Sentences with phrase «surface effective temperature»

The emissivity is combined with the surface effective temperature, sometimes called the skin temperature, in the radiative transfer equation.

Not exact matches

KELT report a G2 star with an effective temperature of 5770 ± 50 K, a surface gravity (log g) of 4.39 ± 0.05, and a mass and radius of 1.09 ± 0.05 and 1.10 ± 0.08 in solar units, whereas WASP report a G3 star with effective temperature of 5700 ± 150 K, a surface gravity of 4.5 ± 0.2, and a mass and radius of 1.05 ± 0.08 and 1.11 ± 0.05.

Like Sirius, however, Altair radiates much more in ultraviolet wavelengths than Sol, and, not surprisingly, the European Space Agency has used ultraviolet spectral flux distribution data to determine stellar effective temperatures and surface gravities, including those of Altair.

Like Sirius, however, Vega radiates much more in ultraviolet wavelengths than Sol, and, not surprisingly, the European Space Agency has used ultraviolet spectral flux distribution data to determine stellar effective temperatures and surface gravities, including those of Vega.

We find a stellar effective temperature Teff = 5455 + -100 K, a metallicity of [Fe / H] = 0.01 + -0.04, and a surface gravity of log (g) = 4.4 + -0.1.

From high - resolution spectroscopy of the star, we find a stellar effective temperature Teff = 5541 \ pm 60 K, a metallicity [Fe / H] = -0.13 \ pm 0.06, and a surface gravity log (g) = 4.59 \ pm 0.10.

The European Space Agency has used ultraviolet spectral flux distribution data to determine stellar effective temperatures and surface gravities, including those of Kappa Ceti.

Here we present a sample of 10,341 likely red - clump stars (RC) from the first two years of APOGEE operations, selected based on their position in color - metallicity - surface - gravity - effective - temperature space using a new method calibrated using stellar - evolution models and high - quality asteroseismology data.

This number is a rounded form of 50400 / Teff, where Teff is the effective surface temperature, measured in kelvins.

The measured S indices for the superflare stars are given in Supplementary Table 1 together with the effective temperatures and surface gravity.

The effects of effective temperature and metallicity on asteroseismic determinations of surface gravities for giant stars are also discussed.

These relations provide a direct link between observables, i.e. effective temperature and characteristics of the oscillation spectra, and stellar properties, i.e. mean density and surface gravity (thus mass and radius).

The European Space Agency has used ultraviolet spectral flux distribution data to determine stellar effective temperatures and surface gravities, including those of Arcturus.

But then the effective heat capacity, the surface temperature, depends on the rate of mixing of the ocean water and I have presented evidence from a number of different ways that models tend to be too diffusive because of numerical reasons and coarse resolution and wave parameter rise, motions in the ocean.

So far consortia carrying out the different spectroscopic surveys have used different tools to determine stellar parameters of stars from their derived effective temperatures (Teff), surface gravities (log g) and metallicities -LRB-[Fe / H]-RRB- possibly combined with photometric, astrometric, interferometric or asteroseismic information.

Specific topics include the abilities to recognize, sort and transport important molecules; sense the environment; alter shape or surface texture; generate onboard energy to power effective robotic functions; communicate with doctors, patients, and other nanorobots; navigate throughout the human body; manipulate microscopic objects and move about inside a human body; and timekeep, perform computations, disable living cells and viruses, and operate at various pressures and temperatures.

That's because local increases in sea surface temperatures are more effective in fueling storm intensity than are planet - wide increases.

As mentioned above, the higher the surface temperature the less effective the infrared heat will be.

Furthermore, they provide different materials with which the heaters can interact — their irregular and aluminum surfaces create a less effective type of heat sink than the smooth concrete floor, and those heaters draped over engines will therefore reach higher and less controllable temperatures.

The standard assumption has been that, while heat is transferred rapidly into a relatively thin, well - mixed surface layer of the ocean (averaging about 70 m in depth), the transfer into the deeper waters is so slow that the atmospheric temperature reaches effective equilibrium with the mixed layer in a decade or so.

Long waves (infrared) light from the sun, GHGs, clouds, are trapped at the surface of the oceans, directly leading to increased «skin» temperature, more water vapor (a very effective GHG), faster convection (with more loss of heat to space in the tropics),... How each of them converts to real regional / global temperature increases / decreases is another point of discussion...

where Te is the effective temperature (as defined by the absorbed solar radiation), Ts is the surface temperature, and Tt represents the stratospheric temperature that is being defined by the opaque spectral region.

So after considering all of that, the estimated current «surface» temperature produces an estimated effective radiant return energy from the atmosphere of about 345Wm - 3 + / - 9 called DWLR which, had the average effective radiant energy of the oceans been used, ~ 334Wm - 2 would have created less confusion and still have been within a more realistic uncertainty range of + / - 17 Wm - 2.

