Remember me
▼ Content

Calculating the surface temperature of the moon


Calculating the surface temperature of the moon11-02-2018 01:24
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(87)
Everyone can look up the moons surface temperature on wikipedia for instance. What they give you is something completely useless though, as it is an arithmetic average, ignoring the Stefan Boltzmann law.

The obvious question is what surface temperature we would yield by allowing for it. The basic scheme is very simple. If, very simplified, one side had 100K and the other day side had 300K, than the logarithmic average would be ((100^4 + 300^4) / 2)^0.25 = 253K. That of course is substantially higher than the arithmetic average of only 200K (obviously!).

Due to this logic, the temperature of the dark side is not very important, as its emissions will be very low anyhow. Even if we assumed a temperature of 0K rather than 100K, the logarithmic average would not change a lot. ((0^4 + 300^4) / 2)^0.25 = 252.6K For that reason we do not need to be very precise with the dark side, we simply assume a realistic 90K for it.

The complicated part is averaging the hot day side. It reaches an average maximum temperature (at the equator with the sun in the zenith) of about 390K. In fact temperature curves will precisely follow the angle of solar incidence (which corresponds the amount energy input) and that by the power 0.25, thus allowing for the Boltzmann law again. I have arranged all that and more in the attached excel file.

So essentially I have 90 gradients which correspond to solar incidence. Next we need to power these temperatures by 4.
Before we can average them we need to weight them accordingly, which is simply done by a simple cos() function. Of course the areas with low solar incidence will be much larger than those where the sun is in the zenith. But that is quite logical.

So finally I take the sum of the weighted emissions, divide them by the sum of the weightings, take the result by the power 0.25 (or the 4th root respectively), and there we are. If there is any talented in writing mathematical formulas, you will be welcome to formulate this more elegantly.

Anyhow, the result is 327.25K for the bright side of the moon. Accordingly the total average then is ((90^4 + 327.25^4) / 2)^0.25 = 275.6K. Cool, isn't it? Now that is definitely warmer than the 268K the moon should have in theory, which gives it a decent GHE!?

But we are not done yet. Other than the theoretic approach insinuates, the moon is not a smooth sphere.



Rather the moon has an uneven surface, which means it will have more surface than a perfectly shaped sphere would have. If we assumed a modest average "slopiness" of 20% (it does matter if these are hills or just small unevenness), than according to Pythagoras that results in (1^2 + 0.2^2)^0.5 = 1.0198. For a two-dimensional surface we again need to take it to the square, which then results exactly 1.04. So then surface would be 4% larger than that of a sphere. The additional surface would then drop temperatures by about 1% (=1.04^0.25).

Now if we allow for this deviation between theory and reality, we need to add this one percent to the observed temperature, which will then be 278.3K.

This speculative, but realistic result, is interesting in two ways. First it is extremely close to the temperature of a perfect black body which should have: 278.7K (= (342*(1/5.67e-8))^0.25). Secondly it means we would have a GHE on the moon of about 10K, despite it does not have GHE.
Attached file:
moon.xls
11-02-2018 02:30
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(87)
Ok, I could have been more precise. Rather than using the data points (0,1,2 .. 90) should have used the average between these points (0-1,1-2 .. 89-90). Doing so slightly changes the outcome. Then the result will increase slightly from 275.6 to 276.2K. I added this to the file..
Attached file:
moon_1.xls
11-02-2018 17:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
Or you could remember that we do not have an emissivity value for the Moon, and neither can we measure the temperature of the entire Moon.

The only way to find emissivity is to first accurately know the temperature. You cannot know the temperature via the Stefan-Boltzmann law without first knowing the emissivity.

A few thermometers placed on the Moon's surface is not the entire Moon.
11-02-2018 18:24
Wake
★★★★★
(3417)
Leitwolf wrote:
Ok, I could have been more precise. Rather than using the data points (0,1,2 .. 90) should have used the average between these points (0-1,1-2 .. 89-90). Doing so slightly changes the outcome. Then the result will increase slightly from 275.6 to 276.2K. I added this to the file..



Perhaps you might discuss the effect of conductivity of the moon's makeup upon your rather serious work when Space.com tells us that the surface of the moon can reach 400K and that is based upon direct measurements? That is some 20% different than your figure of 327.
11-02-2018 20:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
Wake wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
Ok, I could have been more precise. Rather than using the data points (0,1,2 .. 90) should have used the average between these points (0-1,1-2 .. 89-90). Doing so slightly changes the outcome. Then the result will increase slightly from 275.6 to 276.2K. I added this to the file..



