MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
The Causes of Temperature (Geophysics)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 11, 12, 13  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Tilo Rebar


In: Sussex
View user's profile
Reply with quote

My thought on this is that using a few thermometers to measure the temperature of Earth is a futile endeavour. There are too many variables, for example changes in humidity, air pressure and cloud cover, which prevent mean global temperature being a good guide to the level of Earth system energy - and that is what really matters.

A better measure of how the energy is distributed is to look where more or less longwave radiant energy (heat) is emitted to space...



On this Ceres composite, the Greenwich Meridian is at the centre of the globe - you may be able to just make out Britain in a small cool patch of blue towards the top, if your eyesight is good.

As can be seen, Mick is correct that there is no linear pattern to the heat distribution of earth, as one would expect if mainstream insolation theory was correct. Instead we see the vagaries of heat distribution caused by a highly non-linear dynamic system heated both externally and from within.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

So here is the equation.
    Thick atmosphere = Warm
    Thin atmosphere = Cold
The atmosphere gets thinner with altitude. So we have cold mountains.

How do we get a warm equator?

Put a proximate satellite in orbit around the Earth, offset from the equator by no more than 5 degrees, such that tidal force produces a thickening bulge in the atmosphere in line with it. Make the system revolve quickly --- say, once every 28 days, with the Earth spinning beneath once every 24 hours.

And then how do we get seasons?

Simple: Put the Earth in orbit around a second satellite, offset from the equator by a full 23.5 degrees. Make the system revolve slowly -- say, once every 365 days or so.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

So there is a simple rule: The more atmosphere above your head, the warmer it generally is where you stand.

There is more atmosphere at the Earth's equator. The atmosphere here bulges out in much the same was as does the hardened surface of the Earth itself. The reason it bulges appears to be due to centrifugal force from the planet's spin.

There are also bulges that track the Sun and Moon. These bulges move up and down the surface of the planet over the course of the year. These bulges appears to be the products of tidal force generated by our orbit around the Sun and our orbit around the Moon.

This system will explain the coldness of mountain tops, the coldness of the poles, and the coldness of winter.

Well, not quite the coldness of winter.

Trouble is, the tidal bulges will, in winter time, decrease the atmosphere on one side of the planet but increase the atmosphere on the other side. This is why I have rejected this model since I first conceived it about 6 years ago.

But recently, I encountered evidence that Earth's ocean tides are not equal: That they are irregular and also favour the sun-ward/moon-ward side of the planet. If the same is true of the atmospheric tide (and it should be) then the system will work.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

About 80% of the Earth's atmosphere is contained within the troposphere, the part of the atmosphere that is closest to Earth. The extent of the troposphere varies by latitude - it is thickest over the equator (about 17 kilometers) and thinnest at the poles (about 7 kilometers). This uneven distribution can be explained by the rotation of the Earth, which exerts a centrifugal force that varies directly with latitude - being highest at the equator and zero at the poles. Centrifugal force creates a bulging of the atmosphere over the equator. It shapes more solid objects too - the Earth itself has an equatorial bulge for the same reason.
-- Atmospheric Pressure
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The next atmospheric zone above the troposphere is the stratosphere, which extends to an altitude of about 51-55 km. About 99% of the Earth's atmosphere is contained within this limit. The remaining 1% extends very far out into space. In fact, you would need to go half way to the moon (about 180,000 km) before the density of air equals the density of gases in outer space - that is, the point at which the atmosphere is no longer distinguishable.
-- Atmospheric Pressure
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The gravitational pull of the moon and the sun creates tides on the earth. While tides are most commonly associated with oceans and large bodies of water, gravity creates tides in the atmosphere and even the lithosphere (the surface of the earth). The atmospheric tidal bulge extends far into space....
-- About.com, Tides
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

And the coup de grace

The troposphere is the layer from the surface to an average altitude of about 7 mi. It is characterized by an overall decrease of temperature with increasing altitude. The height of the troposphere varies with latitude and seasons. It slopes from about 20,000 ft over the poles to about 65,000 ft over the equator; and it is higher in summer than in winter.
-- THE EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE (emphasis added)

So that is a hit on every point.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Not so. The thickness might be due to the temperature on earth and that might in turn be dictated by some other factor.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Not so. The thickness might be due to the temperature on earth and that might in turn be dictated by some other factor.


Yes. It might be that the atmosphere is made thicker by temperature change. This is in fact the orthodoxy.

But I am suggesting its reversal. Why?

Because atmospheric thickness is the only known known factor common to all three elements of the puzzle, and we cannot appeal to unknown factors.

    Why is it cold in winter?
    Why is it cold at the poles?
    Why is it cold atop a mountain?

In all three cases there is a reduction in atmospheric depth.

Applied Epistemology requires us to accept this model until it is falsified.

