Sentences with phrase «what absorbs the heat»

Not exact matches

Scientists can measure how much energy greenhouse gases now add (roughly three watts per square meter), but what eludes precise definition is how much other factors — the response of clouds to warming, the cooling role of aerosols, the heat and gas absorbed by oceans, human transformation of the landscape, even the natural variability of solar strength — diminish or strengthen that effect.

Currently, the amount of infrared heat radiated back to space is slightly less than what we absorb from the sun due to the increase in greenhouse gases.

And to know what to look for — water molecules absorb and emit different wavelengths of light when they're superhot and furiously jiggling — Bernath heated a tube of water in his lab to 2800 degrees.

What scientists discovered in 2014 is that since the turn of the century, oceans have been absorbing more of global warming's heat and energy than would normally be expected, helping to slow rates of warming on land.

What's the best estimate of the amount of heat the oceans have absorbed?

What else you need for summer styles.light cotton stuff hijab resists heat and it also absorbs less heat than silk hijab.

We not only have the largest vitamin and mineral panel on the market (including organic apple cider vinegar, turmeric and colostrum), we were also one of the first companies to recognize what heat degradation does to vitamins, and worked persistently to make sure all the nutrients from meats and vitamins alike are fully absorbed into the body.

To repeat what I wrote in # 130, which you appear not to have absorbed: «All gases are greenhouse; they don't need to be able to absorb IR to heat — conduction & convection work perfectly well.»

Away from the dense network of heat absorbing (daytime) then heat radiating (nighttime) structures which is the Urban Heat Island and above the air with high water vapor content trapped by the valley along the river, not to mention the pall of coal dust over the city, morning low temps were much more like what the natural countryside would experieheat absorbing (daytime) then heat radiating (nighttime) structures which is the Urban Heat Island and above the air with high water vapor content trapped by the valley along the river, not to mention the pall of coal dust over the city, morning low temps were much more like what the natural countryside would experieheat radiating (nighttime) structures which is the Urban Heat Island and above the air with high water vapor content trapped by the valley along the river, not to mention the pall of coal dust over the city, morning low temps were much more like what the natural countryside would experieHeat Island and above the air with high water vapor content trapped by the valley along the river, not to mention the pall of coal dust over the city, morning low temps were much more like what the natural countryside would experience.

It's a nonprofit entity that aims to blend academic and communications talent to help society better absorb what scientists are saying about the challenges posed by an accelerating buildup of a long - lived heat - trapping gas that also happens to be the bubbles in beer — not your grandparents» idea of a pollutant.

The skin layer planet is optically very thin, so it doesn't affect the OLR significantly, but (absent direct solar heating) the little bit of the radiant flux (approximatly equal to the OLR) from below that it absorbs must be (at equilibrium) balanced by emission, which will be both downward and upward, so the flux emitted in either direction is only half of what was absorbed from below; via Kirchhoff's Law, the temperature must be smaller than the brightness temperature of the OLR (for a grey gas, Tskin ^ 4 ~ = (Te ^ 4) / 2, where Te is the effective radiating temperature for the planet, equal to the brightness temperature of the OLR — *** HOWEVER, see below ***).

Do you agree that when the heating effect of extra CO2 is due almost exclusively to what it itself absorbs from outside, but the cooling effect entails an ability to dissipate heat from the additional source, cooling can now outweigh warming?

If these pools of oil are involved with absorbing heat thus regulating temperature, but are missing, then what?

This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO2 an effective heat - trapping greenhouse gas.

If the CO2 simply re-emits the LW photons it absorbs, then how does it heat the air, that is the N and O2, which is what the greenhouse effect does?

What you don't seem to know is that most of the heat retained by the earth because of the difference between incoming and outgoing radiation (which is inhibited by CO2 and H2O and other GHG's) is almost entirely absorbed by the oceans 90 % of it, which have a huge heat capacity.

The only bit relevant to the current dispute in Specer's post seems to be this: «Well, notice that what we are left with in this thought experiment is an atmosphere that is heated from below by the ground absorbing sunlight, but the atmosphere has no way of cooling... except in a very shallow layer right next to the ground where it can cool by conduction at night.»

If somehow it isn't you guys need to show what magical mechanism is causing physics to break and for CO2 to lose its ability to absorb infra red light and heat up.

In the next part of my posts will be my experiment that shows that the GHGE does not exist and another paper that relates back to what I learn from a physics professor when learning quantum physics (55 years ago) and the Bohr model (which has had revisions with time) the basic is that a gas does not «heat» when it absorbs IR, it has an increase of internal energy.

[This is actually in real physics the invisible thermal infrared, aka longwave infrared, which is in the real world the energy from the Sun actually physically able to heat land and oceans and does heat land and oceans, and us, it is what we feel as heat and which we absorb.

Not being absorbed by real world water, visible is not only not capable because of its tiny scale of moving the whole molecule of water into vibration which is what it takes to heat water, but it isn't even able to be absorbed by the electrons of the water molecules as the electrons of the molecules of air absorb it, so water doesn't reflect / scatter visible light on the electrons of molecule level as does air, but gives up and passes it along, and so, visible is transmitted through, also, unchanged, but much delayed.

