Sentences with phrase «radiation at ground»

Panel a: Direct warming associated with global forest cover.Panel b: Direct warming associated with forest cover between between 20 ° N and 50 ° N. Panel c: Increase in fractional absorption of solar radiation at the ground for forests relative to bare ground.

It moves the jet streams, changes storm tracks, affects rainfall patterns, and of course increases UV radiation at ground level.

Not exact matches

«Cosmic rays are not a significant exposure risk on the ground,» Eddie Semones, a radiation health officer at NASA, previously told Business Insider.

If this massive bubble of plasma and radiation is aimed right at Earth, it can pose a serious threat to satellite operations and even to power grids on the ground, along with modern civilization that depends on their electricity.

And while ozone high in the atmosphere helps shield Earth from the sun's ultraviolet radiation, at ground level, it mixes with fine particulates to form breath - choking smog.

The surface «is what you are in contact with, and creates the dynamic movement of air,» he says — and ground temperature «indicates the way solar radiation is transformed at the Earth's surface.»

When he was at the radiation lab, he conceived the idea and actually brought into being something called GCA, Ground Control Approach, and that enabled the people in the Berlin area to airlift, to come and land independent of the weather, and without that they couldn't have kept that up and that was that something that Luis had invented.

Moreover, in the extreme cold of the upper troposphere, ozone's radiation - trapping properties are thirty times greater than at ground level, says Colin Johnson at AEA Technology near Oxford.

However, my girlfriend is a geologist, and she looks at natural radiation that comes from rocks, particularly in the south of England — geologists know what elements and radioactive isotopes they have in the ground because nuclear physicists have been able to find out which of these the radiation comes from.

3/5/2008 UCSD Radiation Oncology Services to Come to North County The UCSD Department of Radiation Oncology, in conjunction with the UCSD Medical Center and School of Medicine, has broken ground for construction of a radiation oncology center at the San Diego Cancer Center in Encinitas, a move that will improve acc... More...

At the age of three, Tonoshiki was exposed to residual radiation on the back of his mother when she entered Hiroshima in search of his father, who lost his life at ground zerAt the age of three, Tonoshiki was exposed to residual radiation on the back of his mother when she entered Hiroshima in search of his father, who lost his life at ground zerat ground zero.

ie does a slightly lower density of air mean a slightly lower ground level temperature (temperature normally decreases with height at the lower air density), so that in reality adding CO2 and subtracting more O2 actually causes miniscule or trivial global COOLING, and the (unused) ability of the changed atmosphere to absorb radiation energy and transmit it to the rest of the air is overruled or limited by the ideal gas law?

Hence, whereas the planet is heated at the surface, it's main heat loss takes place from a height about 5.5 km above the ground, where most of the radiation is free to escape out to space.

I should provide the missing viewpoints, for instance those who argue that the LNT [«Linear No Threshold» model of radiation risk] underestimates the risk at low doses, and I should provide the reasons that BEIR VII did not accept this view, showing that BEIR VII takes a middle ground.

I also explained why the extra warmth at the surface is provided by compression of descending air converting potential energy (PE) to kinetic energy (KE) and not from downward radiation from GHGs in the air warming the ground beneath.

Or: «Sunlight's composition at ground level, per square meter, with the sun at the zenith, is about 527 watts of infrared radiation, 445 watts of visible light, and 32 watts of ultraviolet radiation.»

The GHGs can not absorb any of the upward return of radiation from the ground because they are already at the maximum temperature permitted by the incoming solar radiation.

And if you go to wiki, sunlight: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight You find this graph: And wiki says, «Sunlight's composition at ground level, per square meter, with the sun at the zenith, is about 527 watts of infrared radiation, 445 watts of visible light, and 32 watts of ultraviolet radiation.»

The result of this great dance of transformation is a slowing of the rate at which radiation from the ground actually reaches space.

The air next to the ground at night will cool by conduction but a reverse convection will not take place (the ground cools by radiation loss).

At the temperature the atmosphere is, it radiates infrared so this radiation interacts with the atmospheric matter exactly in the same way as the radiation emitted by the ground does.

