| 24-08-2017 01:32 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21596) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
ITN wrote;
I was at the total eclipse. Where I was at, the thermometer went from 93 to 76. Some people put sweaters on.
ITN....is 93F a typo? Seems pretty hot for mid morning in Oregon. Want to check out the numbers but want to start accurately.
It was a hot one.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 24-08-2017 01:46 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
ITN wrote;.
Nope. I said the temperature drops by 10-15 deg F during totality of an eclipse of the Sun
Oh, I misread that. 10-15 degree drop in 2 minutes you say? In that case I'll bet you the entire Iowa corn fed cow!
No way the temps drop 10 degrees, with 65+ dewpoints and clear skies.
Bit late to the party, but the solar eclipse is indeed an excellent illustration of the greenhouse properties of clouds and water vapour. On a clear day with low humidity, the temperature can indeed drop very sharply during an eclipse. This is because most of the IR radiated by the ground goes straight up and into space. On a humid or cloudy day, the temperature drop is much less. This is because some of the IR radiated by the ground is absorbed and then re-radiated by water molecules, so some of it comes back to the ground, thus keeping the ground warmer.
"There are written accounts of total solar eclipses going back millennia. And yet, there seems to be lacking any long-term, consistent effort to measure many of the local effects of total solar eclipses — such as the drop in temperature — according to Jay Pasachoff, an astronomer at Williams College who studies eclipses. "
The temperature drops are about the same as the time of day the eclipse occurs and just after sunset. Because it occurs over a period of about an hour it is more noticeable. Why some people tell you that it instantly causes frost on the pumpkin. The same people who have never actually witnessed one. |
| 24-08-2017 01:58 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21596) |
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: The usual nonsense
The AIRLINES CAN HIRE WHOMEVER THEY WANT. THEY DO NOT OPERATE THE AIRPORT.
They are part what operates an airport. Who do you think those baggage handler guys down there on the tarmac work for? NONE of the gates could even accept an airplane without airline employees operating it and the related services around it.
Who do you think operates the fuel truck? Not the airline. Not the city. Those are private companies (another vendor).
Who do you think repairs the aircraft? Not always the airlines. Private vendors like Goodrich hire those mechanics.
An airline mechanic may do some quick fix like change a tire or unstop the toilet before departure (you have to a certified mechanic to unstop a toilet on an airplane! You have to STUDY for it!).
Who do you think operates the pond? The city or county.
Who do you think changes the light bulbs on a runway light? The city or county.
Who runs those food and bookstores in the terminals? Private vendors.
Who fixes the escalators and elevators when they break? Who inspects them? A private company.
Who waxes the floors, cleans the windows, and hands the key to the control tower to the ATC folks? The city or county.
Who cleans the snow and ice off the runway in winter? The city or county. Who runs the deicing stations? A private vendor.
NONE of these folks are employed by the FAA.
Who runs the TSA? The Dept of Homeland Security, NOT the FAA.
Who investigates an airplane crash? The National Transportation Safety Board (the same department that investigates train crashes).
Do you have any idea how many people it takes to run a modern commercial airport??
Let's take a smaller example, a general aviation airport (most airports).
No ATC. No control tower. No FAA employees at all.
Same sort that cut the grass, clean and maintain the runways and taxiways (and build them), the city or county (or often a private developer).
Who builds the hangars? Private developers. The only involvement of the city or county is to lease the land to them.
Who installs the ramp lighting, paints the runway markings, builds and maintains the fence and gates? The city or county (or private owner if the airport is privately owned).
Who maintains the beacon light? At our airport, it's the local policeman! He likes climbing towers for the exercise.
I have personally climbed up a tower to replace a navigation light myself. They use 107.5 watt clear bulbs, as required by FAA regulations (morons). That tower was a radio tower for a small radio station and was 100 ft high. I was going up to clean and repack the antenna connectors anyway, but the burned out bulb forced me to do earlier than planned.
Of course, an airplane flying that low would probably hit the tree next to the tower, but regulations are regulations.
