Sentences with phrase «so less radiation»

While it is true that digital x-rays expose a patient to 70 % or so less radiation than conventional x-rays, they are still not without risk.

Not exact matches

Terahertz radiation is also low energy, so if they are used to scan people, the waves are less dangerous than x-rays or microwaves.

The general population in northeastern Japan, however, has considerably less access to accurate, non-invasive radiation dose measuring equipment, a troubling situation made more so by Wednesday's announcement by Japan's science ministry that small amounts of cancer - causing radioactive strontium have been detected in soil and plants outside the 30 - kilometer zone around the plant where the government has advised people to stay indoors.

So the mechanism should cause a decline in skin temperature gradients with increased cloud cover (more downward heat radiation), and there should also be a decline in the difference between cool skin layer and ocean bulk temperatures - as less heat escapes the ocean under increased atmospheric warming.

So with more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we expect to see less longwave radiation escaping to space at the wavelengths that carbon dioxide absorb.

Results published so far are promising: Breast - cancer patients who practice yoga while undergoing radiation therapy have lower levels of stress hormones and report less fatigue and better quality of life.

CO2 (and some other gases) in the atmosphere are however more opaque to LWIR; they absorb that a chunk of that outgoing radiation and re-radiate it in all directions — so that a fraction less than half is re-radiated downwards; which has the effect of slowing the transfer of heat (by radiation) out of the atmosphere.

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).

Orbital forcing causes ice ages or ends them by redistributing incoming solar radiation over seasons and latitudes so that ice sheet growth or decay is more or less favorable on a regional basis, with a resulting global average albedo feedback.)

It is true that this lost solar heating now adds to the LW flux coming from below, but the skin layer only absorbs a tiny fraction of that, so the increase in absorped LW flux from below is less than the decrease in the absorbed SW radiation.

Actually, though, most of the OLR originates from below the tropopause (can get up around 18 km in the tropics, generally lower)-- with a majority of solar radiation absorbed at the surface, a crude approximation can be made that the area emitting to space is less than 2 * (20/6371) * 100 % ~ = 0.628 % more than the area heated by the sun, so the OLR per unit area should be well within about 0.6 % of the value calculated without the Earth's curvature (I'm guessing it would actually be closer to if not less than 0.3 % different).

That means less radiation leaving the earth for outer space, So more energy stays in the earth atmosphere system making the surface warmer.

So why would there have been less radiation in the late 1600s when there were very few sunspots?

Plankton is largest CO2 absorber, but also oceans are near or largest (by far largest in the more distant past) CO2 emitters, so if CO2 happen to be an important factor than: High UV / radiation = reduction in plankton = less CO2 absorbed = warming, reverse holds true.

Hence as the upper troposphere contributes an increasingly greater share of the radiation to space with rising GHG's, it does so less effectively because it is colder than the lower troposphere.

So with more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we expect to see less longwave radiation escaping to space at the wavelengths that carbon dioxide absorb.

Now can we hear whatâ $ ™ s wrong with more CO2, less infrared radiation to space, and so higher temperatures.

In the troposphere, the atmosphere is more transparent to SW radiation and less transparent to LW radiation so the surface temperature is warmer than the slab.

Now can we hear what's wrong with more CO2, less infrared radiation to space, and so higher temperatures.

But the dry air column holds a lot less energy so when the sun goes down and the surface is no longer heating it through conduction and radiation the column cools rapidly hence the great diurnal temperature range of the desert and the almost total lack of diurnal temperature change over the ocean.

So if there's less solar radiation to be trapped by the greenhouse gases, it reduces the warming.

So, to repeat, any warming caused by back - radiation will never warm the earth more (usually less) than the degree to which it was initially warmed by the sun, before it radiated heat away.

To me the lesson of hot greenhouses, hot attics or hot metal sheds is that if air is confined and not allowed to convect upward to the sky it will heat up mostly because the cooling of convection has been stifled and less so because of any differential transmission of radiation by glass.

As it expands, it cools, and thereforee becomes less ionized and thus more transparent, so that radiation can escape more esily.

That jibes with the idea of a cooling trend during solar minimum; fewer spots means fewer faculae, so the Sun emits less Earth - warming radiation.

Clouds reflect sunlight, so less solar radiation warms the Earth.

5) Thus the presence of water vapour and CO2 means that less energy is radiated into space from within their characteristic radiation bands so the temperature of the earth's surface has to increase in order for energy radiated at other wavelengths to increase to compensate.

I understand therefore their results so that with the 100 W / m ^ 2 greater back radiation the upper ocean layer «works» in one regime around some mean value of the surface skin layer while under the sunny day with less back radiation the same layer oscillates around another mean value of the surface layer.

So, the Sun heats the ocean, but it heats it more because of the warming effect of the back radiation makes the ocean's cooling less efficient.

-- Yes, it may be correct in so far as they can say that; «around 10 % of the wavebands emitted by IR radiation are made up of wave - lengths that can not be absorbed by «Greenhouse Gases» (GHGs), but that can not possibly mean that 0.04 %, in the case of CO2 concentration but certainly less than 10 % of the Atmosphere as a total has got what must be a «supernatural» ability to stop LWR.

So, the «back radiation» from the greenhouse gas can only heat the surface (at best) to less than the surface radiating temperature which «warmed» the greenhouse gas.

So, because ponded ice reflects less of the solar radiation, there is more heat available to melt the surface of the ice,» said Daniel Feltham, a researcher at the Center for Polar Observation and Modeling at the University College London, and co-author of the study, in an email.

In contrast, water vapor and carbon dioxide molecules consist of three atoms that are less constrained in their motion, so they absorb the heat radiation.

That happens partly through «new» absorption of radiation that more or less used to escape directly from the surface, as well as absorption and re-emission of radiation that used to get absorbed and re-emitted at lower layers, but now (at higher CO2) does so at higher layers.

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.

So, the 729.9 W / m ^ 2 shown during the hours just before and after noon on a dry clear - sky day should be reading somewhat below 729.9 / (1 — 0.313) or less than 1062 W / m ^ 2 by measurement, near noon, on the equator, for the atmosphere itself, in those conditions, would not be absorbing as much direct solar radiation as the average shows in column C either (no clouds).

So, there is much less time for the dark side of the earth to lose heat by radiation before it face the sun and regains heat.

So, when the Earth warms, it radiates less longwave radiation in the bands absorbed by CO2 and when it cools, it radiates more longwave radiation in the bands absorbed by CO2?