Why does Earth's tilt produce summers and winters?

"John Popelish" wrote in message
...
Peter Webb wrote:
"John Popelish" wrote in message
...
Peter Webb wrote:
"John Popelish" wrote in message
...
(snip)
In addition to this heat spreading effect, the light arrives at the
surface after passing diagonally through the atmosphere, rather than
straight down through it, so a lot more of the energy in the light is
absorbed by the longer path through the atmosphere. This effect is
what makes it possible for you to stare at that red sunset, without
the eye damage that you get looking at the sun when it is high over
head.

Sort of true, but irrelevant. The reason the sun is dimmer is because
it has transferred more of its energy to the column of air a few tens
of kilometers long between you and the Sun. This actually increases
local air temperature, as more radiation is absorbed by the air.
(snip)

A "column of air a few tens of kilometers long" is not "local".

If you are considering the climate at a particular spot, a few tens of
kilometers is local. The light that lands of kilometers behind you went
directly over your head on its travels, warming that air.

Any particular cubic meter of that column is not warmed more because the
total path through the air is longer.

Indeed, but there are more cubic metres of air transitted, so more
transfer of energy.

But isn't the more energy deposited in that overhead air subtracted from
that deposited onto the ground, and isn't the energy deposited in the air
radiated into space more efficiently than that deposited on the ground?


100% of the energy deposited into the air goes into warming the air; only a
percentage of light deposited on the ground eventually warms the air (as
some is reflected, and some warms the ground).

The argument about heat radiation is a furphy - its true that the warmer the
air, the more it radiates back into space (as black body radiation), but
that already presumes the air is warmer.

Imagine that the earth's atmosphere absorbed 50% of the light at the
tropics (ie with the Sun over head). If it was at a low incident angle
(eg near the Poles or at sunset) it would be far dimmer. More of the
energy in the light would have been absorbed by the atmosphere, which
means more heating of the air. (The energy has to go somewhere.). Direct
warming of the air by the Sun is not a significant contributor to the
temperature of the atmosphere; if it was, having the Sun shining through
more atmosphere would increase the percentage of the energy absorbed by
the atmosphere, having the opposite effect.

It seems that you are arguing both sides of the case.

No. Direct warming by the Sun of the air is not a major contributor. To the
limittted extent that it does make a contribution, having the Sun shine
through more air would increase the air temperature, not decrease it -
contrary to what you suggested.

The overwhelming consideration is the angle of invidence to the ground, as
very well illustrated by your football ground analogy.

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...
|
| "Sorcerer" wrote in message
| . uk...
|
| "Peter Webb" wrote in message
| u...
| |
| | "The Chief Instigator" wrote in message
| | ...
| | Ajanta writes:
| |
| | AlexZ wrote:
| |
| | One explanation I have never understood is that we have Summers
and
| | Winters because Earth is tilted.
| | ...
| |
| | I don't have an answer but a similar question: Why are the poles so
| | much colder than the equator?
| |
| | I imagine that the Earth's size is much smaller than Earth-Sun
| | distance, so the poles and the equator are more or less equidistant
| | from the Sun...
| |
| | Moreover, one of the poles is always facing the Sun and therefore
does
| | receives sunlight. Then, why is this Sun-facing pole colder than the
| | Equator?
| |
| | Possibly because at the poles, the sun can never rise above the
| horizon
| | farther than 23.5°, while at the equator, it's *always* straight
| overhead
| | in a
| | belt that extends the same 23.5° north and south of the equator.
(In
| | other
| | words, less atmosphere to have to heat up in the tropics, compared
to
| a
| | bit
| | more at the poles.)
| |
| |
| | Nothing to do with it. If the distance that light had to travel
through
| the
| | atmosphere was the determinant, it would be warmer at high altitudes,
| not
| | colder.
|
| Evenings are cooler than afternoons
|
| Because of angles of incidence.

Ok, less sunlight per unit area at the poles than at the equator. Partially.

|
| the sun appears red at sunset and dawn.
|
| Partially because more of its short wavelength light is absorbed by the
| atmosphere, which has the effect of warming the air. (But mostly because
of
| refraction, which has no net effect on temperatures).