BTW, an airline cannot hire whomever they want. Pilots, mechanics, and stewardesses all have to be FAA certified. The baggage handling crew (including the guy flagging the airplane into the gate, the gate operator, and the pushcart driver all have to undergo a security clearance check by the department of Homeland Security. (Oddly enough, pilots, mechanics, and stewardesses don't!)
There you have it - without a vending machine repairman an airport couldn't operate. Thanks for your lessons in knowledge.
Trying for the special pleading fallacy, eh?
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 24-08-2017 01:59 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21596) |
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
ITN wrote;.
Nope. I said the temperature drops by 10-15 deg F during totality of an eclipse of the Sun
Oh, I misread that. 10-15 degree drop in 2 minutes you say? In that case I'll bet you the entire Iowa corn fed cow!
No way the temps drop 10 degrees, with 65+ dewpoints and clear skies.
Bit late to the party, but the solar eclipse is indeed an excellent illustration of the greenhouse properties of clouds and water vapour. On a clear day with low humidity, the temperature can indeed drop very sharply during an eclipse. This is because most of the IR radiated by the ground goes straight up and into space. On a humid or cloudy day, the temperature drop is much less. This is because some of the IR radiated by the ground is absorbed and then re-radiated by water molecules, so some of it comes back to the ground, thus keeping the ground warmer.
You can't heat a hotter surface using a colder gas.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 24-08-2017 03:40 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: The usual nonsense
The AIRLINES CAN HIRE WHOMEVER THEY WANT. THEY DO NOT OPERATE THE AIRPORT.
They are part what operates an airport. Who do you think those baggage handler guys down there on the tarmac work for? NONE of the gates could even accept an airplane without airline employees operating it and the related services around it.
Who do you think operates the fuel truck? Not the airline. Not the city. Those are private companies (another vendor).
Who do you think repairs the aircraft? Not always the airlines. Private vendors like Goodrich hire those mechanics.
An airline mechanic may do some quick fix like change a tire or unstop the toilet before departure (you have to a certified mechanic to unstop a toilet on an airplane! You have to STUDY for it!).
Who do you think operates the pond? The city or county.
Who do you think changes the light bulbs on a runway light? The city or county.
Who runs those food and bookstores in the terminals? Private vendors.
Who fixes the escalators and elevators when they break? Who inspects them? A private company.
Who waxes the floors, cleans the windows, and hands the key to the control tower to the ATC folks? The city or county.
Who cleans the snow and ice off the runway in winter? The city or county. Who runs the deicing stations? A private vendor.
NONE of these folks are employed by the FAA.
Who runs the TSA? The Dept of Homeland Security, NOT the FAA.
Who investigates an airplane crash? The National Transportation Safety Board (the same department that investigates train crashes).
Do you have any idea how many people it takes to run a modern commercial airport??
Let's take a smaller example, a general aviation airport (most airports).
No ATC. No control tower. No FAA employees at all.
Same sort that cut the grass, clean and maintain the runways and taxiways (and build them), the city or county (or often a private developer).
Who builds the hangars? Private developers. The only involvement of the city or county is to lease the land to them.
Who installs the ramp lighting, paints the runway markings, builds and maintains the fence and gates? The city or county (or private owner if the airport is privately owned).
Who maintains the beacon light? At our airport, it's the local policeman! He likes climbing towers for the exercise.
I have personally climbed up a tower to replace a navigation light myself. They use 107.5 watt clear bulbs, as required by FAA regulations (morons). That tower was a radio tower for a small radio station and was 100 ft high. I was going up to clean and repack the antenna connectors anyway, but the burned out bulb forced me to do earlier than planned.
Of course, an airplane flying that low would probably hit the tree next to the tower, but regulations are regulations.
BTW, an airline cannot hire whomever they want. Pilots, mechanics, and stewardesses all have to be FAA certified. The baggage handling crew (including the guy flagging the airplane into the gate, the gate operator, and the pushcart driver all have to undergo a security clearance check by the department of Homeland Security. (Oddly enough, pilots, mechanics, and stewardesses don't!)
