Sentences with phrase «net radiative transfer»

Even the assumption that two planets at the same temperature will have not NET radiative transfer is wrong.

There can be situations where there is no NET radiative transfer of energy between the two bodies, but they are always going to each be radiating per the Stefan - Bolzmann equation.

Repeated experiments in situ consistently show that net radiative transfer is overwhelmed by the transfer via moist convection.

Not exact matches

That the radiative flux can be measured isn't relevant because only the net energy transfer is relevant.

If that is the case and if the continuum is coming in from all directions, then there is no net radiative power transfer going on and in fact, one would not observe any absorption spectra (or emission spectra) at all.

«in an isotropic non GHG world, the net would be zero, as the mean conduction flux would equalize, but in our earth it is still nearly zero» if the atmosphere were isothermal at the same temperature as the surface then exactly the downwelling radiation absorbed by the surface would be equal to the radiation of th surface absorbed by the air (or rather by its trace gases) and both numbers would be (1 - 2E3 (t (nu)-RRB--RRB- pi B (nu, T) where t (nu) is the optical thickness, B the Planck function, nu the optical frequency and T the temperature; as the flow from the air absorbed by the surface is equal to the flow from the surface absorbed by the air, the radiative heat transfer is zero between surface and air.

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.

I pointed out that cooler objects do not warm warmer objects because the net radiative heat transfer would be negative and because it would imply that the cooler object spontaneously loses entropy without doing any work.

In any introductory engineering heat transfer text, you will see that the net radiative heat transfer between two objects (1 and 2) is given as:

But it also affects the radiative transfer — which is equal to the net radiation between atmosphere and surface.

From this layman's perspective you are discussing NET radiative heat transfer between non-gaseous objects thus infering wide band land wave radiation is emitted / absorbed by the surface of each object.

The shape of the CO2 band is such that, once saturated near the center over sufficiently small distances, increases in CO2 don't have much affect on the net radiative energy transfer from one layer of air to the other so long as CO2 is the only absorbing and emitting agent — but increases in CO2 will reduce the LW cooling of the surface to space, the net LW cooling from the surface to the air, the net LW cooling of the atmosphere to space (except in the stratosphere), and in general, it will tend to reduce the net LW cooling from a warmer to cooler layer when at least one of those layers contains some other absorbing / emitting substance (surface, water vapor, clouds) or is space)

The net transfer rate is all the matters for most practical concerns but at the deeper level the radiative transfer goes two ways.

If you want a bit deeper understanding of the radiative energy flow one needs to understand that all matter above absolute zero radiates and where there are two bodies at different temperatures there's a net transfer of energy between the two from warmer to colder.

That gravity is responsible for the 33K in unexplained heating and contrary to the assumptions of the radiative transfer model, increasing the weight of N2O2 in the atmosphere will increase the surface temperature, as more and more molecules are packed into a smaller volume, resulting in a net increase in energy per cubic meter of atmosphere at the surface, which we measure as an increase in temperature.

Therefore it is only the net energy flows which need be considered when estimating the radiative heat transfers in the diagram.

Gerlich and Tscheuschner, despite their apparent mastery of the mathematics of radiative transfer, don't know the difference between gross and net radiative flux, and they are apparently unaware of the concept of causality in an Einsteinian framework — a molecule of CO2 emitting a photon in a random direction can't know if there is a (cooler or warmer) surface in the direction of emission until time has elapsed for the photon to travel to the surface and back, and has no mechanism to remember from one photon to the next whether there was a source of photons in that direction, or what the apparent temperature of the emitter was.

I made the suggestion that the NET radiative flux should be compared with other heat transfer processes; you think otherwise.