|
Post by Andrew on Feb 5, 2016 15:45:22 GMT
You claimed -100C is strangely hotter than outerspace. I pointed out the space station is in the middle of thermosphere in low earth orbit. It seems you objected to that too. The next thing i know you repeated the stupidity about insufficient mass to enable cooling. On the face of it so far you are stupid. You also seem to believe the internet stupidity that when a person gets frustrated with stupidity and ignorance this means they have lost the argument You claimed the thermosphere was hot. -100C isn't hot by most anyone's definition. I was replying to someone else about the height of the space station. The thermosphere had nothing to do with the comment. After your nonsense reply about how much cooling the space station needs.. I simply told you they are moving the heat from the sun facing side to other side. Their is insufficient mass to allow cooling. Do common metal surfaces get to 200C sitting in the sun here at sea level? Or is there an atmosphere to allow cooling. Simple people get frustrated during simple conversations. I never said it was hot. You said it was strangely "hot", and I responded to that.
|
|
|
Post by stanb999 on Feb 5, 2016 15:48:59 GMT
Who is claiming the thermosphere is hot... it was you. Not me. Your stuck on the emitter temp. Nice try at a switcheroo. You could heat your house with a few thousand of those tiny bulbs tho. A little math... 5000 2.5 watt bulbs would get you a nice warm room in most locals... You might even need to open a window. You claimed -100C is strangely hotter than outerspace. I pointed out the space station is in the middle of thermosphere in low earth orbit. It seems you objected to that too. The next thing i know you repeated your claim there was insufficient mass to enable cooling - where apparently you believe the Earth is not exposed to outerspace temperatures of 3K. Try reading this. Nasa explains how they send radiation to space to keep the space station cool science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast21mar_1/From your link.... The Station's outstretched radiators are made of honeycomb aluminum panels. There are 14 panels, each measuring 6 by 10 feet (1.8 by 3 meters), for a total of 1680 square feet (156 square meters) of ammonia-tubing-filled heat exchange area. Compare that majestic radiator with the 3-square-foot grid of coils found in typical home air conditioners and you can begin to appreciate the scope and challenge of doing "routine" things in space. Why are the coils so much bigger? could it have to do with the thin air? Kinda like your arguments... thin and full of hot air?
|
|
|
Post by stanb999 on Feb 5, 2016 15:53:39 GMT
The issue your having is that your stuck on radiative cooling. Radiative cooling or heating is very inefficient. Take and cook a steak a few inches below an electric burner. All the radiative energy one could possibly need and yet it will stay cold. Put it a foot above and the steak will sizzle. It's not sizzling due to radiative heating. It's sizzling due to convective and conductive heating. As I stated, The atmosphere simply can't cool fast. Due to limited mass to transfer the heat. So the effect seen by the obtuse is "glodal warming". When in fact it's just slow cooling. The beginning point of any model is the earth system can only cool to outerspace so no matter how inefficient that cooling system is it must work perfectly fine for our purposes. You have declared the Atmosphere is so thin at -50C that not much can happen there to cool the Earth, so it seems you believe the radiation emissions of any consequence are happening lower in the atmosphere. If we then compare the Earth being exposed to outerspace of 3k, when we would feel very cold, and us being exposed to a temperature of less than -50c as you seem to be suggesting, we would be warmer still than when we are exposed to -50C So before you tell me I am stuck on radiative cooling you need to explain to me how the earth system is cooling in your model where radiative cooling is the only method we know about. See why -100 would seem cold? Or was it rhetorical? You were on and on about -50... then in the same breath talking about -200 of deep space. Do you drink some of the hard stuff during the day?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 5, 2016 15:54:31 GMT
You claimed -100C is strangely hotter than outerspace. I pointed out the space station is in the middle of thermosphere in low earth orbit. It seems you objected to that too. The next thing i know you repeated your claim there was insufficient mass to enable cooling - where apparently you believe the Earth is not exposed to outerspace temperatures of 3K. Try reading this. Nasa explains how they send radiation to space to keep the space station cool science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast21mar_1/From your link.... The Station's outstretched radiators are made of honeycomb aluminum panels. There are 14 panels, each measuring 6 by 10 feet (1.8 by 3 meters), for a total of 1680 square feet (156 square meters) of ammonia-tubing-filled heat exchange area. Compare that majestic radiator with the 3-square-foot grid of coils found in typical home air conditioners and you can begin to appreciate the scope and challenge of doing "routine" things in space. Why are the coils so much bigger? could it have to do with the thin air? Kinda like your arguments... thin and full of hot air? It appears you do realise the Earth can only lose the heat it gains via radiating to space. It appears also you realise the thermosphere has such a tiny mass and the particles are hot that if the Earth is to lose energy to space it has to happen lower than the thermosphere. How about for once you stop trying to be a smart arse, and you treat me like a human being who wants you to explain your theory and wants you to explain how in your model the Earth loses energy to outer space?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 5, 2016 15:56:05 GMT
