Sentences with phrase «up cool atmosphere»

Not exact matches

Science questions the answers, e.g. hurricanes are caused by warm moist ocean air being drawn up into the cooler atmosphere and creating a wind pattern though we are still open to consider other factors that may have influence on this cycle.

Cool - atmosphere moves up uncovered lattice for expanded air dissemination and makes a head rest

«But our research suggests that the dynamics of the atmosphere might stop this relative cooling from showing up in Europe in winter in the decades following an Atlantic cooling.»

Moreover, that region often experiences what meteorologists call a temperature inversion, where temperatures in the lowest levels of the atmosphere are cooler than those higher up.

«The biological processes that take up carbon from the atmosphere even take place in and under the ice — if that ice is not too thick — which is why the biological processes persisted for a lot longer during cooler periods,» the authors said.

«It is true that they do warm climate by strong methane emissions when they first form, but on a longer - term scale, they switch to become climate coolers because they ultimately soak up more carbon from the atmosphere than they ever release.»

Normally when you move away from a hot source the environment gets cooler, but some mechanism is clearly at work in the solar atmosphere, the corona, to bring the temperatures up so high.

While CME material slamming into Earth's atmosphere can cause temperature spikes of up to 750 degrees Fahrenheit, the nitric oxide created by the energy infusion can subsequently cool it by about 930 F, said Knipp.

While the shock waves from CMEs pour energy into Earth's upper atmosphere, puffing it up and heating it, they also cause the formation of the trace chemical nitric oxide, which then rapidly cools and shrinks it, she said.

As the bloated star ages, this extended outer atmosphere cools and contracts, then soaks up more energy from the star and again puffs out: with each successive cycle of expansion and contraction the atmosphere puffs out a little farther.

Various aerosols also rise up in the atmosphere, but their net effect on global warming or cooling is still uncertain, as some aerosols reflect sunlight away from Earth, and others, in contrast, trap warmth in the atmosphere.

Reportedly they can withstand high temperature up to 150 degrees Celsius and cold temperature cooled to absolute zero, and high pressure up to 75,000 atmospheres in a state called «anhydrobiosis».

His team tested and rejected the idea that basaltic rocks thrown up by the volcano interacted with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to cause the cooling.

By studying carbon dioxide in planet's atmosphere via spectroscopy and measuring its orbit and mass more precisely for the first time since its discovery some 15 years ago, the team found that the planet's atmosphere appears to be cooler higher up, contrary to what was expected.

That is due to a thermal lag; it takes less time to heat up the atmosphere than it takes for it to cool off.

Let's move to the present though... Today on a gloriously sunny cool day, I had some free time and went to soak up some atmosphere in Notting Hill and Golborne Road.

If you want to make the most of the town's relaxing atmosphere, then head up to the roof terrace of Aguas de Ibiza hotel to enjoy a cool cocktail and brilliant views of the Marina.

Just up the coast from Puerto Vallarta, you'll find the village of Sayulita, which is fast becoming one of the coolest spots in Mexico with a reputation for great surfing and a laid - back, boho atmosphere.

Partly covered and partly al fresco, it catches cool sea breezes as you soak up the club's atmosphere whilst also being able to enjoy a little privacy in a stylish environment where fine food and service reign supreme.

The notion that the atmosphere cooled mid-century due to the emission of such aerosols and then drastically heated up thanks to the clean air act is myopic.

There's also a number of interesting applications in the evolution of Earth's atmosphere that branch off from the runaway greenhouse physics, for example how fast a magma - ocean covered early Earth ends up cooling — you can't lose heat to space of more than about 310 W / m2 or so for an Earth - sized planet with an efficient water vapor feedback, so it takes much longer for an atmosphere - cloaked Earth to cool off from impact events than a body just radiating at sigmaT ^ 4.

«A rapid cutback in greenhouse gas emissions could speed up global warming... because current global warming is offset by global dimming — the 2 - 3ºC of cooling cause by industrial pollution, known to scientists as aerosol particles, in the atmosphere.»

Primarily, they affect what's going on higher up in the atmosphere, which warms the whole troposphere (which is yoked together by convection so it tends to warm and cool as a unit).

If you were in a situation where there was initially more precipitation than radiative cooling could handle, then the atmosphere could just warm up until the radiative cooling increased — though then you'd have to worry about how much the warming affects precipitation, etc..

Adding more optical thickness to the same band reduces OLR in that band, cooling at least some portion of the upper atmosphere up to the TOA level, and increases in OLR outside that band results in some portion of that cooling remaining at full equilibrium (as expained by Andy Lacis).

For the upper - atmosphere cooling, I simply remark that infrared coming up from below is blocked more, as more greenhouse gases are added, so of course it's cooler above the blocking.

Polar stratospheric injection of sulphur is probably the technique we'll end up trying, but keeping your feet warm (tropics) and head cool (poles) while adding thick blankets (GHGs) over your whole body is a difficult task when the pesky atmosphere keeps scattering your AC units (sulphur)

The heat sink is the cold bottom water which the heat engine can pump up to cool the ocean surface and the overlying atmosphere.

We can divide the atmosphere into a lower part (LP), which includes the surface and is the source of IR, and an upper part (UP), which we are asked to assume will cool when CO2 increases, in conjunction with the expected warming of LP from the enhanced greenhouse effect.