There you have it - without a vending machine repairman an airport couldn't operate. Thanks for your lessons in knowledge.
Trying for the special pleading fallacy, eh?
And what are you doing by insisting that an airport isn't an airport without baggage handlers and homeland security inspections? |
|
| 24-08-2017 03:57 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
ITN wrote;.
Nope. I said the temperature drops by 10-15 deg F during totality of an eclipse of the Sun
Oh, I misread that. 10-15 degree drop in 2 minutes you say? In that case I'll bet you the entire Iowa corn fed cow!
No way the temps drop 10 degrees, with 65+ dewpoints and clear skies.
Bit late to the party, but the solar eclipse is indeed an excellent illustration of the greenhouse properties of clouds and water vapour. On a clear day with low humidity, the temperature can indeed drop very sharply during an eclipse. This is because most of the IR radiated by the ground goes straight up and into space. On a humid or cloudy day, the temperature drop is much less. This is because some of the IR radiated by the ground is absorbed and then re-radiated by water molecules, so some of it comes back to the ground, thus keeping the ground warmer.
You can't heat a hotter surface using a colder gas.
No, but the point that you always fail to grasp is that you can reduce the net rate of heat loss from the surface with a colder gas. I know you struggle with analogies, but it really is similar to putting on a coat. Even though the coat itself is cold, it reduces the rate of heat loss and thus warms its wearer. The mechanism by which greenhouse gases reduce the rate of heat loss is different to that of a coat, but the effect is the same. |
| 24-08-2017 05:43 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2932) |
Surface Detail wrote:
No, but the point that you always fail to grasp is that you can reduce the net rate of heat loss from the surface with a colder gas. I know you struggle with analogies, but it really is similar to putting on a coat. Even though the coat itself is cold, it reduces the rate of heat loss and thus warms its wearer. The mechanism by which greenhouse gases reduce the rate of heat loss is different to that of a coat, but the effect is the same.
I love analogies, and I love the coat. If the body temp of the person putting on that coat is 98, and is not running a fever like the earth is, will his body temp go to 99?
Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
Edited on 24-08-2017 05:44 |
| 24-08-2017 07:02 |
still learning★★☆☆☆
(244) |
Back from seeing the total eclipse in Oregon, along US26, between the towns of Prairie City and Unity in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. A "bucket list" experience.
Clear sky, no thermometer, warm, but not hot yet when eclipse began, comfortable shirtsleeve temperature standing out in the sunlight. During the slow obscuring of the Sun the warming effect of the direct sunlight on your clothing and skin decreased, of course, but I don't think the air temperature changed much, the air temperature as measured in the shade. (Nobody actually stood in the shade though.) Nobody put on more clothing.
Gradual dimming of he Sun, sort of like the Sun setting, but without shadows lengthening and without the reddening of sunlight.
Totality is strange. Words fail. Illumination less than a full Moon, more than starlight. A band sort of like pre-dawn clear around the horizon, darkening upward until near the corona. The corona: No photo I've seen does it justice. The darkened disc of the Sun: Not conducive to rational thought, just wonder.
Venus was readily visible during totality.
No sudden perceived change of temperature at totality.
After totality, a gradual increase of illumination, a reversal of the dimming.
Finished breaking camp, was away as the eclipse ended, starting to get hot out in the sunlight. |
| 24-08-2017 10:12 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21596) |
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: The usual nonsense
The AIRLINES CAN HIRE WHOMEVER THEY WANT. THEY DO NOT OPERATE THE AIRPORT.
They are part what operates an airport. Who do you think those baggage handler guys down there on the tarmac work for? NONE of the gates could even accept an airplane without airline employees operating it and the related services around it.
Who do you think operates the fuel truck? Not the airline. Not the city. Those are private companies (another vendor).
Who do you think repairs the aircraft? Not always the airlines. Private vendors like Goodrich hire those mechanics.