Note that we have not identified yet how the heat is generated, except to say that it can be generated/retained only in so far as the depth of the atmosphere allows.
Send private message
Tilo Rebar


In: Sussex
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:
...Note that we have not identified yet how the heat is generated, except to say that it can be generated/retained only in so far as the depth of the atmosphere allows.


Brilliant conjecture so far, Ishmael, with support from some factual data which follows...

The CAGW brigade have long touted Venus as an example of 'the runaway CO2 warming' effect. Their reasoning goes something like this, "Venus is an example of what happens to a planet when the runaway greenhouse effect reaches it's conclusion. The planet now has a surface temperature of 740K, and if the same thing eventually happened on Earth would mean the extinction of life as we know it."

However, Venus and the Earth are significantly different...

"Venus is closer to the Sun, and gets proportionally more power from it. Earth is 93 million miles from the Sun, on average, while Venus is only 67.25 million. Since the intensity of the Sun's radiation decreases with distance from it as 1 over r-squared, Venus receives (93/67.25) squared, or 1.91 times the power per unit area that Earth receives, on average.

Since the radiating temperature of an isolated body in space varies as the fourth-root of the power incident upon it, by the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the radiating temperature of Venus should be the fourth-root of 1.91 (or the square-root of 93/67.25) = 1.176 times that of the Earth."


The atmosphere on Venus is much thicker than on Earth and at the surface the pressure is 92 bar vv just 1 bar for the Earth...

"...since the atmospheric pressure varies as the temperature, the temperature at any given pressure level in the Venusian atmosphere should be [also] 1.176 times the temperature at that same pressure level in the Earth atmosphere, INDEPENDENT OF THE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF INFRARED ABSORPTION in the two atmospheres."

The following table illustrates that actual measurement of the temperature of the atmosphere on Venus at various pressures are almost identical to those measured on Earth...



And here is the comparison graphed...



So one must conclude that, unless this is a coincidence, on any planet with an atmosphere it is the optical thickness (~=atmospheric pressure) and the distance of the planet from the sun which dictate planetary atmospheric temperature. It would seem that the composition of the atmosphere has little or no effect.

This is good evidence you are on the right track, Ishmael, and I may be able to throw in a few curved balls regarding how the heat is generated, but I'll wait to hear what you say first as I don't want to steal your thunder.

Sources:
(Heath Warning) Wiki - various facts & figures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus

(Heath Warning) Harry Huffman - Table, graph and paragraphs in italics
http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

It is important to remember the specific question I am attempting to answer. That question is: To what one variable may all global-scale variations in temperature be attributed?

It would appear that there is one variable that is consistent in the three primary cases in which temperature varies: Season, latitude and altitude; that variable is atmospheric depth.

At first I had great confidence that this factor pointed the way to understanding how heat is generated. I still suspect that this axiom may yet prove true:
    Heat is pressure.

However, at this point, there appears to be no convincing argument for this proposition.

The reason is this: There can be no net gain in air pressure. Both tidal force and centrifugal force increase the depth of the atmosphere (in theory) by counteracting the downward force of gravity. The atmosphere gets thicker but the surface pressure doesn't rise.

Unless you can think of some reason why it would.

Therefore, temperature fluctuation appears to be the result of an insulating effect. The thicker the atmosphere, the less heat is lost to space.

The question remains: How is this heat generated? That question I have not answered. I have only explained why the temperature varies.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Forgive me Tilo but, doesn't the following graph suggest that proximity to the sun has nothing to do with the temperature on Venus?



Doesn't this tell us that the temperature is directly related to atmospheric pressure?

Two planets. One much closer to the sun. Yet both planets have exactly the same temperature per millibar of pressure. The sun appears to me to be....irrelevant.

Am I wrong?
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

If this is so then we can resurrect my ambition and attribute all heat to pressure.
    The generation of surface heat is a factor of atmospheric pressure.
    The retention of surface heat is a factor of atmospheric depth.
Send private message
Tilo Rebar


In: Sussex
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:
Two planets. One much closer to the sun. Yet both planets have exactly the same temperature per millibar of pressure. The sun appears to me to be....irrelevant.
Am I wrong?

Not wrong, just misinterpreting the data. The temperatures only match once the factor 1.176 has been applied to correct for the average difference in distance from the sun. Without this factor being taken into account, the temperature is higher on Venus than earth at the same atmospheric pressure.

I think you're definitely onto something regarding atmospheric depth - the duvet effect perhaps?

Regarding Earth energy supply, I think that while direct sunlight is obviously the major provider of heat, there are other significant sources which are either underestimated by orthodoxy or not considered at all.
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Tilo Rebar wrote:
Ishmael wrote:
Am I wrong?

Not wrong, just misinterpreting the data.

Tilo, stop being so polite.

Of course he is wrong.

He has wrongly interpreted the data.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 11, 12, 13  Next

Jump to:  
Page 12 of 13

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group