Sentences with phrase «radiation incident in»

Not exact matches

They are intended to scatter incident radiation in such a way that all the contributions add constructively at the site of the driven element when the antenna is pointed toward the transmitter.

For example, the optical thickness of the CO2 in the atmosphere (if you see an error in this list of things independent of climate, see below), the incident solar radiation and it's distribution over time and space (latitude), variations in surface albedo between ocean, rock, vegetation, etc.).

The frequency at which photons are emitted or absorbed is small relative to the rate of energy redistribution among molecules and their modes, so the fraction of some molecules that are excited in some way is only slightly more or less than the characteristic fraction for that temperature (depending on whether photons absorption to generate that particular state is greater than photon emission from that state or vice versa, which depends on the brightness temperature of the incident radiation relative to the local temperature).

(Raman and Compton scattering and, I would assume, stimulated emission, also obey the laws of thermodynamics but if the material is not already in equilibrium with the incident radiation from all directions, the emitted radiation will depend on both the incident radiation and the temperature of the material, etc..)

In 1) i meant to indicate that a factor of 3 discrepancy might be explained by the ratio of absorbed to incident radiation

1) In the phrase «radiation from the sun,» is that the incident or absorbed radiation?

These shape the 4 - dimensional pattern of temperature and other changes — the patterns of circulation, latent heating, and precipitation will shift, as can the cycles driven the imposed diurnal and seasonal cycles in incident solar radiation; the texture of internal variability can also shift.

EWF is a density over distance along a line (in the absence of scattering, etc.) or lines (when partial specular reflection occurs), or a density over volume (when scattering contributes to the CSD), where the sum over all space = 1; it matches the distribution over space of the absorption of a unit amount of radiation incident at L from the opposite direction.

RE: # 1 — Indeed, I would think that any net increment in energy due to a net increment in long wave incident radiation would rapidly and efficiently dissipate in the enormous mass of water.

First, for changing just CO2 forcing (or CH4, etc, or for a non-GHE forcing, such as a change in incident solar radiation, volcanic aerosols, etc.), there will be other GHE radiative «forcings» (feedbacks, though in the context of measuring their radiative effect, they can be described as having radiative forcings of x W / m2 per change in surface T), such as water vapor feedback, LW cloud feedback, and also, because GHE depends on the vertical temperature distribution, the lapse rate feedback (this generally refers to the tropospheric lapse rate, though changes in the position of the tropopause and changes in the stratospheric temperature could also be considered lapse - rate feedbacks for forcing at TOA; forcing at the tropopause with stratospheric adjustment takes some of that into account; sensitivity to forcing at the tropopause with stratospheric adjustment will generally be different from sensitivity to forcing without stratospheric adjustment and both will generally be different from forcing at TOA before stratospheric adjustment; forcing at TOA after stratospehric adjustment is identical to forcing at the tropopause after stratospheric adjustment).

In the context of global climate, absorbed solar radiation (about 240 W / m2, with 30 percent of the incident radiation being reflected back to space) is the energy source that keeps the Earth's surface warm.

In these planetary GCMs, we use a relatively simple two - stream radiative transfer for scattering and absorbing atmospheres, with assumed diffuse incident of solar radiation at the top of the model domain.

Where 1900 BTU is the solar radiation incident on 1 sqft of a 70 deg sloped surface in Nov on a sunny day at 46 deg N latittude.

I admit I was wrong about the magnitude of the increase in absorption of incident solar radiation by increased CO2.

As such there is little point in SCIENCE to be made by quoting any reference to «greenhouse effects» (IPCC included) If you notice the plot of atmospheric absorbance within the link (*): - http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/113579/index.php#comments -: you will see that the supposed «greenhouse radiation» is not even seen being surface incident.

Meanwhile the temperature stays within + - 10 degrees for billions of years despite a 30 % increase in incident solar radiation.

Incident solar radiation (mostly in the 2.7 micron band) is absorbed by carbon dioxide at various levels in the atmosphere.

If there is persistent cloud cover, as exists in some equatorial regions, much of the incident solar radiation is scattered back to space, and very little is absorbed by Earth's surface.

It also absorbs and sends back to space some of the Sun's incident radiation which is in the IR spectrum, hence also having a cooling effect in this manner.

Yes, inert gases do absorb incident Solar radiation in the UV and visible spectra, so the atmosphere warms to radiative balance, and the temperature at the base of the atmosphere determines (or «supports») the surface temperature.

This has been documented by the data of Martin Wild and others demonstrating a reduction in «solar surface radiation» during that interval — i.e, a reduction in that fraction of sunlight incident on the TOA that reached the surface under both clear sky and all - sky conditions.