An airline mechanic may do some quick fix like change a tire or unstop the toilet before departure (you have to a certified mechanic to unstop a toilet on an airplane! You have to STUDY for it!).
Who do you think operates the pond? The city or county.
Who do you think changes the light bulbs on a runway light? The city or county.
Who runs those food and bookstores in the terminals? Private vendors.
Who fixes the escalators and elevators when they break? Who inspects them? A private company.
Who waxes the floors, cleans the windows, and hands the key to the control tower to the ATC folks? The city or county.
Who cleans the snow and ice off the runway in winter? The city or county. Who runs the deicing stations? A private vendor.
NONE of these folks are employed by the FAA.
Who runs the TSA? The Dept of Homeland Security, NOT the FAA.
Who investigates an airplane crash? The National Transportation Safety Board (the same department that investigates train crashes).
Do you have any idea how many people it takes to run a modern commercial airport??
Let's take a smaller example, a general aviation airport (most airports).
No ATC. No control tower. No FAA employees at all.
Same sort that cut the grass, clean and maintain the runways and taxiways (and build them), the city or county (or often a private developer).
Who builds the hangars? Private developers. The only involvement of the city or county is to lease the land to them.
Who installs the ramp lighting, paints the runway markings, builds and maintains the fence and gates? The city or county (or private owner if the airport is privately owned).
Who maintains the beacon light? At our airport, it's the local policeman! He likes climbing towers for the exercise.
I have personally climbed up a tower to replace a navigation light myself. They use 107.5 watt clear bulbs, as required by FAA regulations (morons). That tower was a radio tower for a small radio station and was 100 ft high. I was going up to clean and repack the antenna connectors anyway, but the burned out bulb forced me to do earlier than planned.
Of course, an airplane flying that low would probably hit the tree next to the tower, but regulations are regulations.
BTW, an airline cannot hire whomever they want. Pilots, mechanics, and stewardesses all have to be FAA certified. The baggage handling crew (including the guy flagging the airplane into the gate, the gate operator, and the pushcart driver all have to undergo a security clearance check by the department of Homeland Security. (Oddly enough, pilots, mechanics, and stewardesses don't!)
There you have it - without a vending machine repairman an airport couldn't operate. Thanks for your lessons in knowledge.
Trying for the special pleading fallacy, eh?
And what are you doing by insisting that an airport isn't an airport without baggage handlers and homeland security inspections?
Pointing out that there are very few, if any, FAA employees at an airport.
You just try to get a ride on an airline in the United States without those baggage handlers and TSA agents.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 24-08-2017 10:16 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21596) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
ITN wrote;.
Nope. I said the temperature drops by 10-15 deg F during totality of an eclipse of the Sun
Oh, I misread that. 10-15 degree drop in 2 minutes you say? In that case I'll bet you the entire Iowa corn fed cow!
No way the temps drop 10 degrees, with 65+ dewpoints and clear skies.
Bit late to the party, but the solar eclipse is indeed an excellent illustration of the greenhouse properties of clouds and water vapour. On a clear day with low humidity, the temperature can indeed drop very sharply during an eclipse. This is because most of the IR radiated by the ground goes straight up and into space. On a humid or cloudy day, the temperature drop is much less. This is because some of the IR radiated by the ground is absorbed and then re-radiated by water molecules, so some of it comes back to the ground, thus keeping the ground warmer.
You can't heat a hotter surface using a colder gas.
No, but the point that you always fail to grasp is that you can reduce the net rate of heat loss from the surface with a colder gas.
Carbon dioxide is not an insulator. It doesn't reduce heat.
Surface Detail wrote:
I know you struggle with analogies, but it really is similar to putting on a coat.
Back to the Magick Blanket argument eh?
Surface Detail wrote:
Even though the coat itself is cold, it reduces the rate of heat loss and thus warms its wearer.
Put a coat on a rock. It doesn't heat the rock.
