FALSE OR TRUE problem about incoming and outgoing energy

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheMathNoob
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy
AI Thread Summary
At high latitudes, the statement that incoming solar radiation is greater than outgoing terrestrial radiation is false. The discussion emphasizes that outgoing terrestrial radiation exceeds incoming solar radiation in these regions, contributing to cooler temperatures. This cooling process is ongoing, but it is mitigated by heat transport from lower latitudes through warm winds. The conversation highlights the importance of atmospheric dynamics in regulating temperatures at high latitudes. Overall, high latitudes are indeed cooling, but this trend is influenced by external heat sources.
TheMathNoob
Messages
189
Reaction score
4

Homework Statement


At high latitudes, the incoming solar radiation is greater than outgoing terrestrial radiation:
False or true

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


I would say false because if that happened, high altitudes would be very warm and the north pole is not warm. I think that the amount of terrestrial radiation going out is greater than the amount of incoming solar radiation at high latitudes.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
TheMathNoob said:
I think that the amount of terrestrial radiation going out is greater than the amount of incoming solar radiation at high latitudes.

Does that mean that high latitudes are cooling off to a lower temperature than they are currently at?
 
Drakkith said:
Does that mean that high latitudes are cooling off to a lower temperature than they are currently at?
Yes
 
TheMathNoob said:
Yes

Okay. So when does this cooling off stop?
 
Drakkith said:
Okay. So when does this cooling off stop?
Yes, I am reading and I just noticed that this cooling off stops because of the heat transport by warm winds from low pressure zones to high pressure zones.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top