The Environmentalist Thread Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: neolib who wrote (21882)	6/6/2008 4:27:16 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) of 36917

The stupid are stuck on temperature. Instrument displays a number that is an indicator of a total of all the radiant energy 5 to 14um of the mass within the cone of observation. It is a proxy of the current W/m^2 of all matter in the cone of observation. What is the relationship of radiative loss supplied by the heat content of an atmospheric column mean to changes in temperature of said column. The mass of the atmospheric column is the surface pressure divided by gravity = 101325 N/m^2 / 9.8 m/s^2 = 1.03 x 10^4 kg/m^2. For the simple minded, this is F=ma The specific heat (H) of the column is the mass of the column times the specific heat at constant pressure of air (1.01 x 10^3 J/kg/K): H = 1.04 x 10^7 J/K/m^2 At a loss of 10 W/m^2, in a year the column looses 3.16 x 10^8 J/m^2. Dividing this loss by the heat capacity yields a temperature decrease of 30 K. Which tells one nothing. Quantifying radiant energy to current W/m^2 of all matter in the cone of observation is what I have spent time researching. It is complicated. It is a problem beyond your meager mental capabilities. I am slowing working it along with Richard J. Petschauer. rjpetsch.homeip.net

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next