Perhaps you might discuss the effect of conductivity of the moon's makeup upon your rather serious work when Space.com tells us that the surface of the moon can reach 400K and that is based upon direct measurements? That is some 20% different than your figure of 327.


It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Moon. There are not enough thermometers.


The Parrot Killer
12-02-2018 03:42
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(87)
These are some very smart comments! Ok, no, I am just kidding..


Anyhow, I tried to reassure myself over the actual surface temperatures. Some of these are quite contradicting, like the UCLA home site of the Diviner module. They would say average surface temperature at the equator would be 390K at noon. The graph on the same page however indicates much lower temperatures...

http://staff.diviner.ucla.edu/science.shtml

So I had to look up more explicit data from that project, and these look pretty good.



So, after all, the 390K should well be justified.

Btw. ... the only way to overestimate temperatures by satellite measurement is to underrate emissivity. If there is a mistake climatologists would never make it is exactly that. The whole GHE is based on denial of real life emissivity, that is by putting it equal 1.
My point is exactly the opposite. If you do not allow for (low) emissivity, you will always get a GHE, even on the moon. In fact this mistake is the only cause for GHEs.
12-02-2018 15:34
Wake
★★★★★
(3417)
Leitwolf wrote:
These are some very smart comments! Ok, no, I am just kidding..


Anyhow, I tried to reassure myself over the actual surface temperatures. Some of these are quite contradicting, like the UCLA home site of the Diviner module. They would say average surface temperature at the equator would be 390K at noon. The graph on the same page however indicates much lower temperatures...

http://staff.diviner.ucla.edu/science.shtml

So I had to look up more explicit data from that project, and these look pretty good.



So, after all, the 390K should well be justified.

Btw. ... the only way to overestimate temperatures by satellite measurement is to underrate emissivity. If there is a mistake climatologists would never make it is exactly that. The whole GHE is based on denial of real life emissivity, that is by putting it equal 1.
My point is exactly the opposite. If you do not allow for (low) emissivity, you will always get a GHE, even on the moon. In fact this mistake is the only cause for GHEs.


What do you need to know the emissivity for since simply logging the energy radiated from the moon tells you the energy in and out? Since in the case of the moon this is ei = eo you can simply read the direct radiation from any point and tell what the temperature is.

Nightmare thinks that 1. low IR is not "light" 2. that measuring the IR is impossible and 3. that ei = eo on Earth.

It is my understanding the function of "emissivity" in the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is to indicate how much energy the surface will absorb vs. reflect. Also, the Earth does not radiate the same amount of energy that strikes it. This is because photosynthetic material is not totally returned to the biosphere.
12-02-2018 17:02
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
Wake wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
These are some very smart comments! Ok, no, I am just kidding..


Anyhow, I tried to reassure myself over the actual surface temperatures. Some of these are quite contradicting, like the UCLA home site of the Diviner module. They would say average surface temperature at the equator would be 390K at noon. The graph on the same page however indicates much lower temperatures...

http://staff.diviner.ucla.edu/science.shtml

So I had to look up more explicit data from that project, and these look pretty good.



So, after all, the 390K should well be justified.

Btw. ... the only way to overestimate temperatures by satellite measurement is to underrate emissivity. If there is a mistake climatologists would never make it is exactly that. The whole GHE is based on denial of real life emissivity, that is by putting it equal 1.
My point is exactly the opposite. If you do not allow for (low) emissivity, you will always get a GHE, even on the moon. In fact this mistake is the only cause for GHEs.


What do you need to know the emissivity for since simply logging the energy radiated from the moon tells you the energy in and out? Since in the case of the moon this is ei = eo you can simply read the direct radiation from any point and tell what the temperature is.

No, it doesn't. Temperature is determined by how much is absorbed and converted into thermal energy, not by the total.
Wake wrote:
Nightmare thinks that 1. low IR is not "light"

Never argued this. Pay attention. Occasionally I have seen YOU argue this. It's wrong.
Wake wrote:
2. that measuring the IR is impossible

Never argued this either. You really gotta pay attention to a conversation.
Wake wrote:
and 3. that ei = eo on Earth.

It does.
Wake wrote:
It is my understanding the function of "emissivity" in the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is to indicate how much energy the surface will absorb vs. reflect.

