Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 136 Votes - 2.95 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Earth and Moon comparison conundrum.
06-24-2011, 11:48 AM
Post: #1
The Earth and Moon comparison conundrum.
Hi All,
It has become rather obvious that the temperatures are rather difficult to compare between the Earth and the Moon.
So, I may well have to alter some of the figures on this plot.
(As well as correcting my unintentional elongation of earth...)
[Image: Dailywaterjacketsized.jpg]

I will try to explain.

It could be said for instance that the earth and the moon are two objects in space, that on average are the same distance from the sun,
because the moon orbits the earth, whilst the earth orbits the sun.

But, how long a time period would you have to measure the distances from the sun for the two objects to get
the same (and correct, ie 93.5 million miles) average distance figure?
1 year I assume. Assuming a year is 365 1/4 days, of 24 hours.
I have seen an earth day as 23.9 hours, which I can not make head nor tail of..Any help appreciated.

For temperature it becomes rather more complicated, because, the moon will be shaded by the earth, some of the time.
What this cycle time is, I do not know, but I assume it must be a year, or multiples of.
This being at least partially determined by the time it takes the moon to revolve fully on it's own axis.
This is a question that has had many scratching their heads.
http://www.grantchronicles.com/astro29.htm
Apparently the answer is,
Excerpt,
" Currently in 2011, the status quo within the field of Astronomy is that
the Moon spins about its axis in a period equal to its approximate 27.322 day rotational period around Earth.
"

So,
the moon fully revolves on it's own axis once every 27.322 days,
and,
the moon fully orbits earth once every 27.322 days.

But is that confusing spinning with, " an object revolves in a circular path around a pivot point the Earth in this case
giving the illusion of spin about the axis, when it is a change position due to rotation.
"

" Are you confusing motion of an object following a curved path as oppose to spin about its axis?
I hope you answered no.
So why do you use the same of conditions and principles to validate the Moon's rotation about the Earth and
to validate the moon's spin about its axis are in perfect synchronization?
"

Oh. So, the moon is not actually spinning.
(ie, it is a ball [moon] on a string you are holding the end of as you [earth] rotate)

Now, what about the moon's temperature?
And,
how much does the moon shade the earth?

Well, at least a year time scale now seems reasonable to compare it's overall average temperature with earth.
This is to allow for earth's elliptical orbit around the sun.

Can a lunar day temperature maximum, or a point average, or a hemisphere average be compared to
earth's lit side temperature maximum, or a point average, or a hemisphere average?
Well it would have to be done very, very carefully, if indeed it is possible.

At this moment I think it is possible to find a way to compare the two, but
I will wait and see others responses first.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-24-2011, 01:31 PM (This post was last modified: 06-24-2011 01:34 PM by Climate Realist.)
Post: #2
RE: The Earth and Moon comparison conundrum.
Maybe it's to do with P/4!Big Grin Undecided (sorry, couldn't resist!- hope you can take a joke.).

But seriously, I think the earth is kept warm by it's atmosphere- the slowness of convection ensures the ground is insulated from too much heat loss till the next sunrise.

In much the same way that double glazing and household insulation works by trapping air and preventing heat loss from convection.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-25-2011, 11:16 AM
Post: #3
RE: The Earth and Moon comparison conundrum.
(06-24-2011 01:31 PM)Climate Realist Wrote:  Maybe it's to do with P/4!Big Grin Undecided (sorry, couldn't resist!- hope you can take a joke.).

lol - Have you seen the Milford Haven thread yet....That could do with some P/4....Angel

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-25-2011, 01:00 PM
Post: #4
RE: The Earth and Moon comparison conundrum.
(06-24-2011 01:31 PM)Climate Realist Wrote:  But seriously,

Regarding P/4, can "we" go back to the original thread please, I will be answering your Post 28 after this shift.
If you would like to reword it, or rephrase it before then, I will happily answer any later version you proffer before then (Wednesday hopefully).
Also, would you be kind enough to consider answering the point I raised to RTF in Post 30 on that thread.
There are major and important (outstanding) issues not discussed yet we would benefit from discussing there.