The beginning point of any model is the earth system can only cool to outerspace so no matter how inefficient that cooling system is it must work perfectly fine for our purposes. You have declared the Atmosphere is so thin at -50C that not much can happen there to cool the Earth, so it seems you believe the radiation emissions of any consequence are happening lower in the atmosphere. If we then compare the Earth being exposed to outerspace of 3k, when we would feel very cold, and us being exposed to a temperature of less than -50c as you seem to be suggesting, we would be warmer still than when we are exposed to -50C So before you tell me I am stuck on radiative cooling you need to explain to me how the earth system is cooling in your model where radiative cooling is the only method we know about. See why -100 would seem cold? You said it was strangely "hot".
|
|
|
Post by stanb999 on Feb 5, 2016 16:14:43 GMT
From your link.... The Station's outstretched radiators are made of honeycomb aluminum panels. There are 14 panels, each measuring 6 by 10 feet (1.8 by 3 meters), for a total of 1680 square feet (156 square meters) of ammonia-tubing-filled heat exchange area. Compare that majestic radiator with the 3-square-foot grid of coils found in typical home air conditioners and you can begin to appreciate the scope and challenge of doing "routine" things in space. Why are the coils so much bigger? could it have to do with the thin air? Kinda like your arguments... thin and full of hot air? It appears you do realise the Earth can only lose the heat it gains via radiating to space. It appears also you realise the thermosphere has such a tiny mass and the particles are hot that if the Earth is to lose energy to space it has to happen lower than the thermosphere. How about for once you stop trying to be a smart arse, and you treat me like a human being who wants you to explain your theory and wants you to explain how in your model the Earth loses energy to outer space? Ok, I will try again.. One last time The reason we have "global warming" is because the earth is insulated by miles of "air" that poorly transfers or absorbs heat. However A simple back of the envelope calculation +200 to -200 would mean about 0 if all things were equal. They aren't. It actually takes quite a bit of energy storage to maintain a higher than "average" temperature. The average conditions are bolstered by H2O and it's unique properties to retain or give off heat in excess at phase change. Phase change happens at normal atmospheric temperatures and pressures. A single pound of water can prevent the removal of or add to storage in excess of 1000 btu's. It one adds the total weight of H2O in the atmosphere... A simply massive H2O "fly wheel" becomes obvious.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 5, 2016 16:23:58 GMT
It appears you do realise the Earth can only lose the heat it gains via radiating to space. It appears also you realise the thermosphere has such a tiny mass and the particles are hot that if the Earth is to lose energy to space it has to happen lower than the thermosphere. How about for once you stop trying to be a smart arse, and you treat me like a human being who wants you to explain your theory and wants you to explain how in your model the Earth loses energy to outer space? Ok, I will try again.. One last time The reason we have "global warming" is because the earth is insulated by miles of "air" that poorly transfers or absorbs heat. However A simple back of the envelope calculation +200 to -200 would mean about 0 if all things were equal. They aren't. It actually takes quite a bit of energy storage to maintain a higher than "average" temperature. The average conditions are bolstered by H2O and it's unique properties to retain or give off heat in excess at phase change. Phase change happens at normal atmospheric temperatures and pressures. A single pound of water can prevent the removal of or add to storage in excess of 1000 btu's. It one adds the total weight of H2O in the atmosphere... A simply massive H2O "fly wheel" becomes obvious. We know that heating energy passes thru the air fairly easy. Sand at the beach is very hot and so forth. We know also that in windy conditions the Sand on the beach is not so hot and we know that heat is fairly easily transferred into the air and transported around the globe high into the atmosphere and so forth. So you need to rephrase your argument so it can be understood.
