Sentences with phrase «radiative energy transfer in»

He models radiative energy transfer in free space and radiation transfer between atoms from pages 73 to 113.

In this case we need directly empirical data about the atmosphere and we need the theory of radiative energy transfer in gases, that's all.

Not exact matches

(This just shows that while the stratosphere as a whole may be in radiative equilibrium, i.e., energy transfer is primarily by radiative means, there are some locations in the stratosphere where dynamic energy transport is also significant.)

All what I list in the above is empirical evidence on the models of radiative energy transfer.

An option then is to remove clothes if there is no wind (think bikini skiing in the alps) to maximize radiative energy transfer.

This bench experiment is used in Universities around the world to demonstrate that maximum radiative energy transfer occurs in a vacuum.

For instance, radiative transfer models (measuring heat balance) are quite well verified, and accurately predict the rise in the temperature (and hence energy) of the atmosphere as the CO2 level increases.

Your hypothesis assumes that increased absorption of energy in the troposphere will be transmitted to the surface by convection, since radiative transfer doesn't change if the temperature remains constant, and the radiative imbalance at the TOA wouldn't change.

Studies have shown that these radiative transfer models match up with the observed increase in energy reaching the Earth's surface with very good accuracy (Puckrin 2004).

ii) The real question is whether changes in radiative characteristics alone can result in energy being transferred from the radiative SDL to the mechanical AAL so as to add to the energy in that latterLoop and thereby significantly increase the temperature of atmosphere and surface by in turn increasing the time delay in the transmission of energy through the system.

The problem with this particular fantasy kim is that the physics of radiative transfer mean that increasing the fraction of atmospheric CO2 will cause energy to accumulate in the climate system (mainly the global ocean)-- exactly as observed.

However there is no law that says radiative transfers have to balance, in fact we know from the law of conservation of energy that this isn't the case: a solar panel has no radiative equilibrium because the incoming radiation is converted into heat.

I thought that in the adiabatic case (in order to mirror the atmosphere) there is nil radiative or conductive heat flow.That is the standard atmosphere model where conduction is very small compared with other energy transfers.

Well, as you can see from this thread, you might be OK with radiative transfer code, but plenty of others are confused about radiation and the conservation of energy, in general.

Terms: Radiative energy transfer = energy moving away carried in the radiation Mass transfer = energy moving away carried in the thermal mass of a material, in this case, gases.

In the real - world, energy transfer from the Sun to Earth and Earth to Space is purely radiative.

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)

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.

The reason this warms the surface is most easily understood by starting with a simplified model of a purely radiative greenhouse effect that ignores energy transfer in the atmosphere by convection (sensible heat transport) and by the evaporation and condensation of water vapor (latent heat transport).

The fundamental equation of radiative transfer at the emitting surface of an astronomical body, relating changes in radiant - energy flux to changes in temperature, is the Stefan - Boltzmann equation --

Best estimates of the main energy components involved in radiative transfer and energy flows through the climate system do not satisfy physical constraints for conservation of energy without adjustments.

The parameter dTa / dFa is a nonsense which can only have a limited use for black bodies in radiative equilibriums without other energy transfer modes.

Physical science is highly constrained by what is known about energy budgets, paleoclimate and radiative transfer in gases, and alternate hypotheses are hard to come by as the skeptics well know by now after a decade of trying.