That is basically correct. It is actually absorb vs reflect, refract, or just pass through (transparency). The law also only considers that light that is converted into thermal energy. It does not consider light that is converted into some other type of energy.
Wake wrote:
Also, the Earth does not radiate the same amount of energy that strikes it.

Yes it does.
Wake wrote:
This is because photosynthetic material is not totally returned to the biosphere.

Yes it is. Just as plants grow, others die. All the potential energy a plant accumulates is lost again.

BTW, why are you attempting to justify increasing temperature on the presence of a plant? Potential energy has no temperature.


The Parrot Killer
12-02-2018 17:12
Wake
★★★★★
(3417)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
These are some very smart comments! Ok, no, I am just kidding..


Anyhow, I tried to reassure myself over the actual surface temperatures. Some of these are quite contradicting, like the UCLA home site of the Diviner module. They would say average surface temperature at the equator would be 390K at noon. The graph on the same page however indicates much lower temperatures...

http://staff.diviner.ucla.edu/science.shtml

So I had to look up more explicit data from that project, and these look pretty good.



So, after all, the 390K should well be justified.

Btw. ... the only way to overestimate temperatures by satellite measurement is to underrate emissivity. If there is a mistake climatologists would never make it is exactly that. The whole GHE is based on denial of real life emissivity, that is by putting it equal 1.
My point is exactly the opposite. If you do not allow for (low) emissivity, you will always get a GHE, even on the moon. In fact this mistake is the only cause for GHEs.


What do you need to know the emissivity for since simply logging the energy radiated from the moon tells you the energy in and out? Since in the case of the moon this is ei = eo you can simply read the direct radiation from any point and tell what the temperature is.

No, it doesn't. Temperature is determined by how much is absorbed and converted into thermal energy, not by the total.
Wake wrote:
Nightmare thinks that 1. low IR is not "light"

Never argued this. Pay attention. Occasionally I have seen YOU argue this. It's wrong.
Wake wrote:
2. that measuring the IR is impossible

Never argued this either. You really gotta pay attention to a conversation.
Wake wrote:
and 3. that ei = eo on Earth.

It does.
Wake wrote:
It is my understanding the function of "emissivity" in the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is to indicate how much energy the surface will absorb vs. reflect.

That is basically correct. It is actually absorb vs reflect, refract, or just pass through (transparency). The law also only considers that light that is converted into thermal energy. It does not consider light that is converted into some other type of energy.
Wake wrote:
Also, the Earth does not radiate the same amount of energy that strikes it.

Yes it does.
Wake wrote:
This is because photosynthetic material is not totally returned to the biosphere.

Yes it is. Just as plants grow, others die. All the potential energy a plant accumulates is lost again.

BTW, why are you attempting to justify increasing temperature on the presence of a plant? Potential energy has no temperature.


Again and again you demonstrate what a moron you are. No person with an ounce of intelligence would continue to repeat your ignorant stance on everything - such as gas, oil and coal appearing magically and radiant energy not being measurable. I especially like your idea that there is some other sort of energy than heat.
12-02-2018 18:21
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
These are some very smart comments! Ok, no, I am just kidding..


Anyhow, I tried to reassure myself over the actual surface temperatures. Some of these are quite contradicting, like the UCLA home site of the Diviner module. They would say average surface temperature at the equator would be 390K at noon. The graph on the same page however indicates much lower temperatures...

http://staff.diviner.ucla.edu/science.shtml

So I had to look up more explicit data from that project, and these look pretty good.



So, after all, the 390K should well be justified.

Btw. ... the only way to overestimate temperatures by satellite measurement is to underrate emissivity. If there is a mistake climatologists would never make it is exactly that. The whole GHE is based on denial of real life emissivity, that is by putting it equal 1.
My point is exactly the opposite. If you do not allow for (low) emissivity, you will always get a GHE, even on the moon. In fact this mistake is the only cause for GHEs.


What do you need to know the emissivity for since simply logging the energy radiated from the moon tells you the energy in and out? Since in the case of the moon this is ei = eo you can simply read the direct radiation from any point and tell what the temperature is.

No, it doesn't. Temperature is determined by how much is absorbed and converted into thermal energy, not by the total.
Wake wrote:
Nightmare thinks that 1. low IR is not "light"

Never argued this. Pay attention. Occasionally I have seen YOU argue this. It's wrong.
Wake wrote:
2. that measuring the IR is impossible

Never argued this either. You really gotta pay attention to a conversation.
Wake wrote:
and 3. that ei = eo on Earth.

