Sentences with phrase «what space radiation»

Topping the list is a $ 1.75 million project to irradiate up to 18 squirrel monkeys in an effort to find out what space radiation does to the central nervous system.

Not exact matches

The first suggestion that the flow existed came in 2008, when a group led by Alexander Kashlinsky of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, scrutinised what was then the best map of the cosmic microwave background radiation, the big bang's afterglow.

Says Zeitlin, «This is the first study using observations from space to confirm what has been thought for some time — that plastics and other lightweight materials are pound - for - pound more effective for shielding against cosmic radiation than aluminum.

Scientists knew that something in space accelerated particles in the radiation belts to more than 99 percent the speed of light but they didn't know what that something was.

Such people, however, have been exposed to different types of radiation from what one encounters in space, and at best the correlation of data is imprecise.

Last year, Dan Hooper of Fermilab in Batavia, Illinois used data from the Fermi space telescope to show what could be radiation from a similarly lightweight dark matter particle coming from the centre of the Milky Way.

The radiation used for cancer therapies is a much more targeted version of what exists in outer space, and exposure to that radiation presents a major health risk, and thus a serious challenge for NASA, SpaceX, and other organizations trying to explore the solar system.

What could blast out so much light and radiation from such a small space?

The largest of these eruptions cause what is known as space weather — the radiation, energetic particles and magnetic field releases from the Sun powerful enough to cause severe effects in Earth's near environment, such as the disruption of communications, power lines and navigations systems.

Given that solar output four billion years ago was only about 60 percent of what it is today, enhanced levels of carbon dioxide and perhaps ammonia (NH3) must have been present in order to retard the loss of infrared radiation into space.

Absorption of thermal radiation cools the thermal spectra of the earth as seen from space, radiation emitted by de-excitation is what results in the further warming of the surface, and the surface continues to warm until the rate at which energy is radiated from the earth's climate system (given the increased opacity of the atmosphere to longwave radiation) is equal to the rate at which energy enters it.

What happens at the «top of atmosphere» — the level where outgoing radiation leaves for space, not itself a very easy concept — is the restoration of equilibrium, the increase in temperature that, through Helmholtz - Boltzmann at the Earth's brightness temperature 255K, restores the balance between incoming and outgoing energies.

What other things in the Earth system will change when it warms up that will affect how much SW radiation is reflected back into space [eg ice - albedo feedback, cloud changes] or affect what proportion of emitted LW radiation is allowed to escape to space [eg Water Vapour, cloud changWhat other things in the Earth system will change when it warms up that will affect how much SW radiation is reflected back into space [eg ice - albedo feedback, cloud changes] or affect what proportion of emitted LW radiation is allowed to escape to space [eg Water Vapour, cloud changwhat proportion of emitted LW radiation is allowed to escape to space [eg Water Vapour, cloud changes].

But the the radiation emitted in space is again exactly the same, and so the «photosphere» (TOA defined by IR optical depth around one), what I understand being the «skin», is the same.

Physics says the energy into a system must equal the energy out once in balance, The heat in the oceans is what must be there to produce enough heat radiation out to space through the air / GHG blanket.

This increase in surface radiation into space is proportional to what I called the «Planck response».

If back radiation is not capable for whatever reason to affect the temperature of the source (the Earth's surface), then it absolutely does not matter what sort of adventures the primary surface radiation experiences on it's way to the space.

The important issues is the emission of radiation to space — and at what height this takes place from — that causes the surface temperature to change.

With annual solar radiation at 3,500 kWh per square meter, akin to what you see in outer space, it is no surprise that Chile is a world leader in solar energy production.

At this point, very simple physics takes over, and you are pretty much doomed, by what scientists refer to as the «radiative» properties of carbon dioxide molecules (which trap infrared heat radiation that would otherwise escape to space), to have a warming planet.

The effect of that is less solar radiation being reflected away back into the space and that is what causes the temperature of the Earth's surface to rise.

If less energy comes in, the governor will try to maintain the energy flux into the system (Willis's retarding the appearance of clouds) but once all stops have been pulled out (the sky is clear morning to night), then the engine slows down — slower air and water currents, less addition of heat to the polar areas, dissipation of what heat has accumulated by radiation into space and return cold water not getting the heating it formerly did.

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

I'm a professional infrared astronomer who spent his life trying to observe space through the atmosphere's back - radiation that the environmental activists claim is caused by CO2 and guess what?

I'm wondering about what I've recently read about Chemtrails being used to «protect microcircuits from radiation», creating a «web of electrically conducting sheets» or «metallic nets of ultra-fine mesh - spacing» in the stratosphere to protect our semiconductors from atmospheric radiation (solar flares aka coronal ejections).

And, what ends up mattering there is, essentially, what level the radiation that does escape into space (as opposed to being re-absorbed) is emitted from.

The larger planet sees incoming radiation from what is essentially all outer space (which we will assume is 4K for this thought experiment).

How you conceive of these two sentences, «What happens is that if more radiation reaches the surface, then it warms up and more radiation is emitted to space.

What happens is that if more radiation reaches the surface, then it warms up and more radiation is emitted to space.

By applying what has been learned about solar radiation changes from the recent measurements from space, we can infer that this gradual build - up in solar activity over several hundred years may have been accompanied by a parallel increase in the radiation received from the Sun.

It also requires the added assumption that long - term changes in solar total radiation can exceed by two and a half times what has been observed in recent measurements from space.

Anander, If the radiation changes rapidly, what you say is true, but it does not take long for the uppermost tens of meters to reach an equilibrium and in the equilibrium the heat transfer from the surface to atmosphere (and space) must equal the radiative heating.

This is possible only because most of this radiation is absorbed in the atmosphere, and what actually escapes out into space is mostly emitted from colder atmosphere.

That is determined by consideration of the absorption of the atmosphere of terrestrial radiation (and radiation emitted by the atmosphere), which essentially ends up determining at what altitude the temperature has to be determined via radiative balance between the Earth system (earth + atmosphere) and the sun and space [which for the earth system with its current albedo is ~ 255 K].

If you mean by «the atmosphere heats the earth» that the atmosphere causes the earth to be at a higher steady - state temperature than if all of the radiation that the earth emitted went back out into space, then yes, that is what I am claiming; however, it doesn't violate the 2nd Law because the heat still goes from the earth to the atmosphere.

When scientists model radiation from the earth atmosphere to space, what temperature do they use for the temperature of space on the dark side of the planet?

KIA: If the atmosphere is warming, by what amount, if any, is radiation from the earth to space increasing?

If the atmosphere is warming, by what amount, if any, is radiation from the earth to space increasing?

Now the radiation imbalance at the top of the real atmosphere is not really a driver of anything, so much as a consequence of what is going on below and coming in from above, and of course there are other problems with the method which are well known (e.g. can all the forcings be just added up to find a net one, do some of them interact, are some of them heterogeneuous in space).

Jim, your suggested change to my comment (currently at # 34)-- «All heat that leaves the earth to space is by radiation» - is accurate and also what I said in my first reply to Matthew (currently at # 27).

In this case, what happens is the whole surface - atmospheric column is now receiving more (absorbed) solar radiation than it is emitting terrestrial radiation to space.

The approach would be to look at the radiation from the earth to the space and analyze, what is behind the changes that we observe.