Sentences with phrase «radiates heat more»

Darker asteroids (which both absorb and radiate heat more efficiently) have both hotter hot sides and colder cold sides.

Greenhouse gases trap some of the escaping heat closer to the Earth's surface, making it harder for it to shed that heat, so the Earth warms up in order to radiate the heat more effectively.

Not exact matches

In less than 15 minutes I had mixed together a cornbread batter, and in 10 more minutes enticing aromas accompanied the welcome heat radiating from the oven.

The same greenhouse gases that trap heat in the lower atmosphere allow the stratosphere to more effectively radiate energy into space.

In addition, the cold temperatures and the way air is mixed close to the surface at the poles mean that the surface has to warm more to radiate additional heat back to space.

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.

The coat radiates more heat to the cold sky than it absorbs from its surroundings, the team reports, causing the temperature to drop below that of the surrounding air, while thick insulation reduces body heat loss from the skin.

I would also suggest that now the extra latent heat of this autumn's fast Arctic ice recovery to ~ normal has started to fade (i.e. mostly radiating away to space), Wayne won't be able to claim many more «warmests in history» for a long time.

Eventually, the heat built up under the crust until it reached melting temperatures, allowing heat to be more quickly radiated into space.

Under cloudy conditions, the cloud cover radiates more heat back down toward the ocean surface than happens under clear sky conditions.

Although their body temperatures are no higher than that of any other dog, the Peruvian Inca Orchid's hairless skin radiates more heat than that of a regular dog and acts almost like a hot water bottle.

The thin atmosphere allows Mars to more easily radiate heat energy away, so temperatures near the equator can get up to 70 °F (21 °C) during a summer day, and then drop down to − 100 °F (− 73 °C) at night.

-- warm the upper atmosphere so it radiates more heat away?

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.

The whole issue is that any level above what is often called the «effective radiating level» (say, at ~ 255 K on Earth) should start to cool as atmospheric CO2 increases, since the layers above this height are being shielded more strongly from upwelling radiation... except not quite, because convection distributes heating higher than this level, the stratosphere marks the point where convection gives out and there is high static stability.

Away from the dense network of heat absorbing (daytime) then heat radiating (nighttime) structures which is the Urban Heat Island and above the air with high water vapor content trapped by the valley along the river, not to mention the pall of coal dust over the city, morning low temps were much more like what the natural countryside would experieheat absorbing (daytime) then heat radiating (nighttime) structures which is the Urban Heat Island and above the air with high water vapor content trapped by the valley along the river, not to mention the pall of coal dust over the city, morning low temps were much more like what the natural countryside would experieheat radiating (nighttime) structures which is the Urban Heat Island and above the air with high water vapor content trapped by the valley along the river, not to mention the pall of coal dust over the city, morning low temps were much more like what the natural countryside would experieHeat Island and above the air with high water vapor content trapped by the valley along the river, not to mention the pall of coal dust over the city, morning low temps were much more like what the natural countryside would experience.

If they can take off excess heat aqnd have excess power, they might store it for night operation, but pumping heat into a reservoir costs more than radiating it away.

Since the oceans are massive heat sinks, they cause delays (around a decade or more) in observed temperature changes from changes in radiated energy from the sun.

Now, however, the extra CO2 does more than radiate away heat due to its own absorptive properties, but also can radiate away heat from the other source.

A second alternative acknowledges an unchanging OLR, but posits that less is now entering the stratosphere in wavelengths absorbable by CO2 because a heated surface is now radiating more IR to space in wavelengths where CO2 does not absorb («window regions»).

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

I would think that 3 degrees would be more than enough, especially after a few years of that heat radiating through any sediment that is between the water and the hydrate or permafrost.

If the DLR decreases, the temperature gradient between the surface skin and bulk increases, and more heat flows from the ocean depths to the surface where it is radiated away.

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.

It radiates less heat upward so the ocean has a tendency to gain more heat.

Less clouds in that area for a while more heat into the sea that day an more radiated out that day and night.

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.

Due to the earth's spherical shape and orbital effects, annual incoming solar radiation at the poles is so low, polar regions always radiate more heat back to space than is ever absorbed locally.

It gets warmer, more heat radiates to space.

As increased levels of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide trap more solar heat radiating from the Earth's surface, less warmth reaches the stratosphere, which cools as a result.

At the same time there was an increase in IR — more heat power flux being radiated into space — planetary cooling.

During a cooling phase, surface atmosphere could cool as heat is transported to upper atmosphere by more intense weather and then radiates away.

that cloud response to warming acts similarly to the eye's iris, opening to let more heat radiate out to space as temperature rises and closing to hold more heat in as temperature falls, and generally supports the understanding that Earth's climate is self - regulating and therefore not prone to a «tipping point» or a «runaway greenhouse effect» or «catastrophic warming.»..