Surface Detail wrote:
The mechanism by which greenhouse gases reduce the rate of heat loss is different to that of a coat, but the effect is the same.
Carbon dioxide is not an insulator.
If it was, the Earth would be colder, not warmer.
You still don't get you are violating the Stefan-Boltzmann law, do you?
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 24-08-2017 11:58 |
GreenMan★★★☆☆
(661) |
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
ITN wrote;.
Nope. I said the temperature drops by 10-15 deg F during totality of an eclipse of the Sun
Oh, I misread that. 10-15 degree drop in 2 minutes you say? In that case I'll bet you the entire Iowa corn fed cow!
No way the temps drop 10 degrees, with 65+ dewpoints and clear skies.
Bit late to the party, but the solar eclipse is indeed an excellent illustration of the greenhouse properties of clouds and water vapour. On a clear day with low humidity, the temperature can indeed drop very sharply during an eclipse. This is because most of the IR radiated by the ground goes straight up and into space. On a humid or cloudy day, the temperature drop is much less. This is because some of the IR radiated by the ground is absorbed and then re-radiated by water molecules, so some of it comes back to the ground, thus keeping the ground warmer.
You can't heat a hotter surface using a colder gas.
No, but the point that you always fail to grasp is that you can reduce the net rate of heat loss from the surface with a colder gas.
Carbon dioxide is not an insulator. It doesn't reduce heat.
Surface Detail wrote:
I know you struggle with analogies, but it really is similar to putting on a coat.
Back to the Magick Blanket argument eh?
Surface Detail wrote:
Even though the coat itself is cold, it reduces the rate of heat loss and thus warms its wearer.
Put a coat on a rock. It doesn't heat the rock.
Surface Detail wrote:
The mechanism by which greenhouse gases reduce the rate of heat loss is different to that of a coat, but the effect is the same.
Carbon dioxide is not an insulator.
If it was, the Earth would be colder, not warmer.
You still don't get you are violating the Stefan-Boltzmann law, do you?
You are not violating the Stefan Boltzmann Law if the air is warmer than the ground. And it is, so shut up, until you think you can prove otherwise.
~*~ GreenMan ~*~
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php |
| 24-08-2017 20:02 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21596) |
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
ITN wrote;.
Nope. I said the temperature drops by 10-15 deg F during totality of an eclipse of the Sun
Oh, I misread that. 10-15 degree drop in 2 minutes you say? In that case I'll bet you the entire Iowa corn fed cow!
No way the temps drop 10 degrees, with 65+ dewpoints and clear skies.
Bit late to the party, but the solar eclipse is indeed an excellent illustration of the greenhouse properties of clouds and water vapour. On a clear day with low humidity, the temperature can indeed drop very sharply during an eclipse. This is because most of the IR radiated by the ground goes straight up and into space. On a humid or cloudy day, the temperature drop is much less. This is because some of the IR radiated by the ground is absorbed and then re-radiated by water molecules, so some of it comes back to the ground, thus keeping the ground warmer.
You can't heat a hotter surface using a colder gas.
No, but the point that you always fail to grasp is that you can reduce the net rate of heat loss from the surface with a colder gas.
Carbon dioxide is not an insulator. It doesn't reduce heat.
Surface Detail wrote:
I know you struggle with analogies, but it really is similar to putting on a coat.
Back to the Magick Blanket argument eh?
Surface Detail wrote:
Even though the coat itself is cold, it reduces the rate of heat loss and thus warms its wearer.
Put a coat on a rock. It doesn't heat the rock.
Surface Detail wrote:
The mechanism by which greenhouse gases reduce the rate of heat loss is different to that of a coat, but the effect is the same.
Carbon dioxide is not an insulator.
If it was, the Earth would be colder, not warmer.
You still don't get you are violating the Stefan-Boltzmann law, do you?
You are not violating the Stefan Boltzmann Law if the air is warmer than the ground. And it is, so shut up, until you think you can prove otherwise.