Then, for the benefit of the lay reader, who would not be expected to understand the clear (to a competent physical scientist) implication of this simply - stated fact, I wrote: «This in fact indicates that the Venusian atmosphere is heated mainly by incident infrared [not the VISIBLE portion, which is indeed largely reflected, defenders, but INFRARED] radiation from the Sun, WHICH IS NOT REFLECTED BUT ABSORBED [or allowed in to heat the lower atmosphere] by Venus's clouds, rather than by warming first of the planetary surface.

Soil temperature varies from month to month as a function of incident solar radiation, rainfall, seasonal swings in overlying air temperature, local vegetation cover, type of soil, and depth in the earth.

Variations of ± 4 % in the distance due to the elliptical orbit of the Earth The solar constant does not entirely reach the Earth's surface due to: Reflection of radiation Latitude, angle of incident Average between day & night.

For example, road tar surfaces receive radiation (solar spectrum) from incident «sunlight»; some of which is absorbed and some reflected, so the surface warms, and re-radiates in a completely different thermal spectrum that depends on the surface temperature and its spectral emissivity.

You might be interested in «TOA incident solar radiation» which is for the top of atmosphere.

Incident solar radiation heats the water stored in the cladding creating a huge vapor drive that is both inward and outward (Figure 2).

Planetary albedo: The fraction of incident solar radiation that is reflected by the Earth - atmosphere system and returned to space, mostly by back scatter from clouds in the atmosphere.

In just 5 years it was responsible for a 2 % decrease in low clouds (the kind that reflect incoming solar radiation by day) which, in turn, equates to an increase in surface warming of 1.2 Wm - 2 from incident radiation — equivalent to some 85 % of the IPCC's estimate for the effect of all carbon dioxide increase since the Industrial RevolutioIn just 5 years it was responsible for a 2 % decrease in low clouds (the kind that reflect incoming solar radiation by day) which, in turn, equates to an increase in surface warming of 1.2 Wm - 2 from incident radiation — equivalent to some 85 % of the IPCC's estimate for the effect of all carbon dioxide increase since the Industrial Revolutioin low clouds (the kind that reflect incoming solar radiation by day) which, in turn, equates to an increase in surface warming of 1.2 Wm - 2 from incident radiation — equivalent to some 85 % of the IPCC's estimate for the effect of all carbon dioxide increase since the Industrial Revolutioin turn, equates to an increase in surface warming of 1.2 Wm - 2 from incident radiation — equivalent to some 85 % of the IPCC's estimate for the effect of all carbon dioxide increase since the Industrial Revolutioin surface warming of 1.2 Wm - 2 from incident radiation — equivalent to some 85 % of the IPCC's estimate for the effect of all carbon dioxide increase since the Industrial Revolution.

The earth is almost a perfect blackbody emitter in the mid & far - IR and since Kirchkoff's Law imply that the emissivity and absorptivity must be equal at each wavelength, the means that essentially all of the radiation that is incident on these objects is absorbed.

quote from the article: For example, in the analysis, not only does the amount of CO2 not enter in (Earth has 0.04 %, Venus a whopping 96.5 %), but the albedo (from either cloud tops or the planetary surface) does not either (Venus has dense clouds that reflect much of the incident visible radiation, while Earth does not, and Earth's surface is 70 % deep ocean, while Venus is solid crust).

No need, and yes, rather dumb * of me to forget the decay products (* or perhaps just evidence of lack of time on my part), although the broader point I made still stands, which is that some sources of radiation are otherwise chemically benign and others are not, though I admit much ignorance on the relative importance of chemical toxicity and wouldn't be surprised to find out it is generally quite small in such incidents like Fukushima and Chernobyl — but I don't actually know it; I thought perhaps it deserved clarification (and maybe — note that I'm not justifying this — that's why some people may see radiation from a pollutant as worse than radiation from natural source?).

Any heat radiation penetrating the canopy and incident on the soil again goes towards phase changing water, water in the soil moisture, but this happens in a limited quantity based on saturation point of vapor in the surrounding.

In the Tropics, the seasonality of the solar radiation incident on the atmosphere is weak.

... The hypothesis is that given the heat lost through the air - sea interface is controlled by the TSL, the TSL adjusts in response to variations in incident IR radiation to maintain the surface heat loss.

If a second blackbody object (no internal thermal energy source but with thermal conduction properties such that independent of the direction of incident radiation on the second object, the second object's surface temperature will be everywhere the same) is placed next to but NOT touching the original object, when the two - object system reaches steady state (i.e., for each object, the rate of energy leaving the object will equal the rate of energy entering the object), the surface temperature of the original object in the presence of the second object will be higher than it was in the absence of the second object.

Notice it says «black enclosure» meaning black in the black body sense, of total absorption of all radiation incident on the walls of that enclosure.

In terms of this by Neutrino: «Besides, if absorbed were actually calculated as Nasif maintains then No ideal GB could ever be heated by incident radiation.