Sentences with phrase «cold radiation heat»

How can such cold radiation heat anything according to your thinking?

Not exact matches

However no matter what they do to them, radiation, heat, cold, starvation, etc.... A fly always is a fly.

The key is the spore: a bacterial spore, or tough shell, forms in response to harsh environmental conditions such as heat, cold, radiation or the presence of toxic substances such as gold.

It will be exposed to extreme heat and cold, vibration, radiation, and vacuum to make sure the design is robust.

The higher it is, the more intense the radiation is, just like a hot bar of metal emits much more heat than a cold one.

Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, so there is no way heat radiation could have travelled between the two horizons to even out the hot and cold spots created in the big bang and leave the thermal equilibrium we see now.

In addition to hostile creatures, a planet's weather can also spell doom for an unprepared player thanks to dangerous weather conditions including extreme heat, extreme cold, toxic atmosphere, and radiation.

Hence the energy must come from the atmosphere, but wherever the atmosphere is colder than the Antarctic surface, there can be no heat transfer by radiation.

In the absence of solar heating, there is an equilibrium «skin temperature» that would be approached in the uppermost atmosphere (above the effective emitting altitude) which is only dependent on the outgoing longwave (LW) radiation to space in the case where optical properties in the LW part of the spectrum are invariant over wavelength (this skin temperature will be colder than the temperature at the effective emitting altitude).

Increasing the height of the convection cell doesn't generally help the planet radiate away heat, since the higher the tropospause (loosely the height of convection) goes, the colder it gets, inhibiting radiation.

Re 9 wili — I know of a paper suggesting, as I recall, that enhanced «backradiation» (downward radiation reaching the surface emitted by the air / clouds) contributed more to Arctic amplification specifically in the cold part of the year (just to be clear, backradiation should generally increase with any warming (aside from greenhouse feedbacks) and more so with a warming due to an increase in the greenhouse effect (including feedbacks like water vapor and, if positive, clouds, though regional changes in water vapor and clouds can go against the global trend); otherwise it was always my understanding that the albedo feedback was key (while sea ice decreases so far have been more a summer phenomenon (when it would be warmer to begin with), the heat capacity of the sea prevents much temperature response, but there is a greater build up of heat from the albedo feedback, and this is released in the cold part of the year when ice forms later or would have formed or would have been thicker; the seasonal effect of reduced winter snow cover decreasing at those latitudes which still recieve sunlight in the winter would not be so delayed).

«In fact, heat, in the form of heat, never passes out of a body except when it flows by conduction or radiation into a colder body.»

«When a system of bodies at different temperatures is left to itself, the transfer of heat which takes place always has the effect of rendering the temperatures of the different bodies more nearly equal, and this character of the transfer of heat, that it passes from hotter to colder bodies, is the same whether it is by radiation or by conduction that the transfer takes place.»

In this case you have the diffusion transfer equation, which similarly has a differential of hot and cold terms describing the heat flow, as does the radiation transfer equation, and we all understand that heat does not physically diffuse from cold to hot and that physical contact between a cold object and warm object does not make the warmer object warmer still.

Because that is what it is, it is thermal energy (which is heat) on the move from hotter to colder (which is heat) transferred by radiation, which is thermal infrared (which is heat).

CO2 radiation at high above is cold (depends on altitudes, latitudes, and longitudes, say from 0degreeC to -60 degreeC) can not radiate net heat back to the Earth which is at a higher temperature.

If less energy comes in, the governor will try to maintain the energy flux into the system (Willis's retarding the appearance of clouds) but once all stops have been pulled out (the sky is clear morning to night), then the engine slows down — slower air and water currents, less addition of heat to the polar areas, dissipation of what heat has accumulated by radiation into space and return cold water not getting the heating it formerly did.

Turgid undergraduate books about heat transfer in university libraries all write that radiation emitted by a colder body is absorbed by a hotter body.

The big difference between this scenario is that the radiation from the lamp AND the radiation from the glass originate in materials at significantly higher temperatures than the gases and hence heat IS transferring from HOT to COLD unlike the fanciful «back radiative greenhouse effect» which truly defies the laws of Physics relying instead on pixie dust magic!

If there's no radiation from the Sun, no heat capacity in the model planet, no mass big enough to effect pressure changes («real» ideal gases which don't have mass), nothing much is happening because there's no movement, (movement from the play of hot and cold volumes as hot gases rise and cold sink, becoming less dense and gaining density), but,

Do GCM's «create» cold fronts and the arctic air flows when they run, or are they «static» heat exchange models only (radiation received and radiation released are obviously their «drivers»... But what happens after the air masses have been «driven» for the equal of one or two «years» — do we see flows in the tropics, mid-latitudes, and polar latitudes than resembles earth's circulation?

If radiation from cold, rarefied air can increase the Earth's surface temperature by 33C then radiation from heated air must increase the temperature of the bottom of the chamber by what?

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.

A cold land surface is created when the sun does not supply enough calories to convert ice to liquid by direct solar radiation or solar heated air.

And in any case, heat does not flow from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface, either by conduction, or radiation.

It doesn't emit radiation back to you thus warming you up, because heat doesn't flow from cold to hot.

On truth 16: there is radiation from cold to hot, but the heat transfer is the net balance and is from hot to cold.

There are also metal (thermal) radiation shields sitting intermediately between the inner very cold area and the outside which limit the heat flow from the outside, much as greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, limit the rate at which the surface cools.

Back radiation can only heat the ocean if the air temperature is warmer than the surface skin temperature (back radiation will contribute to the downward energy flux in all cases, but heat transfer, which is the net energy flow, always goes from hot to cold).

For instance, when the long wave radiation from the upper few micrometers of the ocean is upward, the skin temperature is usually cooler than the bulk SST.Latent and sensible heat fluxes can cool the sea surface further if the air is dryer or colder.

I am not saying that: What I am saying is that the spontaneous process of radiative heat transfer between two objects consists of two sub-processes: radiation from the hot object passing to the cold object and radiation from the cold object passing to the hot object.

Heat always moves from warmer to colder, so it must move, through whatever means, from the tropics to the arctic or, via radiation, to outer space.

Back radiation from a colder object can not heat a warmer object, energy only travels from a warmer to a colder object, unless external work is applied.

You can not heat a warmer object with radiation from a colder one.

All that happens when you start off with a very cold or a very hot «radiating temperature» relative to the incoming radiation is that the planet heats up or cools down until it reaches its equilibrium.

I am impresed by your claim, illustrated by images of Indians making ice using «cold» radiation (at the Earth's surface) while there is (simultaneously) a heating effect from this same radiation warming the surface (according to the IPCC) by 33C!

With over 1,150 species found worldwide in almost every place on Earth, this surprisingly tough creature boasts eight legs, can live through extreme heat and cold, pressure, radiation and even the harsh environment of outer space.

Urban myth from ignorance of life in the snowy wastes or deliberate misinformation from AGW to promote the idea that back - radiation from a cold object can heat a warmer object?

This is the only mention of «net», of net change, I don't understand how that can apply to «net as transfer of radiation» outside of it relating to the flow of heat energy as above and by breaking the 2nd Law of heat flowing always from hot to cold and never the other way around, naturally spontaneous, that is, without work being done to change it.

Conduction, convection and radiation always work in the same direction (unless outside work is used)-- they are mechanisms for transferring heat energy from hot to cold objects.