Yes, you are. I have already shown why. You denied it like you deny science.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 25-08-2017 06:30 |
GreenMan★★★☆☆
(661) |
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
You are not violating the Stefan Boltzmann Law if the air is warmer than the ground. And it is, so shut up, until you think you can prove otherwise.
Yes, you are. I have already shown why. You denied it like you deny science.
The Stefan–Boltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time, is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature.
Nothing about that law cares anything about gases absorbing energy that has been radiated. It doesn't care about what happens to that energy after it has been radiated. It just says that a specific amount of energy will be radiated proportional the the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature.
The Greenhouse Theory simply says that some of that energy being radiated is absorbed before it gets to space. That does not violate the law, dummy.
~*~ GreenMan ~*~
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php |
| 25-08-2017 06:45 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21596) |
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
You are not violating the Stefan Boltzmann Law if the air is warmer than the ground. And it is, so shut up, until you think you can prove otherwise.
Yes, you are. I have already shown why. You denied it like you deny science.
The Stefan–Boltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time, is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature.
All bodies, actually, but correct.
GreenMan wrote:
Nothing about that law cares anything about gases absorbing energy that has been radiated.
Yes it does.
GreenMan wrote:
It doesn't care about what happens to that energy after it has been radiated.
Yes it does.
GreenMan wrote:
It just says that a specific amount of energy will be radiated proportional the the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature.
Yup. That body is the Earth. Not part of the Earth. The Earth.
GreenMan wrote:
The Greenhouse Theory simply says that some of that energy being radiated is absorbed before it gets to space. That does not violate the law, dummy.
Yes it does.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 25-08-2017 12:01 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
still learning wrote:
Back from seeing the total eclipse in Oregon, along US26, between the towns of Prairie City and Unity in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. A "bucket list" experience.
Clear sky, no thermometer, warm, but not hot yet when eclipse began, comfortable shirtsleeve temperature standing out in the sunlight. During the slow obscuring of the Sun the warming effect of the direct sunlight on your clothing and skin decreased, of course, but I don't think the air temperature changed much, the air temperature as measured in the shade. (Nobody actually stood in the shade though.) Nobody put on more clothing.
Gradual dimming of he Sun, sort of like the Sun setting, but without shadows lengthening and without the reddening of sunlight.
Totality is strange. Words fail. Illumination less than a full Moon, more than starlight. A band sort of like pre-dawn clear around the horizon, darkening upward until near the corona. The corona: No photo I've seen does it justice. The darkened disc of the Sun: Not conducive to rational thought, just wonder.
Venus was readily visible during totality.
No sudden perceived change of temperature at totality.
After totality, a gradual increase of illumination, a reversal of the dimming.
Finished breaking camp, was away as the eclipse ended, starting to get hot out in the sunlight.
Yes, the chance to witness a total solar eclipse is something that should not missed. The eeriness of the lead-up to totality, as the shadows sharpen, the light dims and the air cools. And then, just as the edge of the sun is about to wink out, you see the shadow of totality racing across the ground towards you. There is indeed something primal about that moment when the sun finally vanishes and the sky is dominated by what looks like a shining black hole. And the animalistic sense of relief when the sun finally re-emerges. It's an awesome experience.
I witnessed the 1999 total eclipse from a small village in France, a site that we picked at the last possible moment on the basis of weather forecasts. It was a little overcast in the morning, but luckily the clouds cleared as the eclipse approached, and we had an excellent view. I was planning to travel to the US to see the 2017 eclipse, but unfortunately circumstances conspired against it. However, I am hoping to see the 2026 eclipse in Iceland. |
|
| 25-08-2017 20:22 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21596) |
Surface Detail wrote:
still learning wrote:
Back from seeing the total eclipse in Oregon, along US26, between the towns of Prairie City and Unity in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. A "bucket list" experience.