So now we have a whole generation, because it was deliberately introduced into the education system, who believe the idiotic fisics «that visible light is capable of heating the water in the oceans», when in the real world and real world physics, a) water is a transparent medium for visible light, it doesn't absorb visible light at all but transmits it through unchanged, and b) visible light in the real world works on the electronic transition level on meeting matter, this level is tiny, it isn't capable of moving whole molecules of matter into vibration which is what it takes to heat water.

What CO2 does do is it absorbs and then 100 attoseconds later, emits Infrared photons, or radiant heat.

What I think you meant is that at equilibrium they absorb exactly as much radiation from each other as they emit to each other, so there is no net flow of heat.

Whatever the average regional temperature, it's hotter in the cities, because concentrations of traffic, business, heating, cooking, lighting and air conditioning generate what has become known as the urban heat island effect: what makes this worse is that the asphalt, tarmacadam, stone, brick, glass and tile of which cities are made absorb radiation but prevent ground evaporation as a natural cooling device.

What is ACTUALLY happening now is that the atmospheric greenhouse effect is getting stronger; and at the same time the circulations of water and air and heat and cloud and so on around the globe are going on their merry chaotic way, meaning that we are going to have unpredictable short term variations while there is a continual flow of heat into the ocean from the energy imbalance between what is being emitted and what is being absorWhat is ACTUALLY happening now is that the atmospheric greenhouse effect is getting stronger; and at the same time the circulations of water and air and heat and cloud and so on around the globe are going on their merry chaotic way, meaning that we are going to have unpredictable short term variations while there is a continual flow of heat into the ocean from the energy imbalance between what is being emitted and what is being absorwhat is being emitted and what is being absorwhat is being absorbed.

ANSWER: it has been said again and again that (truth n ° 1 and elsewhere): The radiative heat flow from a body A to a body B is: (radiation from A absorbed by B) minus (radiation of B absorbed by A)... what you call «net»

Since to me (and many scientists, although some wanted a lot more corroborative evidence, which they've also gotten) it makes absolutely no sense to presume that the earth would just go about its merry way and keep the climate nice and relatively stable for us (though this rare actual climate scientist pseudo skeptic seems to think it would, based upon some non scientific belief — see second half of this piece), when the earth changes climate easily as it is, climate is ultimately an expression of energy, it is stabilized (right now) by the oceans and ice sheets, and increasing the number of long term thermal radiation / heat energy absorbing and re radiating molecules to levels not seen on earth in several million years would add an enormous influx of energy to the lower atmosphere earth system, which would mildly warm the air and increasingly transfer energy to the earth over time, which in turn would start to alter those stabilizing systems (and which, with increasing ocean energy retention and accelerating polar ice sheet melting at both ends of the globe, is exactly what we've been seeing) and start to reinforce the same process until a new stases would be reached well after the atmospheric levels of ghg has stabilized.

how does 6μ to 20μ wavelength of radiative heat energy being absorbed, scattered, diffused what ever mechanism you can invent, by 400 ppm volumetric density of CO2 with molecule size of 3.2 Angstrom, which means your purple ball size is ~ 1/3000 of your sun light yellow ball at atomspheric temperature of 15 C?

What will happen is that the ocean is expected to stop «helping» us by absorbing as much heat as it does now, which means that more heat will go into the atmosphere.

Given such a state of affairs, i.e., the earth absorbing heat from the sun and no heat leaving it (in the hypothetical case of an atmosphere at the same temperature as the earth), what would happen: Would the earth remain at the same temperature or would its temperature increase?

You did not read what I had written — no additional heat absorbed - no temperature increase - no global warming.

Regarding flatness over this period, the Lyman and Johnson paper referenced by Judith says this: «In recent years, from 2004 to 2011, while the upper ocean is not warming, the ocean continues to absorb heat at depth (e.g., Levitus et al. 2012; von Schuckman and Le Traon 2011), here estimated at a rate of 0.56 Wm2 when integrating over 0 — 1800 m.» That 0.56 Wm2 figure is again pretty close to what the Balmeseda et al. reanalysis produces.

Climate models encapsulate what we know about how the Sun's rays travel through the atmosphere and how heat from the surface of the Earth gets absorbed by clouds, water vapour and, of course, carbon dioxide.

Because they absorb so much heat, dark - colored roofs and roadways create what is called the urban heat island effect, where a city is significantly warmer than its surrounding rural areas.

Most of what my flawed view of the GHG effect that gave it credibility was that it absorbed more solar energy which would require the atmosphere to heat until it radiated more energy.

It seemed an appropriate response to the apparent view that each photon gets absorbed only once — and that was what heated up the atmopshere.

I think those 3 wavelengths of heat were absorbed at around 360 ppm which is what the CO2 levels were about 18 years ago or so, and adding more CO2 has done nothing to capture more heat.

tom0mason wrote: «The basic understanding that our «climate scientists ™» should have is water on this planet is he control knob for how much of the sun's heat is absorbed and released and over what time period.»

The basic understanding that our «climate scientists ™» should have is water on this planet is he control knob for how much of the sun's heat is absorbed and released and over what time period.

Because it absorbs heat, concrete helps reduce what's called «urban heat islands,» a suspected global warming contributor.