It does.
Wake wrote:
It is my understanding the function of "emissivity" in the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is to indicate how much energy the surface will absorb vs. reflect.

That is basically correct. It is actually absorb vs reflect, refract, or just pass through (transparency). The law also only considers that light that is converted into thermal energy. It does not consider light that is converted into some other type of energy.
Wake wrote:
Also, the Earth does not radiate the same amount of energy that strikes it.

Yes it does.
Wake wrote:
This is because photosynthetic material is not totally returned to the biosphere.

Yes it is. Just as plants grow, others die. All the potential energy a plant accumulates is lost again.

BTW, why are you attempting to justify increasing temperature on the presence of a plant? Potential energy has no temperature.


Again and again you demonstrate what a moron you are. No person with an ounce of intelligence would continue to repeat your ignorant stance on everything -
The usual insults. You really oughtta grow up, Wake.
Wake wrote:
such as gas, oil and coal appearing magically
Never said this, liar. YOU did.
Wake wrote:
and radiant energy not being measurable.
Never said this liar, YOU did.
Wake wrote:
I especially like your idea that there is some other sort of energy than heat.

Heat is not energy.


The Parrot Killer
13-02-2018 00:30
Wake
★★★★★
(3417)
Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:
such as gas, oil and coal appearing magically
Never said this, liar. YOU did.

Wake wrote:
and radiant energy not being measurable.
Never said this liar, YOU did.

Heat is not energy.


You repeat your stupid claims again and again so explain:

Where did oil, gas and coal come from.

You have claimed that you cannot measure the heat radiated from the earth SO tell us how you can then say that you are NOT saying that you CAN measure radiant heat?

What in your mind is "energy"?
13-02-2018 01:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:
such as gas, oil and coal appearing magically
Never said this, liar. YOU did.

Wake wrote:
and radiant energy not being measurable.
Never said this liar, YOU did.

Heat is not energy.


You repeat your stupid claims again and again so explain:

You start your response with your typical insults.
Wake wrote:
Where did oil, gas and coal come from.

Oil and natural gas are most probably renewable fuels, synthesized by the Earth itself. We know we can synthesize both oil and natural gas using nothing more than carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide, hydrogen, heat, pressure, and the presence of an iron catalyst. These are similar conditions found underground.

Coal we don't know. It may be the result of synthesis as well, but we don't know that part of the process. There are speculations, but that's all they are.

Oil and natural gas are not fossils. Neither is coal, which is primarily carbon, although it may contain fossils embedded within it. When the coal is burned, these fossils are left behind as part of the ash or clinker.

Wake wrote:
You have claimed that you cannot measure the heat radiated from the earth SO tell us how you can then say that you are NOT saying that you CAN measure radiant heat?

Try English. It works much better.
Wake wrote:
What in your mind is "energy"?

Perhaps you might check out a good science book from your local library.

Energy comes in many forms. It can be electromagnetic energy (light), thermal energy (temperature), kinetic energy, potential energy, electrostatic energy (electricity), nuclear fusion or nuclear fission, chemical energy, etc.

Gravity is not energy. It is a force. So are the weak and strong forces. So is electromagnetism.

Energy is the ability to use a force to do work, or in other words, to move a mass.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 13-02-2018 01:46
13-02-2018 02:32
Wake
★★★★★
(3417)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:
such as gas, oil and coal appearing magically
Never said this, liar. YOU did.

Wake wrote:
and radiant energy not being measurable.
Never said this liar, YOU did.

Heat is not energy.


You repeat your stupid claims again and again so explain:

You start your response with your typical insults.
Wake wrote:
Where did oil, gas and coal come from.

Oil and natural gas are most probably renewable fuels, synthesized by the Earth itself. We know we can synthesize both oil and natural gas using nothing more than carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide, hydrogen, heat, pressure, and the presence of an iron catalyst. These are similar conditions found underground.

Coal we don't know. It may be the result of synthesis as well, but we don't know that part of the process. There are speculations, but that's all they are.

Oil and natural gas are not fossils. Neither is coal, which is primarily carbon, although it may contain fossils embedded within it. When the coal is burned, these fossils are left behind as part of the ash or clinker.

Wake wrote:
You have claimed that you cannot measure the heat radiated from the earth SO tell us how you can then say that you are NOT saying that you CAN measure radiant heat?