OK, in this thread so far, have I tried to convey / describe the idea that the moon is not spinning at all.
The moon does not spin at all, below is another attempt to explain this.

It might help to think of it like this, remembering the "key" which is,
" the moon fully revolves on it's own axis once every 27.322 days,
and,
the moon fully orbits earth once every 27.322 days.
"

If you drove a car around a roundabout so that you completed a full revolution, then
you could be described as having orbited the center of the roundabout.
OK?
The car did not spin at all did it.
OK?
In fact observed from the roundabout center you would only have seen one side of the car for the full "orbit" the car completed.
OK?

Now let us say we were observing the car from the top of a nearby tower block, as the car orbited the roundabout.
OK?
The car would be facing in the direction it was traveling in, and at 12 o'clock on the roundabout that would be pointing in a certain direction.
A quarter of the way around the roundabout (quarter past) the car would be facing, from our view point, a 90 degrees different direction.
OK?
Another 1/4 orbit on (half pat the hour), the car would be facing another 90 degrees different again position, which is now 180 degrees to the original position.
OK?
By the time the car had completely orbited the roundabout (back to 12 o'clock), from our view point on top of the tower block,
it would have appeared to have spun through 360 degrees, and be facing the original direction.
OK?
When in fact the car had not spun at all, on it's own "axis"..
This is why,
" the moon fully revolves on it's own axis once every 27.322 days,
and,
the moon fully orbits earth once every 27.322 days.
"
when in fact the moon is not spinning at all.
The "key" is the fact that both figures are exactly the same, at 27.322 days.

I'll do a plot showing this in a few days, if this is not clear.
You can also repeat this "explanation" simply with a ball in your hand at arms length.
The ball does not spin in your hand at all, as you simulate an orbit, but from another viewpoint the ball does appear to "spin"...

We on earth observe the moon from one view point, but
what we observe is actually the illuminated part of the moon from the sun's point of view.
We are simply confusing perspectives, with the result many think the moon is spinning, when,
the moon is not spinning at all, not a jot, on it's own axis.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-28-2011, 12:07 PM
Post: #5
RE: The Earth and Moon comparison conundrum.
(06-24-2011 01:31 PM)Climate Realist Wrote:  But seriously, I think the earth is kept warm by it's atmosphere- the slowness of convection ensures the ground is insulated from too much heat loss till the next sunrise.

I used to think along similar lines too. But I do not any longer.

Let me try to put it this way, an object in space can only loose input solar radiation by emitting thermal IR radiation.
The surface of the object (with no atmosphere) will be the actual and effective surface of emission of thermal IR.
AND,
in the case of the moon, when not in the shadow of the earth, and using P/4, it will appear as an object in space at -18C
(give or take a little - depending on how you "view" radiation of earth shine being absorbed).

OK, but what about earth, it has an atmosphere, yet, still appears as an object in space at -18C. ?

The presence of an atmosphere makes no difference to the overall answer according to physics.
It is still an object in space at -18C, which is correct for the solar input
(although the earth has more than just solar input, yet still maintains -18C....a subject for another thread...).

The difference is at the surface, the moon can only cool by emitting thermal IR, AND, as it is a grey body some being absorbed into the surface regolith.
It will however reach a thermal equilibrium with the solar input quicker, so the moon's surface is far hotter than earth's.
The earth's surface can cool by emitting IR, and 40% (ish) still escapes because of the atmospheric IR "window" directly to space as IR.
However, the earth's surface can also cool by conduction and convection of sensible heat, and by convection of the latent heat of water vapourisation.
So, because earth has an atmosphere it's surface can cool by more, and by far more powerful means than by radiation losses alone.
Not only this, but because rain is cold, the earth's surface is also cooled by some of the atmospheric constituents.

