|
Post by stanb999 on Feb 3, 2016 18:28:09 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. I didn't say radiative cooling doesn't happen, I said it's in efficient, more so at lower densities. There is a difference. I said you wouldn't experience the cold at 50 below high in the high atmosphere as you would in Oymyakon. The earth is hardly exposed to space temps... Because there is nothing there to "steal the heat". Kinda the point of the word "Space". From your understanding, the earth is a giant fireball! Because the therosphere exists.
|
|
|
Post by stanb999 on Feb 3, 2016 18:45:44 GMT
Here try this... You have to think of the atmosphere as a stack of boxes all the way to space.
Each box as stacked higher has less material in it. Each box above has the same energy as the box below it. But has less apparent temperature, because each box is getting a bit bigger. As the boxes get bigger and bigger they contain less and less stuff so the individual molecules get hotter and hotter because they are absorbing all of the radiated energy. They intern radiate more and more... This goes on till they are literally screaming hot in the therosphere. At those near white hot temps the molecules are in fact steaming a lot of radiative energy out into space. But you wont be disrobing to enjoy the "heat". You'd still freeze your but off.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 3, 2016 19:13:13 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. The earth is hardly exposed to space temps... Because there is nothing there to "steal the heat". The Earth is massively exposed to space temps. We need protection or life here would end
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 3, 2016 19:32:01 GMT
Let's establish a point of reference.
The Karman line. Currently, radiation measurements are taken at approx 20 miles, instead of at the Karman line. I don't know why NASA measures at what they consider the TOA, rather than using the established Karman line.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 3, 2016 19:41:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by stanb999 on Feb 4, 2016 18:06:31 GMT
Let's establish a point of reference. The Karman line. Currently, radiation measurements are taken at approx 20 miles, instead of at the Karman line. I don't know why NASA measures at what they consider the TOA, rather than using the established Karman line. Don't miss the point that well past that height there is still ample mass in the atmosphere to cool objects. for instance.. The space station has a shadow temp of 100 below C. Not nearly the "cold of deep space". Strangely still quite "hot".
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 5, 2016 14:08:08 GMT
Let's establish a point of reference. The Karman line. Currently, radiation measurements are taken at approx 20 miles, instead of at the Karman line. I don't know why NASA measures at what they consider the TOA, rather than using the established Karman line. Don't miss the point that well past that height there is still ample mass in the atmosphere to cool objects. for instance.. The space station has a shadow temp of 100 below C. Not nearly the "cold of deep space". Strangely still quite "hot". The space station is in low earth orbit in the middle of the thermosphere. The very large heat loss radiators they use up there are supplied with liquid ammonia which freezes solid at -107C.
|
|
|
Post by stanb999 on Feb 5, 2016 14:32:07 GMT
Don't miss the point that well past that height there is still ample mass in the atmosphere to cool objects. for instance.. The space station has a shadow temp of 100 below C. Not nearly the "cold of deep space". Strangely still quite "hot". The space station is in low earth orbit in the middle of the thermosphere. The very large heat loss radiators they use up there are supplied with liquid ammonia which freezes solid at -107C. The space station is at 249 miles well beyond the 100 mile limit proposed by Sigurdur. Funny they remove heat from one side and radiate it at the other. Why is this surprising or of note to you? Did you expect the sun side hull to be able to radiate into the emptiness of the high atmosphere quickly? Not a lot of mass up there to soak up the energy.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 5, 2016 14:40:49 GMT
The space station is in low earth orbit in the middle of the thermosphere. The very large heat loss radiators they use up there are supplied with liquid ammonia which freezes solid at -107C. Not a lot of mass up there to soak up the energy. You are either a troll or tremendously ignorant of physics
|
|
|
Post by stanb999 on Feb 5, 2016 14:41:57 GMT
Andrew, Additionally, let it soak in... The temperature is -100F if recorded with thermometers. Yet the individual molecules can be emitting as if it's 1000F.
|
|
|
Post by stanb999 on Feb 5, 2016 14:47:32 GMT
Not a lot of mass up there to soak up the energy. You are either a troll or tremendously ignorant of physics More name calling. The first sign of losing an argument is losing your cool.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 5, 2016 14:48:51 GMT
Andrew, Additionally, let it soak in... The temperature is -100F if recorded with thermometers. Yet the individual molecules can be emitting as if it's 1000F. Try heating your house with a 2.5W 4000F light bulb and let me know what the temperature is Let it freeze into your brain for a while.
|
|
|
Post by stanb999 on Feb 5, 2016 14:54:05 GMT
Andrew, Additionally, let it soak in... The temperature is -100F if recorded with thermometers. Yet the individual molecules can be emitting as if it's 1000F. Try heating your house with a 2.5W 4000F light bulb and let me know what the temperature is Let it freeze into your brain for a while. 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.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 5, 2016 15:19:01 GMT
Try heating your house with a 2.5W 4000F light bulb and let me know what the temperature is Let it freeze into your brain for a while. 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/
|
|
|
Post by stanb999 on Feb 5, 2016 15:37:45 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 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.
|
|