Hahahaha! Ok, mighty educator, please excuse my facetious sarcasm.
Let's see what you can teach me. If you stood on the moon the sky
would be black, even in sunlight. Why is the sky blue if I stand upside-
down in Oz? :-)



|
|
| The distance through atmosphere is a determinant, less heat and light
| penetrates
| and no "if" about it.
|
|
| Of course. The Sun is weaker because more of its energy has been
transferred
| already to the atmosphere as heat.

If the distance that light had to travel through the atmosphere was the
determinant, [which OF COURSE it is], it would be warmer at high altitudes,
not colder. -- Peter Webbfamily.

According to Google Earth, Greenland has an altitude of 9132 feet,
almost two miles above sea level.
So according to Peter Webb, it is warmer, not colder in Greenland
than ... err...
A) Sydney?
B) Mt. Kilimanjiro?
C) Mauna Loa?
D) Paris?
E) Moscow?
F) Hong Kong?
G) Mt. Fuji?
H) Capetown?
I) Fairbanks?
J) Cairo?
K) London?
L) The Ross Ice Shelf?
M) Siberia?
N) Rio de Janerio?
O) The Galapagos?

C'mon, Peter Webbfamily. Work with me on this, I want to learn.
Teach me.




|
| The further distance through the atmosphere, the more energy is absorbed
by
| the atmosphere, and hence the warmer the resulting air temperature. By
your
| logic, planets with very thin atmospheres should be warmer (they are not),
| and temperature should rise with altitude (which it doesn't).
|
| Tell me, if the Sun appears dimmer at low angles, isn't this because the
| atmosphere absorbs more of its energy?

Actually, dust motes in the atmosphere reflect blue light and
pass red light. "Heat" is infra red radiation and that penetrates
atmosphere easier than red light. Or does it?

| And if the atmosphere absorbs more
| energy from the Sun, wouldn't that make the atmosphere warmer?

What actually happens, if you take the trouble to observe empirically,
is that YOU and trees and grass and sand and water absorb the heat,
snow and cloud reflect it back into space. Then the atmosphere
is heated by direct contact (conduction) near sea level and moves
around by a complex process of expansion (warm air rises,cool air
falls) and coriolis effect.
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/gu...s/coriolis.mov

We call that "weather". The poles are WARMER than they would
otherwise be, the mammals called bears and the birds called
penguins survive there (so can a man, albeit uncomfortably).
The so-called "greenhouse effect" is nonsense, the Earth does not
have a glass roof to trap CO2 and heat inside.
The equator is warmer than the poles because more energy falls
on the surface per unit area (angle of incidence). It is only in
human terms that we call the poles cold. They are in fact
220 degrees Kelvin on a cold night and 273 degrees Kelvin on
a warm day, much hotter than the Moon's poles.
The temperature of the Earth is self-regulating, the warmer it gets
the more cloud is produced to cool it, but at the poles the
more ice that is produced the cooler it gets. Earth's temperature
is water dependent. It is LOCAL temperature that concerns man
and the reality is he has no control no matter what he does.
The Sahara was a Garden of Eden during the last ice age.
There has been life on Earth for at 3,000,000,000 years, man
is a latecomer and he is a territorial animal, but if the Earth
warms he'll just have to move or die. I'll die and leave the moving
to my offspring.
As for refraction... what little there is would warm the poles,
but it's negligible. The total energy that falls on Earth is exactly
balanced by the energy radiated, the mean temperate is always
controlled by cloud.
Androcles.

Sorcerer wrote:

[...] snip SNIP! )

At the lunar poles, path geometry accounts for nearly 100 percent
of the attenuation.

At the terrestial equator, the atmospheric path accounts for
nearly 100 percent of the attenuation. (About 75 percent)

....then ya draw two smooth curves.

Sue...

Androcles.

"Sue..." wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
|
| [...] snip SNIP! )
|

No I didn't, you lying ****.

AlexZ wrote:
One explanation I have never understood is that we have Summers and
Winters because Earth is tilted.

On a hot Summer day, I cannot cool myself by "tilting" my body in any
direction. My body still gets the heat that falls on it, no matter the
tilt. Otherwise people would have discovered this trick long ago and we
wouldn't need fans or air-conditioning.