In the end it is a simple sum, and question, does radiation alone without an atmosphere cool a surface more than it and the other means of cooling that an atmosphere also provides.
The answer is no.
That the answer is no, is shown by the fact that earth's effective surface of emission is at an altitude above the earth's surface. Day and night.

The fact that earth's effective surface of emission is at an altitude above the earth's surface, is the clue most have missed.
This is the sum of how "physics" gets the right answer of -18C for planet earth as seen as an object in space.

I will expand upon this elsewhere soon, but for this thread, and now, I think this is enough.
I will post 4 plots soon to show the moon DOES NOT spin (at all) on it's own axis first though on this thread.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-29-2011, 05:22 AM
Post: #6
RE: The Earth and Moon comparison conundrum.
How the moon actually does orbit the earth.
[Image: Slide1.jpg]

Trying to illustrate we observe the moon in a "mixed perspective".
It is not only man that mixes perspectives of what "we" observe,
so does mother nature.

On earth we observe that part of the moon (we could permanently see if it were lite), that
the sun can at that point in the moon's orbit illuminate from it's relative position or, "perspective".
[Image: Slide2.jpg]

If the moon really did rotate once per orbit on it's own axis,
then either of the following is what we would observe.

If the moon rotated anti clockwise we would see,

[Image: Slide3.jpg]

If the moon rotated clock wise we would see,

[Image: Slide4.jpg]

We do not see either.
We see that the moon does not rotate, not a jot on it's own axis as depicted in the first plot.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-29-2011, 08:35 AM
Post: #7
RE: The Earth and Moon comparison conundrum.
The moon is in tidal lock with the earth. Eventually the earth will also show the same face to the moon.

“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”.J Robert Oppenheimer.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-29-2011, 09:15 AM
Post: #8
RE: The Earth and Moon comparison conundrum.
?
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-29-2011, 09:27 AM
Post: #9
RE: The Earth and Moon comparison conundrum.
(06-29-2011 09:15 AM)Derek Wrote:  ?

what is your question? you have questions about tidal lock?

“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”.J Robert Oppenheimer.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-29-2011, 09:28 AM
Post: #10
RE: The Earth and Moon comparison conundrum.
(06-28-2011 12:07 PM)Derek Wrote:  
(06-24-2011 01:31 PM)Climate Realist Wrote:  But seriously, I think the earth is kept warm by it's atmosphere- the slowness of convection ensures the ground is insulated from too much heat loss till the next sunrise.

I used to think along similar lines too. But I do not any longer.

Let me try to put it this way, an object in space can only loose input solar radiation by emitting thermal IR radiation.
The surface of the object (with no atmosphere) will be the actual and effective surface of emission of thermal IR.
AND,
in the case of the moon, when not in the shadow of the earth, and using P/4, it will appear as an object in space at -18C
(give or take a little - depending on how you "view" radiation of earth shine being absorbed).

OK, but what about earth, it has an atmosphere, yet, still appears as an object in space at -18C. ?

The presence of an atmosphere makes no difference to the overall answer according to physics.
It is still an object in space at -18C, which is correct for the solar input
(although the earth has more than just solar input, yet still maintains -18C....a subject for another thread...).

The difference is at the surface, the moon can only cool by emitting thermal IR, AND, as it is a grey body some being absorbed into the surface regolith.
It will however reach a thermal equilibrium with the solar input quicker, so the moon's surface is far hotter than earth's.
The earth's surface can cool by emitting IR, and 40% (ish) still escapes because of the atmospheric IR "window" directly to space as IR.
However, the earth's surface can also cool by conduction and convection of sensible heat, and by convection of the latent heat of water vapourisation.
So, because earth has an atmosphere it's surface can cool by more, and by far more powerful means than by radiation losses alone.
Not only this, but because rain is cold, the earth's surface is also cooled by some of the atmospheric constituents.

In the end it is a simple sum, and question, does radiation alone without an atmosphere cool a surface more than it and the other means of cooling that an atmosphere also provides.
The answer is no.
That the answer is no, is shown by the fact that earth's effective surface of emission is at an altitude above the earth's surface. Day and night.