This will clear up any confusion about non-greenhouse gases not being able to emit and absorb thermal radiation i.e. the mistaken notion that an atmosphere without greenhouse gases would not be able to cool itself by thermal radiation.

Some of these climate drivers result in warming and others lead to cooling, but when all the natural and human - induced climate drivers are stacked up and compared to one another, the accumulation of human - released heat - trapping gases in the atmosphere is so large that it has very likely swamped other climate drivers over the past half century, leading to observed global warming.

Elsewhere, notably on the west coasts of continents, the winds blow away surface water; colder water from below wells up to replace it and cools the atmosphere.

Just as Earth took a while to cool down after the end of the Pliocene era, «one of the implications of the study is that Earth today is trying to catch up to the level of warming that we've put into the atmosphere.

P.s. Myrrh is correct on some things 100 %, on others he is wrong, for example: «water evaporation cools the land and the sea, BUT, that doesn't cool the planet — only takes heat high up to be easier cooled by the shuttling oxygen & nitrogen, plus: as sun umbrellas clouds intercept lots of heat, high up — nevertheless, that heat is still in the earth's system — only O&N are» COOLING THE PLANET» Petra, do you believe that; O&N exist in the atmosphere?

However, arguing that the climate would cool only be 2.5 degrees when you remove all the CO2 in the atmosphere is really just a made up number and ignored several articles on the subject that show otherwise.

The adiabatic lapse rate also acts as a negative feedback by moving heat higher up into the atmosphere where it can more easily escape, which also serves to cool the surface.

Basically, as fast as heat loiters about on our planet's surface, it either radiates off to space or Water will pick it up and carry it to the upper layers of our atmosphere, where it will change form from gas to liquid or solid giving off heat to space while being super cooled at the same time.

When net the heat release from ocean to atmosphere and directly to space add up to less than heating bu sun, the ocean warms, in the opposite case it cools.

If we continue emitting large amounts of CO2 while we work towards converting to 3/4 solar power and survive the heating that we inadvertently speed up by reflecting more heat into an atmosphere already overburdened with reflective - heat - capturing CO2, some day in the future when the atmospheric CO2 returns to its natural percentage of 0.0300 % instead of today's extremely high 0.03811 % the world will cool down to the levels that nature intended.

«once you remove a large heat flow, for example by letting all the water boil away, the surface heats up» So, Eli is saying, if absorptive material is added (to the atmosphere) the surface cools; if absorptive material is removed, the surface warms.

CO2 cooling is as natural as CO2 warming, the atmosphere being a highly dynamic and complex system: a natural cooling system taking heat from the surface of the earth up into space via convective currents.

AGW climate scientists seem to ignore that while the earth's surface may be warming, our atmosphere above 10,000 ft. above MSL is a refrigerator that can take water vapor scavenged from the vast oceans on earth (which are also a formidable heat sink), lift it to cold zones in the atmosphere by convective physical processes, chill it (removing vast amounts of heat from the atmosphere) or freeze it, (removing even more vast amounts of heat from the atmosphere) drop it on land and oceans as rain, sleet or snow, moisturizing and cooling the soil, cooling the oceans and building polar ice caps and even more importantly, increasing the albedo of the earth, with a critical negative feedback determining how much of the sun's energy is reflected back into space, changing the moment of inertia of the earth by removing water mass from equatorial latitudes and transporting this water vapor mass to the poles, reducing the earth's spin axis moment of inertia and speeding up its spin rate, etc..

If example 3 was the complete system, then the atmosphere would heat up and the earth would cool down until they were in thermal equilibrium.

At about 90 km up, I note that the atmosphere of Venus cools down to very low temperatures in the vicinity of -112 deg C. I suspect this is the CO2 thermal radiation escape altitude there.

The higher the concentration of «greenhouse» gases, the more optically thick the atmosphere, and therefore radiative cooling to space takes place from higher up in the atmosphere.

I will keep bring this up every month or two until 1) someone says they clearly see what I am talking about or 2) someone clearly explains how this radiation pressure created by these LW radiations, up from the ground, 1/2 down from GHGs does not cause a pressure which will expand the atmosphere and by thermodynamics fundamental equations will cool the atmosphere in exactly an equal amount.

Note that the temperature reached within the cavity is unaffected by the expansion of the atmosphere, or the (~ 10 %) adiabatic cooling temporarily caused thereby; it just takes a little longer to heat up to its final value; the extra energy is stored in the greater gravitational potential energy of the expanded atmosphere.

Then that lowest atmosphere layer emit and a 50 - 50 split sends it half up and half down; and the up ward is again absorbed by a higher and now cooler layer; which in turn emits but now at a lower temperature; until finally some much higher and much cooler layer gets to emit radiation that actually escapes to space and that radiating temperature is the one that must balance with the incoming TSI insolation rate.

I have just definitively proven above that it is not a feature of static equilibrium, it is a dynamic phenomena caused by differential and irregular time dependent heating and cooling, where the bulk of the heating is at the surface, but where heat loss occurs to some extent very high up in the atmosphere as well.

Otherwise you have the embarrassing possibility that a GHG - free atmosphere would simple lower the tropopause to the surface, because there is no mechanism for the atmosphere to cool up there.