Try English. It works much better.
Wake wrote:
What in your mind is "energy"?

Perhaps you might check out a good science book from your local library.

Energy comes in many forms. It can be electromagnetic energy (light), thermal energy (temperature), kinetic energy, potential energy, electrostatic energy (electricity), nuclear fusion or nuclear fission, chemical energy, etc.

Gravity is not energy. It is a force. So are the weak and strong forces. So is electromagnetism.

Energy is the ability to use a force to do work, or in other words, to move a mass.


Again and again the mindless tries to think:

No we cannot synthesis gas or oil year without plant matter. And it takes FAR more energy to produce that it will yield.

Some asses will tell you that they can make "diesel fuel" from nothing but water. And of course CO2. Where do they get the energy to both capture sufficient quantities of CO2 and go through the conversion process.

Coal is carbon captured from CO2 by photosynthesis and caught under massive pressure form tectonic movements. You have shown again and again that you haven't even SEEN coal. Don't try to tell me what it is when you haven't a clue. You are so stupid you think that a leaf imprinted in a lump of coal doesn't mean anything.

It doesn't even occur to you to calculate the amount of gasoline used and how much power would be required to make the conversions. Oh, that's right, you've explain everything there is to know about statistical analysis to me but you don't actually know how to use it.

All objects with a temperature above absolute zero (0 K, -273.15 oC) emit energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation. ... Conversely, as the temperature of the body increases, the wavelength at the emission peak decreases.

Heat is the source of ALL energy in the Universe except for Gravity and since we don't have a real definition of gravity it may be a special case of heat. Mechanical motion is only obtainable by the movement of heat from one place to another.

The strong nuclear force is an electromagnetic force. Though neutrons are supposedly neutral, when pushed close enough to protons they stick so tightly that they must have a slight negative charge. The weak nuclear force is also electromagnetic in nature with neutrons being converted to a Proton and an electron and a neutrino (and anti-electron).

Both fusion and fission are conversions of matter to energy which is high scale electromagnetic in nature.

Hollowman babbles on.
Edited on 13-02-2018 02:37
13-02-2018 08:51
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:
such as gas, oil and coal appearing magically
Never said this, liar. YOU did.

Wake wrote:
and radiant energy not being measurable.
Never said this liar, YOU did.

Heat is not energy.


You repeat your stupid claims again and again so explain:

You start your response with your typical insults.
Wake wrote:
Where did oil, gas and coal come from.

Oil and natural gas are most probably renewable fuels, synthesized by the Earth itself. We know we can synthesize both oil and natural gas using nothing more than carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide, hydrogen, heat, pressure, and the presence of an iron catalyst. These are similar conditions found underground.

Coal we don't know. It may be the result of synthesis as well, but we don't know that part of the process. There are speculations, but that's all they are.

Oil and natural gas are not fossils. Neither is coal, which is primarily carbon, although it may contain fossils embedded within it. When the coal is burned, these fossils are left behind as part of the ash or clinker.

Wake wrote:
You have claimed that you cannot measure the heat radiated from the earth SO tell us how you can then say that you are NOT saying that you CAN measure radiant heat?

Try English. It works much better.
Wake wrote:
What in your mind is "energy"?

Perhaps you might check out a good science book from your local library.

Energy comes in many forms. It can be electromagnetic energy (light), thermal energy (temperature), kinetic energy, potential energy, electrostatic energy (electricity), nuclear fusion or nuclear fission, chemical energy, etc.

Gravity is not energy. It is a force. So are the weak and strong forces. So is electromagnetism.

Energy is the ability to use a force to do work, or in other words, to move a mass.


Again and again the mindless tries to think:

And again, you open your response with insults.
Wake wrote:
No we cannot synthesis gas or oil year without plant matter.

Yes we can.
Wake wrote:
And it takes FAR more energy to produce that it will yield.

Both are an endothermic reaction, yes.
Wake wrote:
Some asses will tell you that they can make "diesel fuel" from nothing but water.
And of course CO2. Where do they get the energy to both capture sufficient quantities of CO2 and go through the conversion process.

Won't work. The oxygen in the water contaminates the process. The energy required can come from anywhere.
Wake wrote:
Coal is carbon captured from CO2 by photosynthesis and caught under massive pressure form tectonic movements.

You think so? First I've heard of that one! Most people think coal is petrified plant matter.
Wake wrote:
You have shown again and again that you haven't even SEEN coal.