The fact that earth's effective surface of emission is at an altitude above the earth's surface, is the clue most have missed.
This is the sum of how "physics" gets the right answer of -18C for planet earth as seen as an object in space.

I will expand upon this elsewhere soon, but for this thread, and now, I think this is enough.
I will post 4 plots soon to show the moon DOES NOT spin (at all) on it's own axis first though on this thread.

Derek, as with your P/4 thread you've forgotten a few important facts and are confusing yourself. You seem to get confused with averages, globes/circles and 24 hour days.

-18C is the average radiative temp of the average of both surface and atmosphere of the earth. The earth radiates much energy from the surface into space directly from the surface and at those wavelengths that are scattered by IRIGs (Infra Red Interacting gasses) radiates IR at those particular interacting wavelengths from the top of the
atmosphere after the IR is scattered by the IRIGs. You start your post by disagreeing with me and then with this paragraph, agree with me:-

"The difference is at the surface, the moon can only cool by emitting thermal IR, AND, as it is a grey body some being absorbed into the surface regolith.
It will however reach a thermal equilibrium with the solar input quicker, so the moon's surface is far hotter than earth's.
The earth's surface can cool by emitting IR, and 40% (ish) still escapes because of the atmospheric IR "window" directly to space as IR.
However, the earth's surface can also cool by conduction and convection of sensible heat, and by convection of the latent heat of water vapourisation."

True- that is correct in the above paragraph . You've agreed with me that an atmosphere traps kinetic (not radiative) heat by the slowness of convection and other physical processes such as evaporation.

"
So, because earth has an atmosphere it's surface can cool by more, and by far more powerful means than by radiation losses alone.
Not only this, but because rain is cold, the earth's surface is also cooled by some of the atmospheric constituents.
"

In the above paragraph you contradict yourself! after first saying the opposite.
Sorry, not correct. After the end of the earth day, the earth and atmosphere cools slowly because it takes time for convection and evaporation and conduction to cool the surface and lower atmosphere. However, as soon as the sun goes down on the moon, with no atmosphere to trap heat, radiation cools the moons surface at the speed of light.

So the moon must and does cool a lot faster than the earth, and that is because the earths atmosphere retains heat, not by IRIGs such as water vapour and CO2 but because of the slowness of processes such as convection and evaporation.

So, the moon heats and cools very quickly because it has no atmosphere and the earth much more slowly because it has an atmosphere. Don't forget that the earths atmosphere and surface is cooler during the earth day than is the moon surface.

All an atmosphere can do is regulate heat transfer. The same amount of energy goes in and out per SQ meter at the same distance from the sun.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-29-2011, 09:30 AM
Post: #11
RE: The Earth and Moon comparison conundrum.
(06-29-2011 09:15 AM)Derek Wrote:  ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking

Tidal locking (or captured rotation) occurs when the gravitational gradient makes one side of an astronomical body always face another; for example, the same side of the Earth's Moon always faces the Earth. A tidally locked body takes just as long to rotate around its own axis as it does to revolve around its partner. This synchronous rotation causes one hemisphere constantly to face the partner body. Usually, at any given time only the satellite is tidally locked around the larger body, but if the difference in mass between the two bodies and their physical separation is small, each may be tidally locked to the other, as is the case between Pluto and Charon. This effect is employed to stabilize some artificial satellites.

“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”.J Robert Oppenheimer.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-29-2011, 10:18 AM
Post: #12
RE: The Earth and Moon comparison conundrum.
(06-29-2011 09:28 AM)Climate Realist Wrote:  However, as soon as the sun goes down on the moon, with no atmosphere to trap heat, radiation cools the moons surface at the speed of light.

Errr, yes, photons travel at the speed of light, but that is not the rate of cooling.
That is the rate the cooling travels at.
It is the rate of emission of the photons that is the cooling rate.

