Sentences with phrase «understand radiation physics»

«Leonard Weinstein 2013-12-11 08:55 This writeup is a typical example of why actual scientists that understand radiation Physics have no respect for many of the Principia Scientific Institute publications.

Not exact matches

Both Hawking radiation and the Unruh effect are intriguing to physicists as these phenomena connect quantum mechanics and gravity, between which lies a poorly understood netherworld of physics.

Understanding how to decode the outgoing Hawking radiation will require researchers to weave together quantum physics and general relativity into a seamless theory of quantum gravity — a goal that has so far proved elusive.

Sure, the aether doesn't exist and electromagnetic radiation propagates through vacuum without any problem whatsoever, and the change in understanding helped revolutionize physics.

97 Barton Paul Levenson «BPL: It is dangerous for an amateur like you to accuse a climate scientist like me of not understanding basic radiation physics.»

For heaven's sake, won't any of you «climate scientists» accept that your understanding of basic radiation physics, which professional engineers and physicists like me who have worked decades in practical heat transfer, know very well.

Most people don't understand the details of atmospheric physics or principal components analysis, and so take many statements about «back - radiation» and «hockeysticks» on trust.

Instead, it's understood by traditional physics that any part of the spectrum of electromagnetic is capable of heating objects, if the intensity of the electromagnetic radiation is high enough.

The meeting will mainly cover the following themes, but can include other topics related to understanding and modelling the atmosphere: ● Surface drag and momentum transport: orographic drag, convective momentum transport ● Processes relevant for polar prediction: stable boundary layers, mixed - phase clouds ● Shallow and deep convection: stochasticity, scale - awareness, organization, grey zone issues ● Clouds and circulation feedbacks: boundary - layer clouds, CFMIP, cirrus ● Microphysics and aerosol - cloud interactions: microphysical observations, parameterization, process studies on aerosol - cloud interactions ● Radiation: circulation coupling; interaction between radiation and clouds ● Land - atmosphere interactions: Role of land processes (snow, soil moisture, soil temperature, and vegetation) in sub-seasonal to seasonal (S2S) prediction ● Physics - dynamics coupling: numerical methods, scale - separation and grey - zone, thermodynamic consistency ● Next generation model development: the challenge of exascale, dynamical core developments, regional refinement, super-parametrization ● High Impact and Extreme Weather: role of convective scale models; ensembles; relevant challenges for model development

However, it's simple enough to argue (not conclusively) that the the «null» hypothesis should be a postive effect rather than zero: our understanding of atmospheric physics predicts that adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases its clear - sky opacity to certain bands of IR radiation.

Fourth, their comments also indicate their lack of understandings of the basic radiation physics of the Earth system as well as of the efficacies of different greenhouse gases in affecting global surface temperature.

(I'm certain you have mastered Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulations of physics and understand action principles), electrodynamics (so that Maxwell's equations are no mystery to you, nor is relativity theory and the theory of electromagnetic radiation — did I mention that the other textbook I've written is a graduate level text in classical electrodynamics?)

Another reason that hypothesis II and III are not as plausible in my view is that for them to be correct, our understanding of radiative physics etc., which have been tested experimentally and by observations (e.g. spectra of outbound IR radiation) must be fundamentally wrong.

I have a basic knowledge of physics, but I simply can not understand the connection between change in radiation in the amosphere, and change in temperature at the surface.

«6: Incomprehensible...» ANSWER: figure 6 - A to 6 - D explain the basic physics of the radiative effect of trace gas in the air; cards n ° 14, 15, 16 explain further the basics that are supposed to be understood by anyone speaking or writing about radiation in the air.

The Dynamics and Physics Theme involves research aimed at improving our understanding of tropical cyclones through the application of fundamental physical principles of air motion, moist thermodynamics, and radiation.

They provide material on the science of climate change assuming that the users already have a basic understanding of geophysical fluid dynamics, and relevant physical processes such as radiation transfer, diffusion, the hydrological cycle, and cloud physics along with some understanding of air chemistry, hydrology, and oceanography.

Unless you have endured countless hours of radiation protection, and biology, NUCLEAR PHYSICS, and understand the intricacies of positioning patients get back to your scope of practice and stay out of ours.