Heat from the ground doesn't radiate for more than 2 inches!

For a much more complete Earth energy budget — data on ocean heat, solar radiance and energy radiated at the top of the atmosphere is required.

LIA wasn't GLOBAL cooling; but colder in Europe, north America — because Arctic ocean had less ice cover - > was releasing more heat / was accumulating - > radiating + spreading more coldness — currents were taking that extra coldness to Mexican gulf — then to the Mediterranean — because Sahara was increasing creation of dry heat and evaporating extra water in the Mediterranean — to top up the deficit — gulf stream was faster / that was melting more ice on arctic also as chain reaction — Because Mediterranean doesn't have enough tributaries, to compensate for the evaporation deficit.

WHEN more photons enter than leave, then that gas will heat up until it radiates away as many photons as it receives.

At the same time, the various bushes aren't producing any new leaves at all yet, and even the hazel flowers haven't really opened yet (normally the first sign of spring around here), despite sufficiently sunny days (which are followed by freezing nights because the lack of clouds mean the Earth radiates heat into the atmosphere more easily).

They radiate most of the heat that is received from the sun, so the average temperature of the Earth stays more or less constant.

But if a little more energy is absorbed, then CO2 is acting like a little black soot in the atmosphere and it will, in turn, radiate more toward space as a black box would from the added heat and this might compensate for the change in albedo.

These stem from a diversity of site - specific conditions, including, but not limited to: local vegetation; presence of building structures and contributions made by such structures involving energy use, heating and air conditioning, etc; exposure to winds, the wind velocities determined by climatic factors and also whether certain wind directions are more favored than others by terrain or the presence or absence thereof to bodies of water; proximity to grass, asphalt, concrete or other material surfaces; the physical conditions of the CRS itself which include: the exact location of the temperature sensors within it, the degree of unimpeded flow of external air through the CRS, the character of the paint used; the exact height of the instrument above the external surface (noting that when the ground is covered by 3 feet of snow, the temperature instrument is about 60 % closer to, or less than 2 feet, above an excellent radiating surface, much closer than it would be under snow - free conditions).

When the Arctic freezes over the ice insulates the sea and slows the heat loss from the N pole, when the Arctic ocean has less ice then more heat radiates off to space.

which in turn means more evaporation, which in turn creates more clouds trapping the heat allowing less heat to be radiated off into space

Spencer's article lends support to the discredited idea that cold CO2 [carbon dioxide] high in the atmosphere back - radiates to Earth's warmer surface, heating it more and causing it to radiate to the atmosphere and space with higher intensity than it would without cold CO2 back - radiation.

However, it is much easier to figure out what happens when you add more radiative gases to an atmosphere that already has them: And, the answer is that it increases the IR opacity of the atmosphere, which increases the altitude of the effective radiating level and hence means the emission is occurring from a lower - temperature layer, leading to a reduction of emission that is eventually remedied by the atmosphere heating up so that radiative balance at the top - of - the - atmosphere is restored.

The tired old alarmist argument goes something like this: CO2 levels increase, which in turn increases temperature, which in turn means more evaporation, which in turn creates more clouds trapping the heat allowing less heat to be radiated off into space.

If the heat isn't released, the next day the thermal mass will absorb more heat and start acting as a heater, emitting or radiating heat, and contributing to the overheating risk.

Since to me (and many scientists, although some wanted a lot more corroborative evidence, which they've also gotten) it makes absolutely no sense to presume that the earth would just go about its merry way and keep the climate nice and relatively stable for us (though this rare actual climate scientist pseudo skeptic seems to think it would, based upon some non scientific belief — see second half of this piece), when the earth changes climate easily as it is, climate is ultimately an expression of energy, it is stabilized (right now) by the oceans and ice sheets, and increasing the number of long term thermal radiation / heat energy absorbing and re radiating molecules to levels not seen on earth in several million years would add an enormous influx of energy to the lower atmosphere earth system, which would mildly warm the air and increasingly transfer energy to the earth over time, which in turn would start to alter those stabilizing systems (and which, with increasing ocean energy retention and accelerating polar ice sheet melting at both ends of the globe, is exactly what we've been seeing) and start to reinforce the same process until a new stases would be reached well after the atmospheric levels of ghg has stabilized.

This is largely zero - sum in terms of heat content except for the fact that warmer surfaces will radiate more strongly according to Plank's law, so that the total heat will decrease with El Ninos (greater outgoing IR).