Comparing the sum totals of the cooling rates by the various mechanisms with and without an atmosphere is the point.
The speed of photons is an interesting and a vaguely related point only.

" You've agreed with me that an atmosphere traps kinetic (not radiative) heat by the slowness of convection and other physical processes such as evaporation. "

I have not agreed with you, you have omitted the retained and later released heat in the regolith, as well as earth's other heat source, it's core..
You seem to consider the volume of conduction and convection of sensible heat, and the volume of the convection of the latent heat of water vapourisation,
to be very small, as compared to radiation emission and therefore losses.
If that were the case then the naked cooling cannonball "thought experiment" - post 6 would have a very different result would it not?
The regolith is what warms the atmosphere from below at night.

Clouds do reduce convection, so released heat stays nearer the surface for longer, particularly at night.

Again though the sum is for day and night, so on the day side the earth cools more than the moon,
and on the night side the moon it appears cools faster than the earth.
As long as we do not consider earth's other (and variable) heat source....
The answer to that I do not know, but I suspect it is enough to tip the balance in earth's favour.
Which I suspect the day side does on it's own anyway.

When you attempt to look at the earth's temperature profile and where upon earth it is,
it soon becomes a very complicated picture indeed..

[Image: earthsotherheatsourcejpeg.jpg]

[Image: earthsotherheatsourcetheotherjpeg.jpg]

[Image: Overtheoceanstemperatureprofile.jpg]

links to (possibly) zero thickness of earth's crust in last plot.
Earth's Crust Missing In Mid-Atlantic - Science daily March 2007
and,
Scientists to study gash on Atlantic seafloor - Science on msnbc.com March 2007

(06-29-2011 09:30 AM)Scpg02. Wrote:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking

Thank you, you have given the reason why the moon does not rotate upon it's axis.
Which does not effect the fact that we observe the moon from a "mixed perspective".

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-29-2011, 11:01 AM
Post: #13
RE: The Earth and Moon comparison conundrum.
The moon is always a source of new and interesting data. Comments on this thread led me to try the method I used in my Post:#5 over on the P/4 thread to check the average outgoing radiation from the earth. I applied this to the moon and ended up with the moon radiating at an average temperature of ZERO CELCIUS! Ah well. Undecided

I found a small page on the moon here:
http://www.solarviews.com/eng/moon.htm
and extracted the following statistics.
Quote:Moon Statistics
Equatorial radius (km) 1,737.4
Visual geometric albedo 0.12
Mean surface temperature (day) 107°C (= 1182.3W/m^2)
Mean surface temperature (night) -153°C (= 11.76W/m^2)
Maximum surface temperature 123°C
Minimum surface temperature -233°C

The figures in bold are my addition to get an idea of average radiation between day and night on the moon. I wondered if I could derive an overall radiation figure from these stats.

First I get the half moon surface area = 4,741,541,012,422.5 m^2
then the day side radiation = 5,605,923,938,987,121.75 watts
and finally the night side radiation = 55,760,522,306,088.6 watts
Add for a grand total = 5,661,684,461,293,210.35 watts.
and divide by total surface area = 597.03W/m^2 or about +50C !!!

Score one more for ignorance. The maximum surface temperature of 123C is about 1,394W/m^2, a bit more than the incoming 1,366W/m^2 and factor in the albedo of 0.12 gives 1,202W/m^2 or a temperature of 108C.

I wonder how the maximum day side temperature on the moon can exceed the maximum incoming energy from the sun? So much to learn, so little time. Wink

Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-29-2011, 11:28 AM
Post: #14
RE: The Earth and Moon comparison conundrum.
(06-29-2011 11:01 AM)Richard111 Wrote:  The maximum surface temperature of 123C is about 1,394W/m^2, a bit more than the incoming 1,366W/m^2 and factor in the albedo of 0.12 gives 1,202W/m^2 or a temperature of 108C.

