| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Martin
|
|
 |
|
I understand this and agree with the principles you outline. What I don't understand is what you are purporting has not been measured. are you saying that there are no 'sums' on the effects of latitude and atmospheric thickness on incoming solar radiation?
Regarding London and Lagos; think of the land of the midnight sun, that has a much longer day than somewhere at the equator. (progressing gradually as we move south), however length of daylight hours is only one factor. It is obviously counterbalanced by the other factors we have outlined.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| are you saying that there are no 'sums' on the effects of latitude and atmospheric thickness on incoming solar radiation? |
That is precisely what I am saying. However, if by chance there are, not one person in a thousand teaching the theory would know of them. This is one of the problems of many paradigms: everyone assumes somebody else is taking care of it. One test is to ask yourself what would happen were a Ph D student to go along to his supervisor and say, "I wanna do the sums to check that we've got this temperature business right." In the first place, it is impossible to imagine such a Ph D student and in the second it is impossible to imagine any supervisor agreeing.
Actually AE would go a little bit further and say that the reason the "sums" are not instantly available (on, say, Wikipedia) might be that the sums have been done, have not supported theory, and been quietly suppressed. (In a "more research is needed" kind of a way, of course.)
In passing, when I first pursued this matter twenty years ago -- strictly as a test of the most obviously basic paradigm that I could think of -- I asked a geographer/mathematician friend of mine to "do the sums". He took on the job with every sign of enthusiasm but returned some days later saying, "It's actually a pretty difficult set of calculations," and I heard no more.
| Regarding London and Lagos; think of the land of the midnight sun, that has a much longer day than somewhere at the equator. |
Yep. According to theory it should be broiling.
| (progressing gradually as we move south), however length of daylight hours is only one factor. It is obviously counterbalanced by the other factors we have outlined. |
Look, Martin, I know you are trying to be helpful (and you are, truly) but you have to learn to start listening to yourself. No other factors have been established.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Keimpe
In: Leeuwarden, Frisia
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ray
|
|
|
|
| Interestingly, it seems that on Io there is no temperature difference between the equator and the poles |
But mightn't it also be true that it's too far from the Sun for its rays to warm it at all. Have any other outer solar system bodies had their temperatures taken?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, the Moon. It's fucking 'taters there and, I understand, that it is as close to the Sun as we are. But I expect 'they' have some special pleading for this too.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Keimpe
In: Leeuwarden, Frisia
|
|
|
|
|
There's a lot of volcanic activity on Io, so it seems to me that Io is warmed from the inside, rather than from the outside.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
There's a lot of volcanic activity on Earth, so it seems to me that Earth is warmed from the inside, rather than from the outside.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
It's actually Uranus that kills all this "angle of the sun" mullarkey stone dead. Uranus is tilted such that its pole is inclined toward Sol yet Uranus has a heat distribution similar to that of earth: equator is hot, poles are cold.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
I looked at a few sites on the temperature of Uranus.
One said Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune all give off about 3 times more heat than "expected", so they seem to have internal heat sources -- although "heat" is something of a misnomer: the hottest, Jupiter, is about a hundred and fifty degrees below!
Uranus is anomalously close to its "expected" temperature, for which the explanation is that one pole gets heated for 42 years (half an orbit), then gets plunged into darkness while the other gets the heat, so we may just be seeing the cold half, not long been in the Sun yet.
Other sites say Uranus' temperature is remarkably uniform considering its odd pole-first motion: atmospheric mixing must spread the heat.
Yet others say it's funny how the pole gets the most sunshine and yet the equator is hottest: no explanation.
A real mixed bag... and all bollox.
The common analogy of a barrel rolling around on its side betrays the mistake. The axis doesn't face the Sun, it faces always the same way, just as Earth's does (any precession it may undergo notwithstanding). So consider Uranus' orbit in four phases: two quarters where one pole pretty much faces the Sun and the movement is at right-angles to the axis; and two quarters in which the axis is lined up with the direction of travel and the equator faces the Sun.
On the whole, it's the equator that gets all [ smirk ] the sunshine, not the poles. Furthermore, the latitudinal bands of circulation in the atmosphere ensure the heat is not easily spread towards the poles.
Presumably the anomalously low temperature is due to the reading being taken while the equator was radiating most of its heat away at right angles to us, where we can't see it.
So let's hear no more about it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Martin
|
|
|
|
There is an internal heat source on Earth, it goes by the name radioactive decay. The deeper you drill into the Earth the hotter it gets. They stopped digging the deepest hole in the world because of the temperature - 180C at around 12000m down.
I think I heard it suggested that the larger planets have more radioactive material in them so the radioactive decay takes longer, as an explanation for their volcanism.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
So...a completely independent source of temperature from the Sun.
Turning to a different matter: Martin, what is your view about heat dissipation from a spinning ball with an internal heat source in a cold medium? Would it be uniform...would it be most at the centre line...or at the two axes of rotation...or ...proportionate with distance from the centre line to the two axes....what?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Martin
|
|
|
|
Is the ball internally uniform?
The ball is rotating on its axis, is the ball otherwise motionless?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Assume uniformity. The ball is moving swiftly (relative to the speed of rotation) through the cold medium in a direction that is tilted slightly but otherwise perpendicular to the axis of rotation. .
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Martin
|
|
|
|
|
hmm... gut feeling would say the heat would move away from the axis in a swirling fashion. Distribution would reduce closer to the axis.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Don't be so mealy-mouthed. How are the surface temperatures affected, equator to pole?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
