Sentences with phrase «with radiation modelling»

Sure, he also equated (perhaps unknowingly) GCM's with radiation modelling techniques so that the audience might further confuse the former with the straight - forward latter.

Not exact matches

In December 2017, writing in Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Yankeelov and collaborators at UT Austin and Technical University of Munich, showed that they can predict how brain tumors (gliomas) will grow and respond to X-ray radiation therapy with much greater accuracy than previous models.

Experts say the dose from the backscatter is negligible when compared with naturally occurring background radiation, but a linear model shows even such trivial amounts increase the number of cancer cases

In further studies, the researchers tested the capacity of ANG to prevent and mitigate radiation - induced bone marrow failure, and in pre-clinical models, they found that survival following radiation exposure was increased after treatment with recombinant ANG protein.

In a bid to progress beyond the shotgun approach to fighting cancer — blasting malignant cells with toxic chemicals or radiation, which kills surrounding healthy cells in the process — researchers at the Harvard - MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology (HST) are using nanotechnology to develop seek - and - destroy models to zero in on and dismantle tumors without damaging nearby normal tissue.

«In this study we've used a bacterium with unrivalled resistance to radiation as a model for the type of bacteria we might find signs of on Mars.

The scientists worked with model bacteria that are representative of the sort of microbial lifeforms that might be expected to have emerged on Mars and used a Raman spectrometer to track how the detectable signal from them changed with increasing exposure to radiation.

«Our results are based on a realistic modelling of the accretion of gas onto the black holes, and of the radiation they emit, which is compatible with current astronomical observations.

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.

New climate models — made by using estimated radiation levels from that time, along with data from the Magellan spacecraft about Venus's current surface — suggest that Venus would have been only 11 °C (52 °F).

Several natural causes were tested with the model, including volcano eruptions and changes in the sun's radiation.

By comparing recent measurements with results from new models, the network challenged the long - debated assumption that the Sun's slight change in radiation could cause Earth's climate to change.

New computer modeling suggests that high temperature TPV conversion — which captures infrared radiation from very hot surfaces — could one day rival combined - cycle turbine systems when combined with thermal storage using liquid metal at temperatures around 1,300 degrees Celsius.

This model describes three types of forces: electromagnetic interactions, which cause all phenomena associated with electric and magnetic fields and the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation; strong interactions, which bind atomic nuclei; and the weak nuclear force, which governs beta decay — a form of natural radioactivity — and hydrogen fusion, the source of the sun's energy.

The latest study of the afterglow of the big bang — the so - called cosmic microwave background radiation — confirms even more precisely the standard model of cosmology — and that's a victory for the theory — but it leaves researchers with no discrepancies that might point to a deeper understanding.

Starting with data taken from observations of the cosmic background radiation — a flash of light that occurred 380,000 years after the big bang that presents the earliest view of cosmic structure — the researchers applied the basic laws that govern the interaction of matter and allowed their model of the early universe to evolve.

With the inclusion of radiation pressure, the 2017 models show how these two factors can create spirals like those also observed around the same star.

To calculate the exposure risks, or the chance that a person will be diagnosed with cancer, Cucinotta and others studying cosmic radiation examine and develop theoretical models.

T - cells (red, yellow, and blue) attack a tumour in a mouse model of breast cancer following treatment with radiation and a PD - L1 immune checkpoint inhibitor, as seen by transparent tumour tomography.

Injecting breast cancer with oxygen - filled microbubbles makes tumors three - times more sensitive to radiation therapy and improves survival in animal models of the disease.

Here we show the usefulness of combining survey sequencing with dense radiation - hybrid (RH) maps for extracting maximum comparative genome information from model organisms.

They were able to combine their data with observations from other telescopes and revealed an almost featureless spectrum that could not be completely explained by a blackbody model (blackbodies are opaque objects that emit thermal radiation).

The analysis ascribes that a large EF underestimate is the dominant source of error in all models with a large positive temperature bias, whereas an EF overestimate compensates for an excess of absorbed shortwave radiation in nearly all the models with the smallest temperature bias.

Older skylights were simply a single thickness of glass in a frame, newer models come with laminated or tempered glass, and low - e and tinted coatings to control heat transmission and UV radiation.

Lessons from simple toy models and experience with more sophisticated GCMs suggests that any perturbation to the TOA radiation budget from whatever source is a pretty good predictor of eventual surface temperature change.