I wonder how the maximum day side temperature on the moon can exceed the maximum incoming energy from the sun? So much to learn, so little time. Wink

Emissivity of the moon's surface perhaps. The moon is a grey body, not a theoretical black body.
Presumably the moon's surface temperature depends on the incoming, and outgoing difference, so
if emissivity of the surface is low then the temperature of the surface could be higher than W/m2 would indicate is possible, using S-B law?

W/m2 does not give the peak frequency of the solar radiation received, and hence
not it's (presumably) "theoretical" maximum possible temperature the received W/m2 could (if concentrated enough - ie a really BIG magnifying glass) induce.
Which I assume would be the source of the radiations temperature.

A low emissivity (and low absorption rate to the underlying regolith), I assume, could in effect "magnify" the incoming radiation slightly,
hence raising the surface temperature above the P equations answer.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-30-2011, 10:45 AM
Post: #15
RE: The Earth and Moon comparison conundrum.
As Climate realist is, I understand, an avid follower of all things solar,
I will try to illustrate what we have been discussing here from a slightly different angle.
Namely the difference between the earth and the moon.

Earth has a hot core, and an atmosphere, the moon does not have either (to speak of) that I am aware of.
This may well be a case of connected facts.
The earth has a hot and seemingly variable core, but why? No one knows really.
That said, there are distinct similarities between Joe Olsen's and Oliver K Manuel's recent work in regards of the earth's core, and solar composition.
Are they effectively the same, I think they are.
This would mean that earth's core not only produces heat, but it also produces waste products of the process releasing the heat.
OKM's, and Joe Olsen's works suggests what these waste products would be.
The waste products are released at the earth's surface by volcanic activity, and so we have oceans and an atmosphere.
Some of the earth's atmosphere is stripped off by the solar wind, particularly at the poles.
What is left above the earth's surface is effectively a residue, a residue we refer to as the oceans and the atmosphere.

OK, so how is all that relevant? The moon like the earth receives a lot more across the spectrum of the sun's emissions (and types of emissions) than just the 1368W/m2 we usually only talk about.
But, these do not effect the moon (because it has no hot core), so makes no difference to the moon's temperature, particularly at the surface.

The earth however does have a hot core, and it also receives the same solar emissions that do not effect the moon.
But, according to Joe Olsen's and OKM's works they are effecting the earth's core.
It is immediately apparent that if the earth has a hot core, and the moon does not, then the earth should be hotter than the moon.
As an overall day and night average that is true, but it does not seem to effect how the earth and moon are seen as an object from space.
They are both still seen as an object with an average temperature of -18C for the same solar input?
How does physics achieve this miracle?

Without a hot core, the moon looses it's solar input (ONLY) by radiation, so it achieves -18C.
But earth has two heat sources, the sun and it's hot core.
The difference is plainly that earth has an atmosphere, which is there because earth has a hot core.
An atmosphere has more means to cool both directly to space, and by "neutralising" heat internally (the cold of rain at the earth's surface).
If the mechanism (solar emissions at frequencies and types usually ignored) that "controls" the variability of the earth hot core does not effect the moon (because it has no hot core) then,
earth has an extra heat to loose problem the moon does not have.
Nature has a wonderfully simple answer, the hot core produces waste products that create something (an atmosphere and oceans) at the earth's surface to deal with this problem.
In earth's case it is the water cycle that neutralises the amount of extra heat the core produces,
on Venus if memory serves me correctly nature uses Sulfuric acid, to the same effect.

So, earth's surface is cooled far more than the moon's surface because earth has an atmosphere.
Therefore the presence of an atmosphere increases surface cooling, as is shown on both Earth and Venus, compared to the moon.
If the atmosphere did not increase earth's surface cooling then because earth has two heat sources,
why is earth not hotter, as seen from space, than the moon?