I've not only seen it, I burned it.
Wake wrote:
Don't try to tell me what it is when you haven't a clue.

Coal is primarily carbon.
Wake wrote:
You are so stupid you think that a leaf imprinted in a lump of coal doesn't mean anything.
It doesn't.
Wake wrote:
It doesn't even occur to you to calculate the amount of gasoline used and how much power would be required to make the conversions.

The energy can come from anywhere. It doesn't have to be from burning gasoline.
Wake wrote:
Oh, that's right, you've explain everything there is to know about statistical analysis to me but you don't actually know how to use it.

No, I haven't explained everything there is to know about statistical analysis to you. You choked on the first principles. I suggest you go learn it on your own.
Wake wrote:
All objects with a temperature above absolute zero (0 K, -273.15 oC) emit energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation.

Correct. So?
Wake wrote:
... Conversely, as the temperature of the body increases, the wavelength at the emission peak decreases.

Conversely??? No, it's the same basic equation, re-arranged. I suggest you study up on Planck's laws.
Wake wrote:
Heat is the source of ALL energy in the Universe

Heat isn't energy.
Wake wrote:
except for Gravity

Gravity isn't energy either.
Wake wrote:
and since we don't have a real definition of gravity

We have enough to know that it's a fundamental force of nature. It is not energy.
Wake wrote:
it may be a special case of heat.

It is not heat.
Wake wrote:
Mechanical motion is only obtainable by the movement of heat from one place to another.

WRONG. Mechanical motion may come from any energy source. Heat does not move from one place to another, and heat is not energy.
Wake wrote:
The strong nuclear force is an electromagnetic force.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! No, dude. They are two separate forces!
Wake wrote:
Though neutrons are supposedly neutral, when pushed close enough to protons they stick so tightly that they must have a slight negative charge.

Neutrons have no charge. They do not acquire one either.
Wake wrote:
The weak nuclear force is also electromagnetic in nature with neutrons being converted to a Proton and an electron and a neutrino (and anti-electron).

Nope. Beta decay is not electromagnetic in nature. There is no frequency for beta decay.
Wake wrote:
Both fusion and fission are conversions of matter to energy which is high scale electromagnetic in nature.

Matter has no frequency. It is not electromagnetic energy.
Wake wrote:
Hollowman babbles on.

You really have no understanding of light or heat at all, do you?

Go check out a science book from your local library and READ IT.


The Parrot Killer
15-02-2018 07:38
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(87)
Why this effort to hijack every single reasonable topic to fill it up with bullshit talk? Are "wake" and "into the night" trolls to suppress the discussion?
15-02-2018 16:01
Wake
★★★★★
(3417)
Leitwolf wrote:
Why this effort to hijack every single reasonable topic to fill it up with bullshit talk? Are "wake" and "into the night" trolls to suppress the discussion?


Exactly what is that all about? In case you missed it we agreed on everything except the need to know "emissivity" and the MGT of the moon. You corrected your temperature from another source and you didn't comment on the Stefan-Boltzmann Law as it concerned a body like the moon.

Now I understand that you probably work and don't have time to mess about on the Internet all day like we retired people but it is difficult to hold a conversation when nightmare is interrupting with his stupidity.

After all - he, like totally dude - understands statistical analysis but thinks that you cannot measure temperatures such as the pictograph you presented.
15-02-2018 21:33
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
Leitwolf wrote:
Why this effort to hijack every single reasonable topic to fill it up with bullshit talk? Are "wake" and "into the night" trolls to suppress the discussion?


Mathematics isn't bullshit.
Theories of science isn't bullshit.

You are ignoring both.


The Parrot Killer
15-02-2018 21:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
Wake wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
Why this effort to hijack every single reasonable topic to fill it up with bullshit talk? Are "wake" and "into the night" trolls to suppress the discussion?


Exactly what is that all about? In case you missed it we agreed on everything except the need to know "emissivity" and the MGT of the moon. You corrected your temperature from another source and you didn't comment on the Stefan-Boltzmann Law as it concerned a body like the moon.

He wasn't using the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
...deleted Mantra 1...
Wake wrote:
After all - he, like totally dude - understands statistical analysis but thinks that you cannot measure temperatures such as the pictograph you presented.

You can't.


The Parrot Killer
15-02-2018 22:23
Wake
★★★★★
(3417)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
Why this effort to hijack every single reasonable topic to fill it up with bullshit talk? Are "wake" and "into the night" trolls to suppress the discussion?