The work is an estimate of the global average based on a single - column, time - average model of the atmosphere and surface (with some approximations — e.g. the surface is not truly a perfect blackbody in the LW (long - wave) portion of the spectrum (the wavelengths dominated by terrestrial / atmospheric emission, as opposed to SW radiation, dominated by solar radiation), but it can give you a pretty good idea of things (fig 1 shows a spectrum of radiation to space); there is also some comparison to actual measurements.

You can play with this yourself using the online modtran or ncar radiation models.

Looking at the surface temperature and the ocean heat content changes together though allows us to pin down the total unrealised forcing (the net radiation imbalance) and demonstrate that the models are consistent with both the surface and ocean changes.

If the models don't reflect such differences in radiation balance between the hemispheres, then there is something wrong with the models... But globally, the oceans are warming (much) faster in the NH than in the SH...

What climate models assume is a wide - ranging compendium of physical processes that are either well known but too complicated to incorporate into the climate model (for example the direct radiational effect of Carbon Dioxide on greenhouse warming is considerably * simplified * compared to the most sophisticated «line - by - line» radiation models that are available, simply because there isn't enough computer power to make the line - by - line calculation at every location on Earth at every time step within in a GCM), or are not sufficiently well - known to treat them with complete certainty.

The basic ingredients are easy to list: — absorption / emission properties (or spectroscopic parameters) of CO2 at atmospheric pressures, i.e. data presently available from HITRAN - database combined with models of line broadening — observed properties of the atmosphere where most important features include clouds and moisture content, but many other factors have some influence — computer model of the transmission of radiation along the lines of MODTRAN or GENLN2

In these planetary GCMs, we use a relatively simple two - stream radiative transfer for scattering and absorbing atmospheres, with assumed diffuse incident of solar radiation at the top of the model domain.

If you are designing an atmospheric model with molecules that absorb or emit ir energy, N2 and O2 would not be modeled as absorbing or emitting ir energy through vibrational interactions with electromagnetic radiation.

Studies with climate models have noted that the ITCZ width depends on interactions between radiation and clouds (Voigt & Shaw 2015) and how the model represents sub-grid scale convection (Kang et al. 2009), but a physical understanding of why the ITCZ width is affected by these processes is lacking.

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

While the authors found decreases in radiation loss with short - term temperature increases, I find that the CMIP models exhibit an INCREASE in radiative loss with short term warming.

Even though some of the CMIP models produce a lot of global warming, all of them are still stable in this regard, with net increases in lost radiation with warming (NOTE: If analyzing the transient CMIP runs where CO2 is increased over long periods of time, one must first remove that radiative forcing in order to see the increase in radiative loss).

But for e.g. undergraduate lessons simple models only taking radiation transport by greenhouse gases together with the distribution of solar radiation are sufficient to demonstrate the effect of greenhouse gases on the earth troposphere and that they are essential to explain their basic thermal structure.

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

Radiative - covective models put the surface albedo, gas composition and their infrared absorption together with the solar irradiation into account, this gives a first guess of the top of troposphere, surface temperature and greenhouse effect (= surface temperature — radiation temperature).

You can take readings on the model with a light meter and get a quantitative idea how much (for example) a reflector is increasing radiation.

A SOM is much cheaper and simpler to run compared to a full ocean model, but still reacts to things happening in the atmosphere, like changes in downwelling radiation or fluxes associated with surface wind.

Their forecast is based on the quantity of incoming solar radiation using 16 - day forecast from the WRF model combined with an assessment of the mechanical stability of the landfast ice cover.

However, climate models forced with CO2 reveal that global energy accumulation is, instead, primarily caused by an increase in absorbed solar radiation (ASR).

The strongest upward motion in the model's TTL is generally driven by dynamics instead of radiation, occurring in those TTL cloudy regions that overlap with optically thick clouds in the upper troposphere (UT).

Once a GCM has cycled for several hundred «years» (and do they model the «solar year» with it's changing radiation and incidences, or only the «average» entire year?)

The radiation obsessed IPCC science model with its fictitious 33K effect is false.

Bill Gray has a favorite diagram, taken from a 1985 climate model, showing little nodules in the center with such labels as «thermal inertia» and «net energy balance» and «latent heat flux» and «subsurface heat storage» and «absorbed heat radiation» and so on, and they are emitting arrows that curve and loop in all directions, bumping into yet more jargon, like «soil moisture» and «surface roughness» and «vertical wind» and «meltwater» and «volcanoes.»

Overlap with water vapor is important for radiation from clear skies, but shouldn't all models should get relative humidity correct and agree with observations from space?

Are you saying that because he uses a LTE model with atmospheric layers to explain carbon dioxide IR radiation (and re-radiation), that he is implying that one should find non-smooth temperatures with increasing height in such layers?