Clear sky, no thermometer, warm, but not hot yet when eclipse began, comfortable shirtsleeve temperature standing out in the sunlight. During the slow obscuring of the Sun the warming effect of the direct sunlight on your clothing and skin decreased, of course, but I don't think the air temperature changed much, the air temperature as measured in the shade. (Nobody actually stood in the shade though.) Nobody put on more clothing.
Gradual dimming of he Sun, sort of like the Sun setting, but without shadows lengthening and without the reddening of sunlight.
Totality is strange. Words fail. Illumination less than a full Moon, more than starlight. A band sort of like pre-dawn clear around the horizon, darkening upward until near the corona. The corona: No photo I've seen does it justice. The darkened disc of the Sun: Not conducive to rational thought, just wonder.
Venus was readily visible during totality.
No sudden perceived change of temperature at totality.
After totality, a gradual increase of illumination, a reversal of the dimming.
Finished breaking camp, was away as the eclipse ended, starting to get hot out in the sunlight.
Yes, the chance to witness a total solar eclipse is something that should not missed. The eeriness of the lead-up to totality, as the shadows sharpen, the light dims and the air cools. And then, just as the edge of the sun is about to wink out, you see the shadow of totality racing across the ground towards you. There is indeed something primal about that moment when the sun finally vanishes and the sky is dominated by what looks like a shining black hole. And the animalistic sense of relief when the sun finally re-emerges. It's an awesome experience.
That it is.
Surface Detail wrote:
I witnessed the 1999 total eclipse from a small village in France, a site that we picked at the last possible moment on the basis of weather forecasts. It was a little overcast in the morning, but luckily the clouds cleared as the eclipse approached, and we had an excellent view. I was planning to travel to the US to see the 2017 eclipse, but unfortunately circumstances conspired against it. However, I am hoping to see the 2026 eclipse in Iceland.
Good luck! May the weather cooperate so you can enjoy it!
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 25-08-2017 20:27 |
James_★★★★★
(2232) |
Surface Detail wrote:
still learning wrote:
Back from seeing the total eclipse in Oregon, along US26, between the towns of Prairie City and Unity in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. A "bucket list" experience.
Clear sky, no thermometer, warm, but not hot yet when eclipse began, comfortable shirtsleeve temperature standing out in the sunlight. During the slow obscuring of the Sun the warming effect of the direct sunlight on your clothing and skin decreased, of course, but I don't think the air temperature changed much, the air temperature as measured in the shade. (Nobody actually stood in the shade though.) Nobody put on more clothing.
Gradual dimming of he Sun, sort of like the Sun setting, but without shadows lengthening and without the reddening of sunlight.
Totality is strange. Words fail. Illumination less than a full Moon, more than starlight. A band sort of like pre-dawn clear around the horizon, darkening upward until near the corona. The corona: No photo I've seen does it justice. The darkened disc of the Sun: Not conducive to rational thought, just wonder.
Venus was readily visible during totality.
No sudden perceived change of temperature at totality.
After totality, a gradual increase of illumination, a reversal of the dimming.
Finished breaking camp, was away as the eclipse ended, starting to get hot out in the sunlight.
Yes, the chance to witness a total solar eclipse is something that should not missed. The eeriness of the lead-up to totality, as the shadows sharpen, the light dims and the air cools. And then, just as the edge of the sun is about to wink out, you see the shadow of totality racing across the ground towards you. There is indeed something primal about that moment when the sun finally vanishes and the sky is dominated by what looks like a shining black hole. And the animalistic sense of relief when the sun finally re-emerges. It's an awesome experience.
I witnessed the 1999 total eclipse from a small village in France, a site that we picked at the last possible moment on the basis of weather forecasts. It was a little overcast in the morning, but luckily the clouds cleared as the eclipse approached, and we had an excellent view. I was planning to travel to the US to see the 2017 eclipse, but unfortunately circumstances conspired against it. However, I am hoping to see the 2026 eclipse in Iceland.
I couldn't afford to travel to a different part of Ky. or to Tenn. to observe totality. Maybe I'll see you in Iceland. Have family in Norway I could visit since it's nearby. |