Sentences with phrase «about radiative heat»

As far as I can tell Halpern et al talk about radiative heat transfer, e.g. in the abstract: «They claim that radiative heat transfer from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface is forbidden -LSB-...]»

The author obviously knows nothing about radiative heat transfer.

I know Greenhouse Theory is suppose to be entirely about radiative heat loss.

But I don't think it's all about radiative heat loss.

The discussion about radiative heat transfer shows how temperature differences regulate the amount of energy transferred between objects.

Not exact matches

As an analogy, if I told you that I was going to paint my white car black and that I expected it would get hotter on sunny days as a result, you would probably start asking questions about what the temperature of the paint was when I applied it and how those molecules heated up or cooled down, ignoring the relevant factor which is this: By painting the car black, I am changing the car's albedo and thus changing the radiative balance between the car and the sun on sunny days.

As for your question about hurricanes, the argument given for the global mean hydrological cycle doesn't apply to the hurricane because the global mean argument assumes an equilibrium between radiative cooling and latent heat release.

«Above about 50 km in altitude, the ozone heating effect diminishes in importance because of falling ozone concentrations, and radiative cooling becomes relatively more important.

Indeed — lots more science — most of which supports the idea that the impact of clouds is «small» in terms of the radiative heat imbalance brought about by increased GHGs.

Climate response (and thus climate sensitivity) isn't just about radiative balance, heat capacity etc..

Considering the heat capacity of the oceans is about 1,100 times greater than the air, would not even a modest change in cloud cover affect the radiative balance with far greater magnitude than a parts - per - million change in an atmospheric gas constituent?

In the latter case it is about heat transfer and the way climate science has bungled the thermodynamics, in the former it is not about the radiative greenhouse effect as that is not about reflection.

In air, the radiative heat transfer flux for 0.9 emissivity steel only exceeds natural convection at c. 100 deg C. For aluminium it's about 300 deg C. Check any of the standard engineering texts, e.g. McAdam «Heat Transfer» to confirm (it's in the tables of combined heat transfer coefficienheat transfer flux for 0.9 emissivity steel only exceeds natural convection at c. 100 deg C. For aluminium it's about 300 deg C. Check any of the standard engineering texts, e.g. McAdam «Heat Transfer» to confirm (it's in the tables of combined heat transfer coefficienHeat Transfer» to confirm (it's in the tables of combined heat transfer coefficienheat transfer coefficients).

About 40 years ago, using electrical heating of horizontal plates of hot - rolled steel and aluminium to separate natural convective and radiative heat transfer, I measured the former and deduced the latter by difference as a function of local GHG composition and temperature to design large process plant.

But I concluded that the guy didn't know what he was talking about, or more likely was intentionally misrepresenting radiative heat transfer science.

Irrespective of what one thinks about aerosol forcing, it would be hard to argue that the rate of net forcing increase and / or over-all radiative imbalance has actually dropped markedly in recent years, so any change in net heat uptake can only be reasonably attributed to a bit of natural variability or observational uncertainty.

Finally go to radiative surface heat loss in fig. 5.8 (bottom) and see that over deserts it accounts for just about everything, is dominant in general over land, and not much of the total over water.

Those observations do contradict the conjecture of a «greenhouse effect» for which there is no physically admissible definition at hand: there is no «heat trapping» between surface and air as the net radiative heat flow between those bodies is about nil

It is not «conduction» but exchange of radiation; if you keep your hands parallel at a distance of some cm the right hand does not (radiatively) «warm» the left hand or vice versa albeit at 33 °C skin temperature they exchange some hundreds of W / m ² (about 500 W / m ²) The solar radiation reaching the surface (for 71 % of the surface, the oceans) is lost by evaporation (or evapotranspiration of the vegetation), plus some convection (20 W / ²) and some radiation reaching the cosmos directly through the window 8µm to 12 µm (about 20 W / m ² «global» average); only the radiative heat flow surface to air (absorbed by the air) is negligible (plus or minus); the non radiative (latent heat, sensible heat) are transferred for surface to air and compensate for a part of the heat lost to the cosmos by the upper layer of the water vapour displayed on figure 6 - C.

This is achieved through the study of three independent records, the net heat flux into the oceans over 5 decades, the sea - level change rate based on tide gauge records over the 20th century, and the sea - surface temperature variations... We find that the total radiative forcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just those associated with the TSI variations, thus implying the necessary existence of an amplification mechanism, although without pointing to which one.

The oceanic calorimeter may have see the ocean heat content increase by some 140 to 180 ZettaJoule since 1960 but the cumulative radiative forcing is about 1200 to 1500 ZettaJoule, seven times more!

It is not the infrared emission that cools the surface as in the so - called radiative equilibrium models because the net radiative heat transfer surface to air is about nil, but the evaporation whose thermostatic effect can not be overstated: increasing the surface temperature by +1 °C increases the evaporation by 6 %; where evaporation is 100 W / m ², this removes an additional 6 W / m ² from the surface.

Is this point only about the radiative characteristics of the H2O vapour, and the assumption that relative and / or specific humidity should rise thanks to CO2 - induced increased evaporation, which in turn would increase downwelling heat radiation — or just the part that slightly hotter surface (due to CO2) also emits more heat to be trapped by the vater vapour?

Just think about the even more simplified model where there is a isotope decay heat source at the center of the earth that generates sufficient energy to have a net outward radiative flux of 235 W / m ^ 2 at the Earth's surface.

You haven't a clue what you're talking about when it comes to radiative heat transfer and why it obeys the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Radiative forcing only accounts for about 1/3 of ocean heat loss — when radiative heat loss is reduced the ocean simply loses more heat the way it loses the majority of its heatRadiative forcing only accounts for about 1/3 of ocean heat loss — when radiative heat loss is reduced the ocean simply loses more heat the way it loses the majority of its heatradiative heat loss is reduced the ocean simply loses more heat the way it loses the majority of its heat already.

The skin itself cools by about 0.3 or 0.4 K due to radiative fluxes at the skin surface, which is a change that is two orders of magnitude greater than the alleged heat change in the skin layer induced by GHGs.

The problem is that most scientists haven't a clue about practical conductive, convective, radiative heat transfer so are easy meat for the charlatans who have made a good career out of pretending there's an effect of CO2.

Why should I accept your fantasies about the CO2, if scientists specialized on radiative heat transfer say the same thing that I'm saying?

There is a real question about the balance of convective and radiative heat transfer from the surface to the atmosphere, though.

When discussing radiative thermal energy exchange between two objects, it may very well be more appropriate to talk about the heat between objects and not mention the rate thermal energy leaves each object in the direction of the other object.

Note, these two different ways of treating the sensible and latent heat fluxes tell you different things about sensitivity (without allowing the evaporative flux in # 2 to change the radiative flux).