The moon example was to illustrate
that with radiative heat transfer, cooler objects can transfer heat to warmer ones, because heat outflux is solely dependent on the temperature and material properties of the radiator.
Not exact matches
One can not define a temperature at any point in the column
with latent
heating alone, without appealing to
radiative transfer.
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!!!
«The dual wave and particle nature of radiation is recognised, but it is considered more appropriate, and indeed necessary, for an understanding of
radiative heat transfer to consider the frequencies and intensities associated
with the wave nature of radiation, for only then can the one - way
transfer of
heat be described and quantified in a meaningful manner.»
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.
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.
That is how they view it, but they have, like Wikipedia, ignored mass
transfer from
heated surfaces to all gases, which would happen
with or without any
radiative component.
First,
radiative heat transfer will only occur
with the approximately 2 % of the gaseous molecules that are IR active.
Two physical processes are involved
with heat sinks and sources within the thermometer viewshed; mass
transfer and
radiative transfer.
2) The effects of clouds and aerosols on
radiative heat transfer, which are many and varied and still being studied
with many questions open.
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).
... he realized the extreme complexity of the temperature control at any particular region of the earth's surface, and also that
radiative equilibrium was not actually established, but if any substance is added to the atmosphere which delays the
transfer of low temperature radiation, without interfering
with the arrival or distribution of the
heat supply, some rise of temperature appears to be inevitable in those parts which are furthest from outer space.
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?
I made the suggestion that the NET
radiative flux should be compared
with other
heat transfer processes; you think otherwise.
you wrote: «But the research on
radiative transfer carried out in connection
with heat sensor / seeking systems for military purposes would seem to make it unlikely that any such major error has gone unnoticed.»