Sentences with phrase «with back radiation»

If you get it wrong, the igloo walls will not save you with their back radiation.

The lapse rate has nothing to do with back radiation as even scienceofdoom admits.

Not exact matches

It can be treated with chemotherapy and radiation, but medical experts said it almost always grows back.

«One of the toughest challenges of lung cancer is what to do for patients when the cancer comes back in an area that's been treated previously with radiation treatment,» said James J. Urbanic, M.D., lead author of the studies and a radiation oncologist at Wake Forest Baptist.

«With some of the technological advances in radiation treatments that have occurred in the last five to 10 years, we're beginning to re-look at the issue and ask — can we target the radiation precisely enough and with a high enough dose to knock the cancer back?&raWith some of the technological advances in radiation treatments that have occurred in the last five to 10 years, we're beginning to re-look at the issue and ask — can we target the radiation precisely enough and with a high enough dose to knock the cancer back?&rawith a high enough dose to knock the cancer back?»

The resulting plastic can be programmed with ultraviolet radiation to assume any permanent shape, and it can switch back to that shape even after being deformed by more than 100 %, the team reports in the 30 January issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

JPL's upcoming $ 2 billion Europa Clipper mission will borrow its orbital innovations to dodge Jupiter's fierce radiation, and Cassini's scientists are migrating to missions proposed or underway to Jupiter's moons; the ice giants Neptune and Uranus; or back to Saturn's moons, this time armed with new tools to search for life.

At the end of a visit to the University of California at Berkeley in the 1930s, Segre took back to Sicily with him a few bits of an old cyclotron, no longer needed, that had been exposed to radiation during the lifetime of the machine.

All these accessories, plus a model rifle, were tagged with retroreflectors, which can reflect a beam of radiation back to its source regardless of the angle of incidence.

However, comparing the results of the climate simulations for the most recent interglacial with scenario calculations for the future reveals substantial differences: thanks to the more intense solar radiation, back then the air temperatures at higher latitudes were also a few degrees higher than at present.

The collapse creates so much heat and pressure that the star forges the heaviest elements known and blasts them and most of its outer layers back out into space, along with blinding radiation.

Material falling from the exploded star onto the compact companion would have been heated and blasted back into space in two narrow jets, along with a beam of radiation.

The sulphur in the lower atmosphere below 15kms is reflecting sunlight back into space but the black soot also a component in the ABC's is heating when bombarded with solar radiation and warming the atmosphere up to 15kms dramatically affecting cloud formation and monsoon / drought cycles.

Thus when the Earth is radiating with a greater intensity than the back radiation from the air, then the excess radiation will be absorbed by the air molecules, and the air will warm.

«If this view is correct, the need for «back - radiation» to satisfy the first law of thermodynamics at the surface disappears and with it the «problem» with the second law.»

The singer will be using CBD oil in combination with photon radiation therapy to battle cancer which metastasized in a bone in her lower back.

It helps to put them back in the driver seat during their treatment, instead of treating them as a passenger as we bombard them with chemotherapy and radiation therapy.

Flashing back five years, Transcendence finds leading A.I. scientist Will Caster (Johnny Depp) shot down by an anti-technology extremist group; in true comic - book fashion, these unlikely terrorists lace the fired bullet with radiation, leaving their genius target on his deathbed.

Thus when the Earth is radiating with a greater intensity than the back radiation from the air, then the excess radiation will be absorbed by the air molecules, and the air will warm.

Finally, going back to Bryan's remark, he is certainly correct that the physical heat flow generated at ridges etc is tiny with respect to the flux of SW radiation.

In the context of global climate, absorbed solar radiation (about 240 W / m2, with 30 percent of the incident radiation being reflected back to space) is the energy source that keeps the Earth's surface warm.

The climate models further hide the «back radiation» energy by using double the optical depth for low level clouds compared with reality.

Areas with high water vapour content at the exact same latitude don't cool off nearly as much which is evidence of the very back radiation you are trying to refute.

With an added forcing, temperature increases which increases outgoing radiation until the radiation budget is back in balance.

Please show where I have relied on «computer models with an almost 100 % fail rate» for measurements of back radiation.

My previous post here 16 months ago (which objected to the back - radiation explanation of the greenhouse effect) was met with much more hostility.

The back - radiation explanation of the greenhouse effect that people used to prefer until recently is less satisfactory because it has the kinds of problems I pointed out 16 months ago in an article on this blog, which was received at the time with only slightly more enthusiasm than Galileo's heliocentric account of planetary motions: at least no one suggested I be placed under house arrest for it!

