|
Post by icefisher on Jan 27, 2016 17:42:04 GMT
all its contents would reach the same temperature, emitting exactly what it received. depending upon the number of photon/electron exchanges it makes and the speed it makes them has a lot to do with how fast that equilibrium is achieved. You are mixing up the idea of thermal equilibrium/thermodynamic equilibrium with another idea called steady state. When your system reaches a steady state, energy is being driven thru the system by the heater and then the energy is leaving that system. This is a one way process. Thermal equilibrium requires a two way process in all parts of the system. Only if you close the gaps to create a solid surface at 495k and no 3k can you eventually get thermal equilibrium and a uniform temperature of 495k I am using a common dictionary Andrew. Equilibrium the same temperature. I will recognize a slight difference due to the field of view of the surface being slightly less than 100% on a global wide basis so in fact an equilibrium would not be reached it would fall just slightly short of it, short to a trifling degree and really not relevant to anything. Steady state is what your model implies, namely the equivalent surface of CO2 facing downwards to earth reaching a steady state of a temperature with 1/2 the radiating power of the surface. It also would not be a true steady state because the diurnal cycle would be changing it as the earth rotates. But a theoretical steady state based upon mean (which Andrew I recognize not being a true steady state) is one that can be discussed with anybody who is not a moron.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 27, 2016 18:30:44 GMT
You are mixing up the idea of thermal equilibrium/thermodynamic equilibrium with another idea called steady state. When your system reaches a steady state, energy is being driven thru the system by the heater and then the energy is leaving that system. This is a one way process. Thermal equilibrium requires a two way process in all parts of the system. Only if you close the gaps to create a solid surface at 495k and no 3k can you eventually get thermal equilibrium and a uniform temperature of 495k I am using a common dictionary Andrew. Equilibrium the same temperature. I will recognize a slight difference due to the field of view of the surface being slightly less than 100% on a global wide basis so in fact an equilibrium would not be reached it would fall just slightly short of it, short to a trifling degree and really not relevant to anything. Steady state is what your model implies, namely the equivalent surface of CO2 facing downwards to earth reaching a steady state of a temperature with 1/2 the radiating power of the surface. It also would not be a true steady state because the diurnal cycle would be changing it as the earth rotates. But a theoretical steady state based upon mean (which Andrew I recognize not being a true steady state) is one that can be discussed with anybody who is not a moron. 100% of the heating output of your system is leaving that system. You are totally nowhere near thermal equilibrium.
|
|