumes were to be multiplied many times over.
The only things that can change that resultant point
of temperature equilibrium are changes in solar radiance coming in or changes in overall
atmospheric density which affect the radiant energy going out.
On Earth the proportion
of CO2 is so small that it can not affect overall
atmospheric density even if it increases by many multiples
of the current level.
Due to the huge volume
of sea water and the
density differentials between air and ocean that would be impossible or would require such huge amounts
of atmospheric heating and such huge lengths
of time that for practical purposes it should be ignored.
The atmosphere
of Venus is mostly CO2 but the
atmospheric heat arises as a result
of the mass and
density of the Venusian atmosphere (apparently more than 90 times that
of the Earth) not just the absorption characteristics
of CO2.
Some changes occurring are
atmospheric density changes which would effect the insulation value
of the atmosphere.
The speed
of release is again dictated by overall
atmospheric density because greater
density renders it less likely that the neighbouring molecules are cool enough for a release
of radiant energy to occur.
The fundamental point is that the total
atmospheric warming arising as a result
of the
density of the atmosphere is a once and for all netting out
of all the truly astronomic number
of energy / molecule encounters throughout the atmosphere.
The only things that can change that resultant point
of temperature equilibrium significantly are changes in solar radiance coming in and changes in overall
atmospheric density (a function
of mass and pressure) which affect the radiant energy going out or a change in the speed
of the water cycle which, because
of the unique characteristics
of the phase changes
of water altering the speed
of energy flow through the system is capable
of exerting a powerful regulatory effect.
I have met people who responded to the usual line about ships vanishing over the horizon by talking about
atmospheric refraction, and that the rays
of light were curved in the
atmospheric density gradient.
Mate, the decreased oxygen content at altitude is a function
of decreased
density, not
of changed
atmospheric composition.
For example, let's say that evidence convinced me (in a way that I wasn't convinced previously) that all recent changes in land surface temperatures and sea surface temperatures and
atmospheric temperatures and deep sea temperatures and sea ice extent and sea ice volume and sea ice
density and moisture content in the air and cloud coverage and rainfall and measures
of extreme weather were all directly tied to internal natural variability, and that I can now see that as the result
of a statistical modeling
of the trends as associated with natural phenomena.
Lauri — Nice summary I am yet to find any detailed discussion
of the CO2
atmospheric DENSITY during the transition from glacial to interglacial.
However, I have argued elsewhere, that because
of both temperature and
density gradients, the escape path to space is favored over the return path to the surface; because
of re-absorption in subsequent
atmospheric layers.
The RAPIDITY
of that «field reduction», if sufficient, would create a «surface pressure boil» increasing «
atmospheric density / mass» able to support higher store
of kinetic energy.
There is, however, a large global marine current resource potential which possesses a number
of advantages over other renewables, such as its higher energy
density, highly predictable power outputs, independence from extreme
atmospheric fluctuations and a zero or minimal visual impact.
The distinguishing premise is that the bulk part
of a planetary GE depends on its
atmospheric surface mass
density.
The atmosphere is analogous to a flexible lens that is shaped by the
density distribution
of the gas molecules,
of the atmosphere in the space between the sphere holding them, and space; Incoming heat gets collected in many ways and places,, primarily by intermittent solar radiation gets stored, in vast quantities, and slowly but also a barrage
of mass and energy fluxes from all directions; that are slowly transported great distances and to higher altitudes mostly by oceanic and
atmospheric mass flows.
It would certainly depend somewhat on pressure, because
atmospheric density depends on pressure, and the actual heat capacity
of the atmosphere where it picks up heat from the ground would therefore depend on pressure.
(Lapse rate based primarily on
atmospheric density) Yes,
of couse convection, evaporation, and relative conduction spreads would continuesly conduct said atmosphere.
For us, one
of the most fascinating findings
of this analysis is that the
atmospheric temperature profiles from the boundary layer to the middle
of the stratosphere can be so well described in terms
of just two or three distinct regions, each
of which has an almost linear relationship between molar
density and pressure.
The areal difference between the mesopause and «surface» is 3.1 percent, due to the
atmospheric transparency and
density gradient, the effective «day»
of the middle atmosphere is 1 to 2 hours longer than a «surface» day.
Volcanic activity puts a great number
of gaseous materials into the atmosphere so any warming as a result
of severe volcanic events would be more likely a result
of increasing overall
atmospheric density rather than just being attributable to CO2 emissions.
I did not read that «the idea that gravity by itself can create a permanent gradient
of temperature in an atmosphere» other then the idea that
atmospheric density by itself creates greater heat capacity, thus a longer residence time for energy to saturate while insolation continues unabated.
And yet as one decends into any atmosphere
of any planetary body after the
atmospheric density surpasss a given point temperature rises with pressure.
It is the strength
of the gravitational field acting with
atmospheric mass and total system energy input that determines the relevant pressures,
densities heights and temperatures for the phase changes.
Stomatal
density and stomatal index
of many species respond to
atmospheric CO2 (Woodward, 1987; Woodward and Bazzaz, 1988) but are influenced by other environmental variables as well (Poole et al., 1996).
In fact,
atmospheric density is far more important than the proportion
of CO2 in dictating the strength
of a planet's
atmospheric greenhouse effect.
The concept
of a greenhouse effect predates the current radiative theory and was a function
of atmospheric mass and
density.
The latter effect acts to reduce CO2 sensitivity by increasing the aerosol - sensitive SW tau, increasing both cloud
density and cover, decreasing upper tropospheric specific humidity and INCREASING SW albedo and will increasingly do so as the
atmospheric level
of CO2 rises!
In
atmospheric physics, lidar is used as a remote detection instrument to measure
densities of certain constituents
of the middle and upper atmosphere, such as potassium, sodium, or molecular nitrogen and oxygen.
The latter effect acts to reduce CO2 sensitivity by increasing the aerosol - sensitive SW tau, increasing both cloud
density and cover, decreasing upper tropospheric specific humidity and SW albedo and will increasingly do so as the
atmospheric level
of CO2 rises!
As Anthony pointed out some time ago, when looking at the temperature profile
of Vensus, where the
atmospheric density reaches one bar in the
atmospheric column, the temperature is nearly the same as Earth's.
However, the two together, especially the higher
atmospheric density, must have had some effect on heat retention
of the earth system.