Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Heat question?
I remember reading some interesting facts on how long a photon stays in the atmosphere. I think Nasif Nahle posted it. What I remember was the average time a photon leaves the atmosphere is 49 hours. If the sun stopped shining it would take 80 hours for the Earth to come to -200C. Are these figures correct? Can anyone direct my back to that? I did the search but can up without. Thanks.
See my post HERE.

This has a link to one of Nasif's papers that discusses some of your query. I only have memory of a post from elsewhere that claimed if the sun didn't rise global temperature would drop below 0C in 96 hours.

Derek has links to a whole bunch of PDFs for which we need some sort of library of indexes.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
(09-27-2011, 08:56 PM)Goose52 Wrote: I remember reading some interesting facts on how long a photon stays in the atmosphere. I think Nasif Nahle posted it. What I remember was the average time a photon leaves the atmosphere is 49 hours.

If I have got what you are asking correctly, the actual time it takes for a photon emitted at the earth's surface to escape to space is 5 milliseconds.

Rate at which the earth would cool if the sun did not rise?
I am not sure, but, there is a lot of mass to cool.
On a planet of 259 trillion cubic miles !

The oceans alone, 71% of the earth's surface on average 2.5 miles deep...

AND, the earth does have a rather hot core, which most people seem to ignore....
Which is known to be releasing a lot of heat deep in the oceans.

Nasif Nahle's mean free path length of a photon,
and several of Joe Olsen's pieces are particularly worth reading,
ie, attachments to posts 1, 2 ,6, 7, and 11.
Dereks (for sharing) pdf repository
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.
I found it. It was an article written by Bill Illis. Perhaps on WUUT Feb, 13, 2011.

Quote:Bill Illis says:
February 13, 2011 at 4:55 pm

Really nice article.

I would like to see much more discussion of the actual physics involved here because this is all happening at the quantum level - where physics is king - not in climate models where 20 km-square boxes and just 21 layers of the atmosphere is king.

The numbers is this debate are staggeringly huge as well as staggeringly small.

- the energy represented by a solar photon spends an average 43 hours in the Earth system before it is lost to space. Some spend just a millisecond while a very, very tiny percentage might get absorbed in the deep ocean and spend a thousand years on Earth or longer. In essence, the Earth has accumulated 1.9 days worth of solar energy. If the Sun did not come up tomorrow, it would take around 86 hours for at least the land temperature to fall below -200C.

- the energy represented by a solar photon spends time in 5 billion individual molecules on Earth before it escapes to space. That means it is bouncing around from molecule to molecule to molecule almost continuously. The IR emitted by the surface is not skipping Nitrogen and Oxygen molecules and preferentially seeking out CO2 and H20 only. Every molecule on Earth and in the atmosphere is participating in this process and does so continuously. Maybe CO2 or H20 provides the initial absorption, but that energy is shared amongst the rest of the atmospheric molecules almost immediately. What happens to it then?

- The surface accumulates almost none of the solar energy which hits the surface during the height of the day. 960.000 joules/m2/second is coming in and 959.083 joules/m2/second is moving up and away from the surface. At night, virtually no energy is coming in and only 0.001 joules/m2/second is flowing up and out to space. That is not consistent at all with the greenhouse theory and the back-radiation theory. It is more consistent with energy flowing from hot to cold continously (like the second law of thermodynamics) and it flows faster the more there is a differential between that hot and cold.

- We need a time perspective on radiation physics because it is happening at the speed of light and at the miniscule amount of time that a molecule absorbs that energy before passing it on through emission or collisional exchange. CO2 holds onto an absorbed IR photons for an average 0.000005 seconds before it is emitted or passed onto another molecule, Every atmospheric molecule hits another atmospheric molecule every 0.00000000015 seconds, an emitted IR photon from the surface could escape the atmosphere in just 0.000016 seconds at the speed of light - yet it actually takes 40 hours to make the journey. In the Sun, the average photon takes 200,000 years to make it out.

Is there a climate model that can simulate that accurately? It would be far too complicated for any computer even 1000 years from now to be able to simulate accurately. We have to empirically measure what is really happening in such a complicated system and base models on that instead. What is really happening is that the theory is off by at least half to date.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)