|
Post by Andrew on Jan 8, 2016 13:48:43 GMT
The O2 and N2 in the troposphere cannot radiate or absorb infrared heat energy. If you put a small amount of CO2 into that mixture then the troposphere will start radiating infrared, as CO2 molecules radiate energy that was gained through collision with N2 and O2 molecules there may be some heating of CO2 molecules by infrared from other CO2 molecules but in most cases the heat radiates to space. If it goes to the surface it will increase evaporation on water (around 75% of the surface) which will also result eventually in IR radiation to space. If it hits a solid surface that surface will radiate again but at a higher rate (Boltzmann)and the IR may get intercepted by CO2 but more than likely go to space. IR energy travels at the speed of light - so there will be very little delay even if it bounces around a few times. Yes there may be other things in space that get warmed by the IR leaving earth - but we are concerned about the troposphere. If ir energy bounces around a few times there is more heat not reaching space in that instance of time. the delay timewise is irrelevant. Without a method to stop heat leaving the system, the surface will see the fully terrifying effect of a 4k universe at night and very quickly enter a very deep frozen state till morning. Given that mostly we only experience a night time sky temperature of say -100C in winter in finland it is almost beyond belief to imagine what it would be like to experience something approaching the full -269C every night of the year on a clear night. Currently it is -16C here and dark and the sky is fairly cloudy with thin clouds but you can see areas of clear sky and yet the sky temperature is a very high -22C. It should be obvious that something is preventing me and those clouds from experiencing the 4k of space.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jan 8, 2016 14:49:44 GMT
Heat capacity of water vapour?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 8, 2016 16:09:40 GMT
Heat capacity of water vapour? The air mass currently warming Finland and protecting it from the terrifying coldness of space has come from Siberia and warmed up along the way. Even in the Arctic at the moment above 80 degrees where it has been constantly dark for months the average temperature is not much colder than Finland. Perhaps somebody else can think of a reason why it is so hot here 6 degrees from the arctic circle and there is almost no daylight and it is a terrifying -269C only a few hundred miles from Helsinki?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 8, 2016 22:21:01 GMT
Explaining the details of what you believe and how you believe imaginary worlds would operate does not change the fact that on average you find the expected temperature of the surface at approximately 500mb or approximately 18,000 feet, not the 33,000 feet you suggested. It seems to me you tend to believe you are the possessor of facts while others only have imaginations. Andrew I think the evidence of being a egotist in possession of facts while everybody else only has imaginations can be found by the degree one proselytizes his viewpoints. You are an established leader in that. But my comment regarding imaginary worlds was unrelated to that. I was merely referring to an earth with an "average" dry lapse rate or alternative a world without radiative gases which you were talking about. I have to assume you are aware they are imaginary I believe I don't know how the atmosphere has the temperature profile it has. I tend to think of it as a complex array of physical processes that include convection and its accompanying gas decompression, differences in heat capacity per mole of gas between different gases in the atmosphere, the conductivity of the various gases in the atmosphere, the various states of atmospheric gases (gas, liquid, and frozen), the latent and potential energies carried by the various gases in the atmosphere, the albedo and transparency of the various gases in the atmosphere, and the radiative characteristics of the various gases in different states in the atmosphere. So no! I don't favor over simplification of all this without a stitch of experimental/observation evidence study. But I do think to do that it might be worthwhile to at least know the temperatures at different altitudes in the atmosphere to have an icecubes chance in he11 of having any clue whatsoever in trying to figure it out.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 9, 2016 5:40:07 GMT
-269C???
Where is that at Andrew?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 9, 2016 6:32:51 GMT
-269C??? Where is that at Andrew? Fair enougth. I need to phrase what I am talking about differently. I am not sure what sky temperature could be recorded a few hundred miles above Helsinki and I did say only temperature. Particles in the thermosphere are very hot and yet they are very thinly spaced and yet also they do not easily cool down even at night because only when they are very hot can they emit radiation or they can only cool down when they collide with a particle to transfer heat and even at 100km something like 99.99997% of the atmosphere is below that line. In the same kind of way astronomers talk about the solar wind being very hot indeed (and yet there are very few particles present) and distant gas clouds being millions of degrees Celcius. The ISS is also in the thermosphere and yet cools down by using radiators where the dark side temperature of the ISS itself appears to be about -120C. So for my purposes where I am wondering about the sky temperature above Helsinki and in particular the night time sky temperature, then if I was 300 miles above Helsinki the night time sky temperature facing away from the Earth would be very cold indeed. In summary when we think of the thermosphere or other layers above the earth being very hot I do not believe we are talking about the temperature a thermometer would record but rather the temperature of the average particle up there, but i am not sure what temperature a thermometer would record if it was 300 miles above Helsinki, but either way the relevant temperature for my purposes is the sky temperature which is the temperature a radiation thermometer would measure.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 9, 2016 7:30:26 GMT
It seems to me you tend to believe you are the possessor of facts while others only have imaginations. Andrew I think the evidence of being a egotist in possession of facts while everybody else only has imaginations can be found by the degree one proselytizes his viewpoints. You are an established leader in that. When you turn around the mirror you will see the person who knew for a fact my sauna was recently heated and knew for a fact it was impossible to demonstrate a simple scientific principle using a couple of heated bricks. You will also see a person who to this day has shown no remorse for his behaviour
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 10, 2016 2:59:43 GMT
Andrew I think the evidence of being a egotist in possession of facts while everybody else only has imaginations can be found by the degree one proselytizes his viewpoints. You are an established leader in that. When you turn around the mirror you will see the person who knew for a fact my sauna was recently heated and knew for a fact it was impossible to demonstrate a simple scientific principle using a couple of heated bricks. You will also see a person who to this day has shown no remorse for his behaviour Well, if you didn't warm your sauna it was certainly warmed by the environment and as to your heated bricks go all you are going on about was somebody pointing out how amateurly you conducted you experiment. If it were so simple you should be capable of finding a professionally conducted experiment that actually survived peer review. but your changing the topic. I am still trying to figure out if you object to calling imaginary worlds. . . .imaginary worlds. Or if you think your imaginary worlds are real worlds. Not to speak of why you have one of those problems.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 10, 2016 6:34:23 GMT
When you turn around the mirror you will see the person who knew for a fact my sauna was recently heated and knew for a fact it was impossible to demonstrate a simple scientific principle using a couple of heated bricks. You will also see a person who to this day has shown no remorse for his behaviour Well, if you didn't warm your sauna it was certainly warmed by the environment and as to your heated bricks go all you are going on about was somebody pointing out how amateurly you conducted you experiment. If it were so simple you should be capable of finding a professionally conducted experiment that actually survived peer review. I was demonstrating the relationships implied by the stefan boltzmann equation and shown for all to see by engineering tool box, which is something anybody can do using a cooling warm surface, an intermediate surface and a much colder surface. I was demonstrating something a school boy could understand. What aspect of that simple three temperature reality is still so utterly beyond you??