What temperature is relevant is the temperature that the effective radiant layer «sees» which for about 70 % of the surface would be either that thin ocean surface layer that can be several degrees above the measured subsurface temperatures or the tops of the clouds.

predict the start of the next glaciation — or does it now predict ever - increasing rises in surface temperatures, so we had all better redirect our efforts to cost - effective amelioration?

Without them the albedo would be low and the effective average temperature of the surface above 0C.

Model simulations indicate that the snow - ice interface temperature or alternatively the 6 GHz brightness temperature is a closer proxy for the 50 GHz effective temperature than the snow surface or air temperature

Thus many metal surfaces are still rather effective reflectors for radiative heaters which have a high temperature heating element, but less effective when the temperature is lower.

However, since the Earth reflects about 30 % of the incoming sunlight, the planet's effective temperature (the temperature of a blackbody that would emit the same amount of radiation) is about − 18 °C, about 33 °C below the actual surface temperature of about 14 °C.

The mechanism that produces this difference between the actual surface temperature and the effective temperature is due to the atmosphere and is known as the greenhouse effect.»

The Earth's surface temperature is 35 K warmer than its effective blackbody temperature, because of the presence of clouds and GHGs or called the natural greenhouse effect.

On the Moon, the effective buffering depth is ~ 1m, which for comparison gives about a tenth of the buffering capacity of the Earth's atmosphere, while the sol is of course ~ 29 times as long, so the temperature swing of the lunar surface is much greater, reaching ~ 120C during the lunar day.

The earth's surface SHOULD be emitting at a higher effective Temperature than 288 K because the hotter surfaces far more than make up for the laziness of the colder surfaces.

It is further noted that GM strength has good relational coherence with the temperature difference between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and that on centennial time scales the GM strength responds more directly to the effective solar forcing than the concurrent forced response in global - mean surface temperature.

This effective radiative forcing is the climate sensitivity calculation that incorporates temperature responses in the troposphere and land surface that are rapid compared to the ocean temperature response, using fixed - sea surface temperature experiments.

The predicted temperature anomalies are produced by the rather simple procedure of adding this temperature anomaly for a year to the Effective Sea Surface Temperature (ESST) for thatemperature anomalies are produced by the rather simple procedure of adding this temperature anomaly for a year to the Effective Sea Surface Temperature (ESST) for thatemperature anomaly for a year to the Effective Sea Surface Temperature (ESST) for thaTemperature (ESST) for that same year

If the actual «surface» happens to be 15 C or 390 Wm - 2 equivalent after about 100 Wm - 2 of latent and convective cooling, the effective temperature of the surface would be about 31 C degrees (@ 490Wm - 2 equiv.).

But, it does not eliminate it... because the increase in the effective radiating level still occurs... and the temperature at the surface is determined by extrapolating down from this level using the lapse rate.

If the effective TOA is slightly cooler then the effective surface needs to radiate at a higher temperature.

Now I did use the word «averages over the planetary surface», but these obviously weighted averages - the effective temperature is weighted by the fourth power of itself, and the effective emissivity is weighted by the forth power of local temperature.

Using an effective ocean diffusivity of 0.65 cm ^ 2 / s (which is the central estimate derived in the Forest 06 study), the surface temperature response to a step forcing increase reaches about 90 % of its ultimate level within 25 years, if I've got everythng right.

This specific value of temperature and the lapse rate and altitude give the effective surface average temperature.

Including stratosphere adds only little uncertainty, which allows replacing the concept to effective radiative temperature leaving earth to open space, when CO2 concentration is changed, but troposphere and surface otherwise unmodified (the IPCC definition of radiative forcing allows stratosphere to adjust).

That implies that if the effective temperature is 288 K, watts radiated per square meter of surface will not be 390.7 but 0.95 * 390.7 = 371.165 watts

Buried in the fine print if IPCC AR4 is a note explaining that the temperature increases they arrive at from their models are calculated at the EFFECTIVE black body temperature of earth, NOT the surface temperature.

They calculate a 1 degree temperature increase as a result, but only in the fine print do you learn that isn't at earth surface, it is at the «effective black body temperature» of earth, which is about 35 degrees colder than earth surface.

i) The S - B Law requires that a raised effective radiating height results in a higher surface temperature.

Therefore according to the Ideal Gas Law additional GHGs will simply raise the effective radiating height, reduce the density at the surface and result in a net zero change in surface temperature.

Applying the adiabatic lapse rate from the effective radiating height to the surface as per the S - B Law then gives a surface temperature which is some 33C higher than it «should» be.

3) Failure to realize that the sign of the thermal response to a raised effective radiating height is reversed under the Gas Laws so as to negate any effect on surface temperature.