Sentences with phrase «radiative heat transfer as»

As you say, convection uses up a lot of energy too and also counters the idea of radiative heat transfer as a big ticket item because «hot» CO2 molecules only remain so for a brief fraction of a second before they collide with N2 or O2 to warm that localised parcel of air; which then rises to attain equilibrium T somewhere higher and at a COLDER temp so no rad Transf!!!

To do so, they used an existing model that describes radiative heat transfer as electrical currents flowing within two objects.

Not exact matches

«Fire is losing heat through radiative and convective heat transfer and it is gaining heat as energy is produced as a result of combustion, so it is an energy balance problem.

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.

In the latter case it is about heat transfer and the way climate science has bungled the thermodynamics, in the former it is not about the radiative greenhouse effect as that is not about reflection.

The immediate effect GHG's is to influence radiative heat transfer, but nobody knowledgeable thinks that convection would not be important as well.

Alec M.: I am prepared to repeat this master class in the real heat transfer at the Earth's surface on as regular a basis as needed to correct the problem of people having been taught incorrect radiative physics!

About 40 years ago, using electrical heating of horizontal plates of hot - rolled steel and aluminium to separate natural convective and radiative heat transfer, I measured the former and deduced the latter by difference as a function of local GHG composition and temperature to design large process plant.

It is found as the additional result that the radiative heat transfer qr has small influence on the integral heat balance.

As you rise, the atmosphere becomes less dense, convection less effective, until eventually heat transfer is dominated by radiative heat transfer.

This form of Radiative Heat transfer is known as Resonance Absorption.

Bryan: The basic law of radiation heat transfer which denotes that the equilibrium temperature of a black body surface varies as the fourth root of the radiative energy it emits?

So simply from basic thermodynamics and heat transfer considerations when you're dealing with a radiative imbalance El Nino is likely to heat the earth up as much as La Nina cools it.

The reason is that for a macroscopic object such as an ordinary mercury thermometer or a spacecraft, radiative heating and cooling processes will dominate (by orders of magnitude) over convective heat transfer with the thin thermosphere.

As already said, the radiative heat transfer surface to air is the radiation of the surface absorbed by the air minus the radiation of the air absorbed by the surface: it would be exactly zero for an isothermal atmosphere and is nearly zero for an opaque atmosphere (figure 6 - A).

«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.

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:

Well there is no such thing as «radiative heat transfer», although people do use that term loosely, and quite incorrectly.

George Smith, Yes, there is such a thing as radiative heat transfer.

I am sorry to say that you (the author) are severely lack of fundamental knowledge of radiative heat transfer (such as mie scattering or rayleigh scattering), so are those lousy GHG warmer or scientist

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.

SoD, this is a long post so I'll finish with this thought: why is radiative flux equated with heat transfer as the backradiation appears to be?

``... the greenhouse models are all based on simplistic pictures of radiative transfer and their obscure relation to thermodynamics, disregarding the other forms of heat transfer such as thermal conductivity, convection, latent heat exchange et cetera.

As far as I can tell Halpern et al talk about radiative heat transfer, e.g. in the abstract: «They claim that radiative heat transfer from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface is forbidden -LSB-...]&raquAs far as I can tell Halpern et al talk about radiative heat transfer, e.g. in the abstract: «They claim that radiative heat transfer from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface is forbidden -LSB-...]&raquas I can tell Halpern et al talk about radiative heat transfer, e.g. in the abstract: «They claim that radiative heat transfer from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface is forbidden -LSB-...]»

As I understand projections are of course made on the basis of what is known today, which comprises that greenhouse gases force the climate system due to a well understood mechanism of radiative heat transfer, generating models that well explain what is observed and measured today.

88, Marco: As I understand projections are of course made on the basis of what is known today, which comprises that greenhouse gases force the climate system due to a well understood mechanism of radiative heat transfer, generating models that well explain what is observed and measured today.

If you dismiss the environment of the thermodynamic system on trying to know the radiative heat transfer from a thermodynamic system, you must consider the environment of such thermodynamic system, otherwise, the calculations are flawed, or biased, as you wish.

Or it may be that as an instantaneous solution to radiative transfer, HITRAN is ok, but to the question of non-instantaneous energy transfer from the surface to the TOA which necessarily includes convection and transfer of energy by latent heat of vaporisation and more... then it only tells part of the story.

As you point out, there are many different combinations of heat transfer processes and states of the atmosphere and surface that can provide that same value of tropopause radiative fluxes.

For a comprehensive GCM I can count oceans, land, atmosphere, ice, biological processes, organic and inorganic chemical processes, human - made sources and other effects, radiative energy transport, conduction and convective heat transfer, phase change, clouds and aerosols, as some of the important system components, phenomena, and processes.