Commonly at present
1) the other frequencies and types of solar emissions that do not heat a theoretical black body are ignored (Svensmark for example),
2) geothermal input to earth's surface ignored,
3) the cold of rain, sleet and snow at the earth's surface also ignored.
Yet, it is easy to see that geothermal heat released at the earth's surface would (and does in my opinion) increase the water cycle,
which would increase the cold of rain being brought back down to the earth's surface, so "neutralising" it internally to earth's climate system.
You could ignore such, points 1, 2, and 3 above, and still get the apparently right "overall answer",
but would that mean you understood the whole system correctly, no.

Nature and physics, arn't they blooming wonderful, complex, and downright amazing, they always get the right answer,
but we do not really know as of yet, how, if we ever will..

NB - I have not a clue if Venus has a hot core.

NNB - I do wish Svensmark would consider / work with Olsen / OKM, I think they could make great leaps forward together.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-30-2011, 02:51 PM
Post: #16
RE: The Earth and Moon comparison conundrum.
Quote:The difference is plainly that earth has an atmosphere, which is there because earth has a hot core.

The Earths gravity holds the atmosphere towards the surface.

It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-30-2011, 11:54 PM
Post: #17
RE: The Earth and Moon comparison conundrum.
The moon has gravity, yet no atmosphere.

If the moon had a hot core, then it would need an atmosphere, for the required extra cooling.

Earth's oceans and atmosphere is a "residue" of it's hot core's waste products, held in place by gravity.
Although it will all be stripped off to space eventually, by the solar wind.

Presumably earth's magnetic field is also another by product of the hot core's heat producing processes,
that also helps protect the atmosphere (and oceans) from being stripped off.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2011, 12:18 AM
Post: #18
RE: The Earth and Moon comparison conundrum.
(06-30-2011 11:54 PM)Derek Wrote:  The moon has gravity, yet no atmosphere.

If the moon had a hot core, then it would need an atmosphere, for the required extra cooling.

Earth's oceans and atmosphere is a "residue" of it's hot core's waste products, held in place by gravity.
Although it will all be stripped off to space eventually, by the solar wind.

Presumably earth's magnetic field is also another by product of the hot core's heat producing processes,
that also helps protect the atmosphere (and oceans) from being stripped off.

This is why I laugh when I see even serious science shows talking about terra forming Mars. It's core is solid and won't retain any atmosphere that is created.

“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”.J Robert Oppenheimer.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-17-2011, 11:34 PM
Post: #19
RE: The Earth and Moon comparison conundrum.
Everything you ever wanted to know about tides...So to speak.

http://www.enotes.com/topic/Tide

Contents
1 Characteristics
2 Tidal constituents - Principal lunar semidiurnal constituent, Semidiurnal range differences, Range variation: springs and neaps, Lunar altitude, Bathymetry, Other constituents
3 Phase and amplitude
4 Physics, History of tidal physics, Forces, Laplace's tidal equations, Amplitude and cycle time, Dissipation
5 Observation and prediction, History, Timing, Analysis, Example calculation, Current, Power generation
6 Navigation
7 Biological aspects, Intertidal ecology, Biological rhythms
8 Other tides, Lake tides, Atmospheric tides, Earth tides, Galactic tides
" Atmospheric tides are negligible at ground level and aviation altitudes, masked by weather's much more important effects.
Atmospheric tides are both gravitational and thermal in origin and are the dominant dynamics from about 80–120 kilometres (50–75 mi) above which
the molecular density becomes too low to support fluid behavior.
"
9 Misapplications
10 See also
11 Notes
12 External links
, Tide predictions

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-18-2011, 08:06 AM
Post: #20
RE: The Earth and Moon comparison conundrum.
(06-29-2011 10:18 AM)Derek Wrote:  
(06-29-2011 09:30 AM)Scpg02. Wrote:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking

Thank you, you have given the reason why the moon does not rotate upon it's axis.
Which does not effect the fact that we observe the moon from a "mixed perspective".

but it does rotate on its axis. it just does so at the same rate it rotates the earth.

“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”.J Robert Oppenheimer.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  The black body conundrum... Derek 0 1,149 04-09-2014 03:11 AM
Last Post: Derek



User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)