Exactly what is that all about? In case you missed it we agreed on everything except the need to know "emissivity" and the MGT of the moon. You corrected your temperature from another source and you didn't comment on the Stefan-Boltzmann Law as it concerned a body like the moon.

He wasn't using the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
...deleted Mantra 1...
Wake wrote:
After all - he, like totally dude - understands statistical analysis but thinks that you cannot measure temperatures such as the pictograph you presented.

You can't.


Guess what stupid - liquid oceans with a sun angle of less than 25 degrees has an emissivity of 0.96. Since 70% of the Earth's surface is oceans and that only a tiny proportion is ice (emissivity = 0.99) there isn't much question about how to calculate the Earth's surface temperature.

Spectroscopic analysis of other planet's atmosphere's gives us the knowledge of what they are composed of and hence their emissivity.

We do not need to guess emissivity of the moon because it is covered by a shallow layer of moondust. This has been returned to Earth and we know its reflection and refraction and hence its absorption and emissivity. The angles of measurement of the sunlight from satellites are known as are the angles of the moon. The emissivity at any power levels are exactly the same within the angles that preclude reflection.

However, actual measurements from aircraft at various altitudes show that the Earth acts on the whole like a blackbody - radiating the energy that is shown upon it.

There are thousands of papers that study this very effect. there are dozens of books. But they would be "holy links" to you since they do not agree with your ignorance.

You cannot bring yourself to study anything.
15-02-2018 23:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
Why this effort to hijack every single reasonable topic to fill it up with bullshit talk? Are "wake" and "into the night" trolls to suppress the discussion?


Exactly what is that all about? In case you missed it we agreed on everything except the need to know "emissivity" and the MGT of the moon. You corrected your temperature from another source and you didn't comment on the Stefan-Boltzmann Law as it concerned a body like the moon.

He wasn't using the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
...deleted Mantra 1...
Wake wrote:
After all - he, like totally dude - understands statistical analysis but thinks that you cannot measure temperatures such as the pictograph you presented.

You can't.


Guess what stupid - liquid oceans with a sun angle of less than 25 degrees has an emissivity of 0.96.

Emissivity is not determined by the angle of sunlight.
Wake wrote:
Since 70% of the Earth's surface is oceans and that only a tiny proportion is ice (emissivity = 0.99) there isn't much question about how to calculate the Earth's surface temperature.

Emissivity varies across ocean water. It is not uniform.
Wake wrote:
Spectroscopic analysis of other planet's atmosphere's gives us the knowledge of what they are composed of and hence their emissivity.

Not how you measure emissivity.
Wake wrote:
We do not need to guess emissivity of the moon because it is covered by a shallow layer of moondust.

Emissivity varies widely across the Moon's surface, often radically in the space of a few inches.
Wake wrote:
This has been returned to Earth and we know its reflection and refraction and hence its absorption and emissivity.

Only for those samples. They do not represent the entire Moon in this regard.
Wake wrote:
The angles of measurement of the sunlight from satellites are known as are the angles of the moon. The emissivity at any power levels are exactly the same within the angles that preclude reflection.

sunlight angle does not determine emissivity.
Wake wrote:
However, actual measurements from aircraft at various altitudes show that the Earth acts on the whole like a blackbody - radiating the energy that is shown upon it.

You are not describing blackbody radiance. You are describing reflection.
Wake wrote:
There are thousands of papers that study this very effect. there are dozens of books. But they would be "holy links" to you since they do not agree with your ignorance.

NONE of them falsify the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Wake wrote:
You cannot bring yourself to study anything.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law is right in front of you and STILL you deny it.


The Parrot Killer
15-02-2018 23:51
Wake
★★★★★
(3417)
Leitwolf - I hope that this last posting of nightmare makes my point.
Edited on 15-02-2018 23:51




Join the debate Calculating the surface temperature of the moon:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
What would happen to global temperature if the US stopped all CO2 emissions for the next 50 years?1517-09-2018 07:12
Change of earth surface and thoughts about its contribution for climate change and weather420-07-2018 07:12
Clouds and temperature3601-02-2018 19:48
TEMPERATURE DATA released for 20171127-01-2018 22:56
Real Temperature Measurement of Earth2116-12-2017 02:26
Articles
Appendix B - Calculating The Economic Costs of Extreme Weather Events
Ban Ki-Moon: Address to the UN Climate Change Conference
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact