Sentences with phrase «about radiative heat transfer»

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.

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

Not exact matches

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 coeffitransfer 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 coeffiTransfer» to confirm (it's in the tables of combined heat transfer coefficienheat transfer coeffitransfer 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.