«Sunlight's composition at ground level, per square meter, with the sun at the zenith, is about 527 watts of infrared radiation, 445 watts of visible light, and 32 watts of ultraviolet radiation.»

The job of the radiation module is to calculate the solar heating rate profiles and the thermal cooling rate profiles, including the energy deposition at the ground surface, as well as the energy balance at the top of the atmosphere for the specified climate variable distribution at each grid box.

Note that, at night, vertical convection in a (mostly) transparent atmosphere will cease, because the required temperature gradient is the wrong way round; the ground is cooling the atmosphere, no longer warming it; this relies upon conduction and radiation.

In the real world (our atmosphere) the ground heats the air above continuousy during daylight hours and there are many other processes such as convection, radiation and evaporation that lead to energy leaving the system, so the process is never at rest and the temperature gradiant is maintained.

There is this idea that floats around the climate skeptic blogosphere that somehow a cold body does not radiate AT ALL to a warmer object, as if radiation from the cool atmosphere to the warm ground violates the 2nd Law.

sunlight's composition at ground level, per square meter, with the sun at the zenith, is about 527 watts of infrared radiation, 445 watts of visible light, and 32 watts of ultraviolet radiation.

Therefore, if you work from the layer at which the radiation escapes into space (about 6 km) down to the ground, the negative lapse rate means that surface temperature has to be higher than the non-GHG temperature.

For the greenhouse effect to work efficiently, the planet's atmosphere must be relatively transparent to sunlight at visible wavelengths so that significant amounts of solar radiation can penetrate to the ground.

A highly - absorbing aerosol reduces the solar radiation reaching the ground, but causes warming at the altitude the aerosol is located at.

So it is the ordinary atmosphere that is radiating the atmospheric LWIR radiation; except at very high prehaps ionoospheric levels where the mean free path is such that the GHG species can spontaneously decay to the ground state, before a collision occurs.

Side comment: At line 191 quote from Aseada et al. (1996) «most of the infrared radiation from the ground was absorbed within 200 m of the lower atmosphere, affecting air temperature near the ground ``.

The model also does not take into account dust and water in the form of clouds which both hold great quantities of CO2 and which takes it directly and quickly into the carbon life cycle at ground level and uses it up and none of this directly absorbed solar radiation is taken into account in the model.

A significant flux of solar radiation was found to penetrate the entire thickness of the atmosphere, with the amount at the ground 1.5 % of that incident on the top of the atmosphere.

To explain that some of the longwave infrared radiation leaving the ground being returned, or water vapor equalizing lower tropospheric temperatures at spot A or spot B as «feedback» is a different thing.

IF back radiation existed and if there was some 333 w / m ^ 2 of back radiation beating down on the ground, the black marble slaps should be significantly warmer than the white marble slaps at night or on cloudy days.

So the atmosphere must be opaque to thermal IR radiation to produce an effective temperature at the TOA different from the ground one.

Fourier, Tyndall and most other scientists for nearly a century used this approach, looking at warming from ground level, so to speak, asking about the radiation that reaches and leaves the surface of the Earth.

In the case of the the source of the 333 W / m ^ 2 this is back radiated from a height in the atmosphere which is at a temperature lower than the ground surface and therefore this radiation can not be «Absorbed by the Surface».

At night, the ground cools down by emitting infrared radiation, whereas during the day, the infrared cooling is secondary to solar heating.

In the real world, increased concentrations of CO2 would theoretically block a certain proportion of incoming solar insolation so that less solar radiance is absorbed by the ground and oceans, and it would also increase the rate of out going radiation at TOA.

If all radiation at 100 meters of altitude high has no chance of hitting the ground, WUWT?

I say very little and not just because that span of frequencies radiance is a small portion of the BB radiation from the ground at 288K, but instead that those photons within that range would not go but a few centimeters (swag) before being absorbed.

It is possible to measure the infrared radiance in CO2 - band wavelengths via satellite from space, and at ground level for downwelling infrared radiation.