Alarmists are obsessed with the additional energy that they believe to come from back - radiation from manmade CO2 in the atmosphere.

But CO2 combined with the sun does indeed warm due to the back - scattering of infrared radiation.

Over land, you have a surface energy balance that includes downwelling IR, upwelling IR (Stefan Boltzmann), downwelling solar radiation minus what is reflected back from the surface, latent heat flux and sensible heat flux (these are turbulent fluxes associated with exchange with the atmosphere), and conductive flux from the ground (below the surface).

(Hank) This reduces to absurdity the notion of back - warming radiation, as G and T (and R W Woods with his famous terrestrial greenhouse experiment) point out.

I agree with you, «back radiation» does not determine the temperature of the Earth, it's all a bunch of bovine excrement / sophistry.

The surface of the earth is not a sink with a tap (the sun) and a drain (radiation back to space).

No publication discusses a greenhouse effect specifically at the poles, so don't bother me with links to all the «runaway greenhouse» garbage (which I've studied for thousands of hours) because there's only 1W / m ^ 2 going in from the Sun, and so no more coming out into the atmosphere, and so no more coming down again as back radiation.

The inflowing Pacific Waters spread across half the Arctic Ocean with a heat equivalent equal to, and up to twice as great, as possible heat estimated from CO2 back - radiation.

Ok here is my theory - of - everything, which seems to combine two different views: during the night, IR back radiation keeps the night surface a bit warmer, but this surface warmth must be trapped by bulk atmosphere, which is in physical contact with the surface.

However, because, as I think we all agree now, the atmosphere with GHGs does intercept and reradiate that light (and does so in all direction including back toward the ground) the total incoming radiation the ground sees is * slightly * higher than with no GHGs.

However this gets into the intersection of topics with «back radiation».

Thus, long - term variations of TSI (with account for their direct and secondary, based on feedback effects, influence) are the main fundamental cause of climate changes since variations of the Earth climate is mainly determined by a long - term imbalance between the energy of solar radiation entering the upper layers of the Earth's atmosphere and the total energy emitted from the Earth back to space.»

As it stands I am inclined to agree with the others and believe you are a troll sent by the CAGW to hi - jack all serious discussions here at WUWT on the subject of back radiation.

This clashes with your other apparent belief that Hansen «back radiation» and the GHE is preventing temperatures from going «massively negative» — filling the legendary» 33K» void.

Spencer's article lends support to the discredited idea that cold CO2 [carbon dioxide] high in the atmosphere back - radiates to Earth's warmer surface, heating it more and causing it to radiate to the atmosphere and space with higher intensity than it would without cold CO2 back - radiation.

The back - radiation can not be more energetic than the source, and in fact, must be of lesser energetic state than the original source, for it has shed some energy by collision with other forms of matter (absorbed, re-radiated, etc...).

If the CO2 was the entire cause of warming due to back radiation would not the atmosphere need to be warming in lockstep with the oceans?

With 2), there's still something I don't get... and this applies just as much to your answer as to any answers you would get from climate science, since clouds are clouds (i.e droplets of water), and water vapour is a gas, so their back - radiation explanation doesn't even apply in the case of clouds (not saying it physically could apply anywhere but hopefully you get what I mean)... what I don't get is, you liken them to a blanket, but a blanket is next to you, clouds are separated from the surface by quite a bit of atmosphere — so why is it warmer the next morning at the surface when the clouds are there?

The only comment I agree with is that the shell does not transfer «heat» to the sphere (by definition of heat transfer), but it does cause the sphere to heat up due to the transfer of back radiation energy (you can have energy transfer both ways, but heat transfer only refers to NET energy transfer), and this requires a higher sphere equilibrium temperature for a given energy net transfer for net energy balance.

Where I see a lot of confusion, is when people talk about the atmosphere, with its GHGs «reflectign surface emitted LWIR radiation back to the surface.

Verticle wind shear correlates well with temperature so as temperature increases you can expect more thermal losses across the tropopause which will reduce the increase in radiation reflected back to the surface which should reduce the expected surface temperature increase.

Robert Wood tested and falsified Arrhenius» theory in 1909 employing an experimental protocol that controlled for infrared («back») radiation within the greenhouse by employing different materials for the panes of experimental green houses: one with glass and one with plates of rock salt, which is transparent to infrared unlike glass.

I would like also mention that when calculating the influence of water vapor or CO2 one ought to calculate not with the total back radiation but only with that part that is due to water vapor and / or CO2.