|
|
|
Post by stanb999 on Feb 5, 2016 16:29:52 GMT
Ok, I will try again.. One last time The reason we have "global warming" is because the earth is insulated by miles of "air" that poorly transfers or absorbs heat. However A simple back of the envelope calculation +200 to -200 would mean about 0 if all things were equal. They aren't. It actually takes quite a bit of energy storage to maintain a higher than "average" temperature. The average conditions are bolstered by H2O and it's unique properties to retain or give off heat in excess at phase change. Phase change happens at normal atmospheric temperatures and pressures. A single pound of water can prevent the removal of or add to storage in excess of 1000 btu's. It one adds the total weight of H2O in the atmosphere... A simply massive H2O "fly wheel" becomes obvious. We know that heating energy passes thru the air fairly easy. Sand at the beach is very hot and so forth. We know also that in windy conditions the Sand on the beach is not so hot and we know that heat is fairly easily transferred into the air and transported around the globe high into the atmosphere and so forth. So you need to rephrase your argument so it can be understood. That is true until the air gets thin... Then there is little heat transfer. I also wanted to add. Those methods of heat transfer simply don't cool the "earth". There is no wind or rising air columns high in the thermosphere.
|
|
|
Post by stanb999 on Feb 5, 2016 16:48:42 GMT
Here is a chart that will show that water and water vapor "steam" transfer heat at ridiculously higher rates. Air is quite good insulation. It the idea behind fiberglass blanket insulation. Here is I hope it helps you understand my thinking. www.engineeringtoolbox.com/overall-heat-transfer-coefficients-d_284.html Steam to air in a foot of steel pipe is 2.5 BTU's an hour. Steam to water in a foot of steel pipe is 160 Btu's an hour.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 5, 2016 16:50:34 GMT
We know that heating energy passes thru the air fairly easy. Sand at the beach is very hot and so forth. We know also that in windy conditions the Sand on the beach is not so hot and we know that heat is fairly easily transferred into the air and transported around the globe high into the atmosphere and so forth. So you need to rephrase your argument so it can be understood. That is true until the air gets thin... Then there is little heat transfer. I also wanted to add. Those methods of heat transfer simply don't cool the "earth". There is no wind or rising air columns high in the thermosphere. Your model needs to explain how the earth system loses heat when it is heated by the Sun 24/7. The Earth system must lose energy to space or we all die. It is just a simple law of physics that if the surface is 15C and the radiating atmosphere the surface experiences is -50C, then heat losses will be less from the surface than if the -50C radiating surface was missing and we only saw the coldness of a much lower temperature. Nothing you have said so far addresses that.
|
|
|
Post by stanb999 on Feb 5, 2016 16:57:26 GMT
That is true until the air gets thin... Then there is little heat transfer. I also wanted to add. Those methods of heat transfer simply don't cool the "earth". There is no wind or rising air columns high in the thermosphere. Your model needs to explain how the earth system loses heat when it is heated by the Sun 24/7. The Earth system must lose energy to space or we all die. It is just a simple law of physics that if the surface is 273C and the radiating atmosphere the surface experiences is -50C, then heat losses will be less from the surface than if the -50C radiating surface was missing and we only saw the coldness of a much lower temperature. It's not heated 24/7... It's heated on average 12/7. And likely not quite that much if one takes into account could cover which is 52% per wiki.. So really the earth is a 6/7 heating for a 18/7 cooling phase for direct math. But I'd say half the heat is still coming thru those clouds so a more likely average back of a envelope calculation is 9 hours heating and 15 hours of cooling per day on average over the whole of the earth. Leaves a ton of cooling time.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 5, 2016 17:05:28 GMT
Your model needs to explain how the earth system loses heat when it is heated by the Sun 24/7. The Earth system must lose energy to space or we all die. It is just a simple law of physics that if the surface is 273C and the radiating atmosphere the surface experiences is -50C, then heat losses will be less from the surface than if the -50C radiating surface was missing and we only saw the coldness of a much lower temperature. It's not heated 24/7... It's heated on average 12/7. And likely not quite that much if one takes into account could cover which is 52% per wiki.. So really the earth is a 6/7 heating for a 18/7 cooling phase for direct math. But I'd say half the heat is still coming thru those clouds so a more likely average back of a envelope calculation is 9 hours heating and 15 hours of cooling per day on average over the whole of the earth. Leaves a ton of cooling time. The Earth System orbiting the Sun is only not heated during rare lunar eclipses. It is just a simple law of physics that if the surface is 15C and the radiating atmosphere the surface experiences is -50C, then heat losses will be less from the surface than if the -50C radiating surface was missing and we only saw the coldness of a much lower temperature. Your model needs to say something about that. You need to have a theory about what life would be like on Earth without absorber emitters in the atmosphere and how life changes once there are absorber emitters.
