Sentences with phrase «planet radiates heat»

The problem is that the planet radiates heat back toward the instruments hiding behind that shade, says Messenger engineer Dan O'Shaughnessy.

Not exact matches

The so - called greenhouse gases — mainly water vapor and carbon dioxide — make the planet warm and habitable by trapping solar heat as it radiates back off the Earth.

Spitzer was sent so far out because its delicate infrared - sensitive instruments must be kept at a frigid temperature just above absolute zero, and it is easier to maintain that temperature by operating far from the heat that radiates from the surface of our planet.

Its proximity to the star might also make it easier to study, since the planet would radiate more heat and orbit more rapidly than any planets lying farther away.

«In theory, if you know how much energy is coming in from the sun, and how much is reflected or radiated away, the difference is how much is heating or cooling the planet,» says Adam Szabo, a heliophysicist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.

Was it radiated out to space rapidly, perhaps due to the giant impact which tipped it over on its side, or is that heat somehow trapped inside the planet today?

Clouds of water vapor around Ceres absorbed the heat that radiates from the dwarf planet, which Herschel's instrument detected.

To say it a bit worse but in modern lingo: to maintain radiative equilibrium, the planet has to put out a certain amount of heat, and if it can't radiate it out from the surface, the lower atmosphere somehow has to get warmer until there's some level that radiates the right amount.

There's also a number of interesting applications in the evolution of Earth's atmosphere that branch off from the runaway greenhouse physics, for example how fast a magma - ocean covered early Earth ends up cooling — you can't lose heat to space of more than about 310 W / m2 or so for an Earth - sized planet with an efficient water vapor feedback, so it takes much longer for an atmosphere - cloaked Earth to cool off from impact events than a body just radiating at sigmaT ^ 4.

Are the episodes thought to be actual changes in the amount of heat being radiated by the planet (because the surface of the ocean gets warmer and cooler, does the actual infrared flux from the top of the atmosphere then change as a result)?

The skin layer planet is optically very thin, so it doesn't affect the OLR significantly, but (absent direct solar heating) the little bit of the radiant flux (approximatly equal to the OLR) from below that it absorbs must be (at equilibrium) balanced by emission, which will be both downward and upward, so the flux emitted in either direction is only half of what was absorbed from below; via Kirchhoff's Law, the temperature must be smaller than the brightness temperature of the OLR (for a grey gas, Tskin ^ 4 ~ = (Te ^ 4) / 2, where Te is the effective radiating temperature for the planet, equal to the brightness temperature of the OLR — *** HOWEVER, see below ***).

Increasing the height of the convection cell doesn't generally help the planet radiate away heat, since the higher the tropospause (loosely the height of convection) goes, the colder it gets, inhibiting radiation.

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).

So the day will lengthen, more heat will radiate away at night, and the planet will cool again.

The total heat radiated from the planet is equal to the energy flux implied by its temperature, Te (from the Stefan - Boltzman law) times the entire surface of the planet or:

Except for the minuscule contribution of radioactive decay, all of this heat came from the sun and all must be radiated from the planet for it to retain its average temperature.

However one can not create heat or energy from nothing so there is no net heat gain merely a delay until the part sent down is radiated back up again and has another attempt at leaving the planet.

What's more, continually increasing greenhouse gases increase the imbalance by about 0.3 W / m2 per decade even as the planet warms and radiates some extra heat back to space.

But that's actually an understatement by Gallup, since more than 97 % of the world's climatologists say that those carbon gases, which are given off by humans» burning of carbon - based fuels, are causing this planet's temperatures to rise over the long term, as those carbon gases accumulate in the atmosphere and also block the heat from being radiated back into outer space.

Basically, as fast as heat loiters about on our planet's surface, it either radiates off to space or Water will pick it up and carry it to the upper layers of our atmosphere, where it will change form from gas to liquid or solid giving off heat to space while being super cooled at the same time.

So what propottion of heat is radiated into space, instead of heating our planet?.

The increased effective radiating surface area of atmospheric CO2 would also act like a stepping stone for heat to leave the planet but how much cooling these effects have is anyones guess.

Clouds cool the planet by reflecting solar energy back to space and also trap heat and radiate it back to Earth.

This means the planet will end up warmer than it does in the case where none of the heat that it radiates finds it way back.]

although the cooler planet emits radiation toward the warmer planet, supposing that one were nominally 100K and the other 150K, at some point, supposing they were fixed to receive one another's thermal influuence they would thermalise, if there were not the presence of another radiating body, although radiation goes in all directions, not just towards other hypothetical planets, and may lead to Kelvin's heat death hypothesis where there was no thermal energy left.

By contrast, when you have the shell there, then some of the heat that the planet radiates (actually, in this simple example where the shell is a perfect blackbody, all of that heat) is absorbed by the shell which subsequently radiates part of it back to the planet.

In the course of that process heat energy is released around the planet and radiated out with the rest of the electromagnetic energy received from the sun.

The reflect surface of the world's oceans reflects a large quantity of the Sun's energy (the greatest cause of global «warming») back into space before it can heat the planet and / or be radiated in a form that can be «trapped» by the gases in the atmosphere.

With more energy radiating down on the planet rather than back up into space, the planet continues to heat up.

Simply changing the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere by 30 percent has major impacts in the adiabatic lapse rate and the rate at which radiated heat is passed from the planet.

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.»

I understand the superficial attractiveness behind the proposition that the atmoshpere contains some gases that are largely transparent to incoming solar radiation and therefore the majority of this solar radiation finds its way through the atmosphere to the surface whereupon it heats the surface and this heat is, inter alia, radiated from the surface at a different wavelength at which wavelength the atmosphere (or some gases within the atmosphere) is not transparent such that some of this radiated enerrgy is «trapped» thereby effectively warming the planet.

Because they are reflective, they also prevent energy in the form of heat from being radiated back into atmosphere, thus helping to cool the city as well as the planet by reducing the amount of energy trapped by the greenhouse effect.

All that happens when you start off with a very cold or a very hot «radiating temperature» relative to the incoming radiation is that the planet heats up or cools down until it reaches its equilibrium.

We can't pretend that we «just know» that heat is building on the planet if we can't see the planet heating on the grounds that «it must be somewhere» because it doesn't have to be anywhere on the planet, it may be radiating away, light years away, in the case of the pause.

If a planet with 98 % CO2 can show this lack of relationship with CO2 and temperature, then why would we expect a planet with less than 1 % CO2 to, all of a sudden, give CO2 some magical heat radiating properties in its ridiculously smaller proportionate measure?

This relationship shows that temperature of the planet has nothing to do with the heat radiating properties of CO2 gas.