Sentences with phrase «time radiative cooling»
[Yao Zhai et al., Scalable - manufactured randomized glass - polymer hybrid metamaterial for day - time radiative cooling]
https://www.scientificamerican.com/ Not exact matches
«In addition to these regions, we can foresee applications for radiative cooling in off - the - grid areas of the developing world where air conditioning is not even possible at this time.
While gas is launched out of the quasar at very high temperatures, there is enough time for some of it to cool through radiative cooling — similar to how the Earth cools down on a cloudless night
It provides for the first time a high - fidelity technology demonstration of how you can use radiative sky cooling to passively cool a fluid and, in doing so, connect it with cooling systems to save electricity,» said Raman, who is co-lead author of the paper detailing this research, published in Nature Energy Sept. 4.
On the possibility of a changing cloud cover «forcing» global warming in recent times (assuming we can just ignore the CO2 physics and current literature on feedbacks, since I don't see a contradiction between an internal radiative forcing and positive feedbacks), one would have to explain a few things, like why the diurnal temperature gradient would decrease with a planet being warmed by decreased albedo... why the stratosphere should cool... why winters should warm faster than summers... essentially the same questions that come with the cosmic ray hypothesis.
In other words, the same natural forcings that appear responsible for the modest large - scale cooling of the LIA should have lead to a cooling trend during the 20th century (some warming during the early 20th century arises from a modest apparent increase in solar irradiance at that time, but the increase in explosive volcanism during the late 20th century leads to a net negative 20th century trend in natural radiative forcing).
In the case of Concentrated Solar Power that uses heliostats, one ought to be able to boost night time cooling by providing a low brightness temperature surface (the mirrors) to enhance radiative cooling, though the convective cooling will still dominate.
Given the much more rapid respons time of the stratosphere to radiative forcings, there is (can be) some initial stratospheric cooling (or at least some cooling somewhere in the stratosphere), which consists of a transient component, and a component that remains at full equilibrium.
Because latent heat release in the course of precipitation must be balanced in the global mean by infrared radiative cooling of the troposphere (over time scales at which the atmosphere is approximately in equilibrium), it is sometimes argued that radiative constraints limit the rate at which precipitation can increase in response to increasing CO2.
The issue which debunks climate science is its radiative greenhouse effect violating basic thermodynamics, not whether the atmosphere retains heat overnight because it doesn't have time to cool to 2.7 K.
The atmospheric heating and cooling rates are then passed back to the atmosphere structure module that calculates how much the surface and atmospheric temperatures would change during the 30 - minute times step given the radiative heating and cooling rates.
The reason is much larger relative role of the CO2 radiative cooling compared to the NO radiative cooling under solar minimum conditions as confirmed by SABER / TIMED measurements (Mlynczak et al. 2010).
The Earth HAS to be in «radiative balance» over long time intervals, otherwise it would be warming up or cooling down.
(Right) The temperature as driven by CH4 radiative forcing increases strongly during the methane spike, then subsides following the time scale of planetary (oceanic) cooling.
Gerlich and Tscheuschner, despite their apparent mastery of the mathematics of radiative transfer, don't know the difference between gross and net radiative flux, and they are apparently unaware of the concept of causality in an Einsteinian framework — a molecule of CO2 emitting a photon in a random direction can't know if there is a (cooler or warmer) surface in the direction of emission until time has elapsed for the photon to travel to the surface and back, and has no mechanism to remember from one photon to the next whether there was a source of photons in that direction, or what the apparent temperature of the emitter was.
So, to sum up, in Venus we see a planet in which radiative cooling seems nearly nonexistent, and which sustains ambient temperatures far in excess of what Mercury achieves even after 20 or so Earth days of straight sunshine at an intensity roughly 4 times that of Venus!
But the radiative cooling is time dependent, and a steeper lapse rate will increase convection and decrease the time over which a rising parcel can radiate heat away, increasing the relative amount of adiabatic versus radiative cooling.