Sentences with phrase «considers energy radiation»
The thought experiment only considers energy radiation.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/ Not exact matches
Astronomers long considered two other main candidates in addition to synchrotron radiation: black - body radiation, which results from the emission of heat from an object, and inverse Compton radiation, which results when an accelerated particle transfers energy to a photon.
Of course this is a global average but in principle I see no reason not to consider that some large percentage of the energy warming the tropical Pacific will be from «back radiation» (for which CO2 will be partly responsible) and thus not «direct from the sun.»
Too simple Doc, you need to determine the S - B equivalent energy per put forced by the candle and the fluorescent lighting while considering the downwelling longwave radiation mean of the bathroom atmosphere and the rate of energy transfer to the tub bottom before proposing that internal harmonics might impact energy transfer in the put put boat manifold leading to erratic propulsion.
There is little need to consider other than the troposphere, just knowing that it acquires thermal energy from the stratosphere and from absorption of downwelling and upwelling radiation.
The surface and the atmosphere exchange energy by convection and radiation (conduction is so small it need not be considered).
It might help you if you had a few concepds in mind too when considering this subject, like «space» is the big energy «sink» with old sol (and the internal heat generating processes (including nuclear) of the earth) as sources... any mechanism that results in a delay of energy leaving earth, such as a «bounce - back» or a re-rad of energy (like back radiation) certainly is going to increase the «energy flux» in the system, and this in any way you want to frame the argument translates to a «higher» energy state, and a higher so - called temperature» (movement in matter, velocity of air molecules or oscillations in certain «resonant molecules) as well.
(2) Just saying the words «lapse rate» and «ideal gas equation» doesn't get you around having to explain how one could conserve energy if one considers the current surface temperature of the earth and imagines that one had an atmosphere transparent to IR radiation from the earth's surface.
Anyone who supports Trenberth's diagram and considers that the back radiation theory is correct should be asked to explain why we are not utilising this fanastic energy source.
Considering that Trenberth and Kiehl in their energy balance diagrams use the term «greenhouse gases» instead of the proper term «atmosphere» as the causative agent for their 324Watts / m ^ 2 «back radiation»; this can not be considered valid science.
It might be useful to consider other sources of energy into the earth - system than the obvious radiation one, the electromagnetic route (EM).