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jan 10, 2016 10:26:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 10, 2016 14:48:47 GMT
Welcome back ratty.
I don't remember seeing this before.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 10, 2016 15:05:58 GMT
Well, if you didn't warm your sauna it was certainly warmed by the environment and as to your heated bricks go all you are going on about was somebody pointing out how amateurly you conducted you experiment. If it were so simple you should be capable of finding a professionally conducted experiment that actually survived peer review. I was demonstrating the relationships implied by the stefan boltzmann equation and shown for all to see by engineering tool box, which is something anybody can do using a cooling warm surface, an intermediate surface and a much colder surface. I was demonstrating something a school boy could understand. What aspect of that simple three temperature reality is still so utterly beyond you?? Well if thats all you were trying to show, there is no dispute that the hot bar alone will cool slower than when in the presence of a relatively warm bar in relationship to the environment. But one should note very carefully that there are at least three potentially very important reasons that do not apply to worlds and their atmospheres where trace amounts of gas are added. 1) the hot bar has a heating force capable of pushing the heat in the hot bar higher (e.g. the "hot" bar heating system is NOT thermostatically controlled by the inverse square distance law that radiators are limited by); and 2) the "warm" bar has an insulation value due to its solidity and thickness (science has not established those values in uncontained gases); and 3) if the combined exposed surface area of the two bars is identical to when one bar was present the system will stabilize with the temperatures of the 2 bars identical to what the "hot" bar was originally (e.g. your greenhouse effect analogy suggests that the greenhouse effect is only temporary unless something significant is added) Number 3 suggests that your second brick in the sauna was too insignificant to capture any lasting effect. So your experiment does nothing to establish the existence of a greenhouse effect even though it apparently is convincing to you.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 10, 2016 15:12:10 GMT
Interesting. One would have to wonder what could be the cause of difference in pressures. . . .the containment vial leaking gas, or a difference in atmospheric pressure when a sample was taken? Certainly the timing is suspicious unless there is a long history of these kinds of notes.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 11, 2016 4:47:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 11, 2016 5:31:24 GMT
I was demonstrating the relationships implied by the stefan boltzmann equation and shown for all to see by engineering tool box, which is something anybody can do using a cooling warm surface, an intermediate surface and a much colder surface. I was demonstrating something a school boy could understand. What aspect of that simple three temperature reality is still so utterly beyond you?? Well if thats all you were trying to show, there is no dispute that the hot bar alone will cool slower than when in the presence of a relatively warm bar in relationship to the environment. But one should note very carefully that there are at least three potentially very important reasons that do not apply to worlds and their atmospheres where trace amounts of gas are added. 1) the hot bar has a heating force capable of pushing the heat in the hot bar higher (e.g. the "hot" bar heating system is NOT thermostatically controlled by the inverse square distance law that radiators are limited by); and 2) the "warm" bar has an insulation value due to its solidity and thickness (science has not established those values in uncontained gases); and 3) if the combined exposed surface area of the two bars is identical to when one bar was present the system will stabilize with the temperatures of the 2 bars identical to what the "hot" bar was originally (e.g. your greenhouse effect analogy suggests that the greenhouse effect is only temporary unless something significant is added) Number 3 suggests that your second brick in the sauna was too insignificant to capture any lasting effect. So your experiment does nothing to establish the existence of a greenhouse effect even though it apparently is convincing to you. >>the "hot" bar heating system is NOT thermostatically controlled by the inverse square distance law that radiators are limited by Your facts will always trump my imaginations. I purposely used a heated surface via a cooling brick to avoid your dishonest twisting of reality to suit your agenda. I then had to endure months of you telling me the surface of the brick was not heated. Meanwhile you claimed you were so stupid you could not understand how the surface of an egg warmed up when insulated. To this day I have no idea if you are really so stupid or you are just a sadist. How can it be that after 4 years of talking about the stefan boltzmann constant you still have absolutely no ability to talk intelligently about this topic? Will you ever apologise for what you have done here? Even when I helpfully wrote to Engineers toolbox in an attempt to clear up your confusion your only response was more of the same toxic abuse. Likewise when i wrote to the Indian Engineer. A school boy can understand these ideas and you are claiming to be a former auditor and yet it is utterly beyond you??
|
|