Sentences with phrase «net transfer of heat»

The second law of thermodynamics refers to the NET transfer of heat energy that must be from warmer to cooler bodies.

There is energy transfer in both directions resulting in a net transfer of heat from the hotter to the cooler

The diurnal and seasonal variations add, however, to the circulation but can not lead to more net transfer of heat to upper altitudes than the optically thin atmosphere can lose by net IR (emission - absorption).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but El Nino doesn't «warm» the atmosphere, because there is still a net transfer of heat from the air to the ocean.

For the atmosphere to be heating the oceans (not buffering the loss of heat from the oceans which you keep describing), but actually HEATING the oceans, there HAS to be a NET transfer of heat energy FROM the atmosphere TO the oceans.

there must be a NET transfer of heat energy FROM the atmosphere TO the oceans.

The amount of energy absorbed depends on the temperature of the absorber, shown to be true by the stefan - boltzmann equation for net transfer of heat.

That makes it look like 2010 was characterized by a slight departure from the average net transfers of heat between ocean and surface.

Not exact matches

This creates a dense net of fibers that water can't penetrate — and it also traps air bubbles that prevent heat transfer, keeping water from freezing on the feather's surface.

Changes in Hadley circulation affects convection and thus atmospheric moisture content and cloud cover which may in turn affect net solar heating as well as the transfer of heat from Earth to space.

Radiation transfers heat across different scales at different optical thicknesses for different frequencies; the net radiant flux depends more on temperature variations that occur over distances on the order of a unit of optical thickness, so the net flux can be through smaller - scale temperature variations.

Yes, when looking at energy transfer and its capacity to effect temperature change, NET heat transfer, the sum of all the separate transfers IS what is relevent.

EM waves transfer energy from one location to another, it is the net transfer of energy that is considered heat.

For example: you write That is why the 364 W / m2 of potential heat transfer from air that is 10 °C will not warm you up but I know if I take an ice cube out of the freezer it will melt in the shade during your cool afternoon air... so it is all about the net balances... and the introduction of the word forcing seems to introduce a totally spurious concept that can only confuse.

The basis for that view is simply the amount of long wave (LW) energy that is absorbed by the atmosphere is already small which is why forcing is used in place of net heat transfers.

Clouds, the result of evaporation, are the visible, observable proof that NET heat energy transfer is FROM the oceans, TO the atmosphere.

You created the requirement of a net transfer from the atmosphere to the ocean, whereas I explained with two examples that the greenhouse effect can put heat in the oceans due to a change in greenhouse gases despite a flatlining in surface temperatures of both ocean and air AND an uninterrupted net transfer from ocean to air.

So, with that bit of confusing verbiage, I renew my request: Does anyone know of or could you create some kind of illustrations / animation that show masses (water) being displaced vertically when there is e.g. Eckman pumping, and something that shows net conventional heat transfer, but applied to this particular subject?

In general, the tropical oceans will tend to show a net gain of heat, and the polar oceans a net loss, the result of a net transfer of energy polewards in the oceans.

Your theory and that of the man you cite, Claes Johnson, in which net heat transfer is considered a fiction, can not properly explain how a thermos works.

This is why all heat transfer calculations and measurements work in all other disciplines except Atmospheric physics act on the basis of identifying the net energy flow.

The formula for the «net rate [from the enclosed object] of loss or gain of energy by radiation (or the heat transferred by radiation) is

If this was an issue of science for the purpose of advancement of our understanding, the question would be is the value of the net effect from the combination of geothermal heat transfer and permanent energy uptake 3, 6.5, or 18.05 Watts / m ^ 2; but as this entire issue is nothing more than a politically motivated fabrication the only question of concern seems to be who said what about whom and were they justified in doing so.

If we use Miskolczi value of 250.05 Watts / m ^ 2 this combined net contribution from geothermal heat transfer and the permanent incorporation of incoming energy into the Earth's systems we get 18.05 Watts / m ^ 2.

The circular flow of heat is impossible, of course, but no net cooling occurs aside from tiny transfers of heat from the gas in or out of the wire as they come into a state of dynamic equilibrium.

I suspect that the net effect of this heat transfer is improved cooling efficiency because thermally driven self - organized systems generally work that way rather than the other way.

The most natural type of long term variability is in my view based on slowly varying changes in ocean circulation, which doesn't necessarily involve major transfer of heat from one place to another but influences cloudiness and other large scale weather patterns and through that the net energy flux of the Earth system.

The only comment I agree with is that the shell does not transfer «heat» to the sphere (by definition of heat transfer), but it does cause the sphere to heat up due to the transfer of back radiation energy (you can have energy transfer both ways, but heat transfer only refers to NET energy transfer), and this requires a higher sphere equilibrium temperature for a given energy net transfer for net energy balanNET energy transfer), and this requires a higher sphere equilibrium temperature for a given energy net transfer for net energy balannet transfer for net energy balannet energy balance.

«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.

DWR54 wrote: «Most of the heat coming off the ground (or walls, etc) is convection — or «net» transfer of heat from a warmer to a cooler medium, typically causing heat to rise from the surface into the cooler air aloft.

Without atmosphere the surface of the ocean or land would lose o (T ^ 4 — Ts ^ 4)(1) where Ts is the temperature of the space (about 4K) while in the presence of the atmosphere the heat losses are hc * (T — Tl)(2) and o (T ^ 4 — Tl ^ 4)(3) where (2) represents the heat transfer by convection (inclusive conduction) through the air layer and (3) corresponds to the net flow due to the heat exchange by radiation, Tl being the mean temperature of the air layer.

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.

This heat transfers to the atmosphere as 97 W / m ^ 2 convection / evapo - transpiration plus 63 W / m ^ 2 real net IR emission, of which 40 W / m ^ 2 goes to Space (2009 «Energy Budget»).

Allyene — not in «heat is the net transfer of energy from hot to cold and cold to hot», and, statistically speaking or not, see Joel's post re amount.

The actual Second Law is based on the fact that although energy transfers occur in both directions, by simple statistics it becomes essentially astronomically improbable that the net flow of energy, what we call «heat» -LSB-,] will be from the hotter body to the colder body for any macroscopic bodies.

The actual Second Law is based on the fact that although energy transfers occur in both directions, by simple statistics it becomes essentially astronomically improbable that the net flow of energy, what we call «heat» will be from the hotter body to the colder body for any macroscopic bodies.

However SOME energy can be transferred from cold to warm, as long as MORE energy is transferred from warm to cold (ie as long as the net transfer of energy is from warm to cool; ie as long as the heat is from warm to cool).

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.

In this equation, q is the rate of heat transfer, which is the NET rate of energy transfer.

By the way, I accept that, in the case of both soldering irons, the direction of net heat transfer is from the very hot heating element to the less hot iron to the still less hot penny.

Ira:... «By the way, I accept that, in the case of both soldering irons, the direction of net heat transfer is from the very hot heating element to the less hot iron to the still less hot penny.

A correct statement is that latent heat transfer is the most important source of warming of the atmosphere (when LWIR is considered based on net values, not gross).

It means that all objects are at the same temperature and there is no net heat transfer and no gain or loss of energy from the system.

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.

If true, then a discussion of the «net rate of energy transfer» isn't «bull»; it is just one way of determining the heat between objects; and hence can be used in part to determine the surface temperatures of objects in a multi-object system.

cementafriend, thanks for bring this up: «If convection occurs before radiation and the temperature of the atmosphere just above the surface is the same as the surface then it is clear that radiation to absorbing gases (CO2 and water vapour) will be zero because there is no net heat transfer between objects at the same temperature.».