|
|
|
Post by stanb999 on Feb 5, 2016 17:15:03 GMT
It's not heated 24/7... It's heated on average 12/7. And likely not quite that much if one takes into account could cover which is 52% per wiki.. So really the earth is a 6/7 heating for a 18/7 cooling phase for direct math. But I'd say half the heat is still coming thru those clouds so a more likely average back of a envelope calculation is 9 hours heating and 15 hours of cooling per day on average over the whole of the earth. Leaves a ton of cooling time. The Earth System orbiting the Sun is only not heated during rare lunar eclipses. It is just a simple law of physics that if the surface is 15C and the radiating atmosphere the surface experiences is -50C, then heat losses will be less from the surface than if the -50C radiating surface was missing and we only saw the coldness of a much lower temperature. Your model needs to say something about that. You need to have a theory about what life would be like on Earth without absorber emitters in the atmosphere and how life changes once there are absorber emitters. Are you suggesting night doesn't exist? Does the earth not "face the cold of deep space" half the time? Or that the earth doesn't cool during night? Are you a flat earther? www.tfes.org/P.S. Just making sure. We do have nutters in this world.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 5, 2016 17:25:33 GMT
The Earth System orbiting the Sun is only not heated during rare lunar eclipses. It is just a simple law of physics that if the surface is 15C and the radiating atmosphere the surface experiences is -50C, then heat losses will be less from the surface than if the -50C radiating surface was missing and we only saw the coldness of a much lower temperature. Your model needs to say something about that. You need to have a theory about what life would be like on Earth without absorber emitters in the atmosphere and how life changes once there are absorber emitters. Are you suggesting night doesn't exist? Does the earth not "face the cold of deep space" half the time? Or that the earth doesn't cool during night? Are you a flat earther? www.tfes.org/P.S. Just making sure. We do have nutters in this world. The Earth system is always being heated by the Sun. It is just a simple law of physics that if the surface is 15C and the radiating atmosphere the surface experiences is -50C, then heat losses will be less from the surface than if the -50C radiating surface was missing and we only saw the coldness of a much lower temperature. Your model needs to say something about that. You need to have a theory about what life would be like on Earth without absorber emitters in the atmosphere and how life changes once there are absorber emitters.
|
|
|
Post by stanb999 on Feb 5, 2016 17:32:55 GMT
Are you suggesting night doesn't exist? Does the earth not "face the cold of deep space" half the time? Or that the earth doesn't cool during night? Are you a flat earther? www.tfes.org/P.S. Just making sure. We do have nutters in this world. The Earth system is always being heated by the Sun. It is just a simple law of physics that if the surface is 15C and the radiating atmosphere the surface experiences is -50C, then heat losses will be less from the surface than if the -50C radiating surface was missing and we only saw the coldness of a much lower temperature. Your model needs to say something about that. You need to have a theory about what life would be like on Earth without absorber emitters in the atmosphere and how life changes once there are absorber emitters. No math shows the earth is being heated on average 9 hours in any one spot. and is losing heat for about 15 hours. You do know the earth rotates. Criminy.... P.S. I don't need a theory of everything. I accept that birds can fly, fish can swim, and internet posters can bloviate. PPS... the earth is exposed to -200 not -50.
|
|