So...if you understand why tilt at an angle works for Earth, please do
explain in simple English.

Not mentioned is that days get longer as the sun climbs higher
with the ecliptic. Much of the sun's heat is accumulated and
reradiated by the ground. More daytime = more heat stored in
soil, water, paving, etc.

"Sorcerer" wrote in message
.uk...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...
|
| "Sorcerer" wrote in message
| . uk...
|
| "Peter Webb" wrote in message
| u...
| |
| | "The Chief Instigator" wrote in message
| | ...
| | Ajanta writes:
| |
| | AlexZ wrote:
| |
| | One explanation I have never understood is that we have Summers
and
| | Winters because Earth is tilted.
| | ...
| |
| | I don't have an answer but a similar question: Why are the poles
so
| | much colder than the equator?
| |
| | I imagine that the Earth's size is much smaller than Earth-Sun
| | distance, so the poles and the equator are more or less
equidistant
| | from the Sun...
| |
| | Moreover, one of the poles is always facing the Sun and therefore
does
| | receives sunlight. Then, why is this Sun-facing pole colder than
the
| | Equator?
| |
| | Possibly because at the poles, the sun can never rise above the
| horizon
| | farther than 23.5°, while at the equator, it's *always* straight
| overhead
| | in a
| | belt that extends the same 23.5° north and south of the equator.
(In
| | other
| | words, less atmosphere to have to heat up in the tropics, compared
to
| a
| | bit
| | more at the poles.)
| |
| |
| | Nothing to do with it. If the distance that light had to travel
through
| the
| | atmosphere was the determinant, it would be warmer at high
altitudes,
| not
| | colder.
|
| Evenings are cooler than afternoons
|
| Because of angles of incidence.

Ok, less sunlight per unit area at the poles than at the equator.
Partially.

|
| the sun appears red at sunset and dawn.
|
| Partially because more of its short wavelength light is absorbed by the
| atmosphere, which has the effect of warming the air. (But mostly because
of
| refraction, which has no net effect on temperatures).

Hahahaha! Ok, mighty educator, please excuse my facetious sarcasm.
Let's see what you can teach me. If you stood on the moon the sky
would be black, even in sunlight. Why is the sky blue if I stand upside-
down in Oz? :-)



Refraction, mostly, as I said.


|
|
| The distance through atmosphere is a determinant, less heat and light
| penetrates
| and no "if" about it.
|
|
| Of course. The Sun is weaker because more of its energy has been
transferred
| already to the atmosphere as heat.

If the distance that light had to travel through the atmosphere was the
determinant, [which OF COURSE it is], it would be warmer at high
altitudes,
not colder. -- Peter Webbfamily.

According to Google Earth, Greenland has an altitude of 9132 feet,
almost two miles above sea level.
So according to Peter Webb, it is warmer, not colder in Greenland
than ... err...
A) Sydney?
B) Mt. Kilimanjiro?
C) Mauna Loa?
D) Paris?
E) Moscow?
F) Hong Kong?
G) Mt. Fuji?
H) Capetown?
I) Fairbanks?
J) Cairo?
K) London?
L) The Ross Ice Shelf?
M) Siberia?
N) Rio de Janerio?
O) The Galapagos?

C'mon, Peter Webbfamily. Work with me on this, I want to learn.
Teach me.



Greenland is colder than any of those places. It is further from the
equator, and the angle of incidence effect causes less flux per sqm. Nothing
to do with the amount of air the sun's rays go through.

Greenaland is also colder at altitude than it is at sea level. Funnily
enough, the light goes through less air at altitude, so by your "logic" the
air tempertaure should be higher. At the top of Mount Everest, the sun goes
througnway less air than at the equator, but its still colder.

The decrease in temperature with altititude is largely a result of Boyle's
Law (PV=nRT), nothing very much to do with warming be the Sun - but that is
an altitude related effect, not a latitude related effect (as we were
discussing).

HTH


Peter Webb


Actually, dust motes in the atmosphere reflect blue light and
pass red light. "Heat" is infra red radiation and that penetrates
atmosphere easier than red light. Or does it?

Infra red radiation is no more "heat radiation" than is visible light (in
fact rather less so).


| And if the atmosphere absorbs more
| energy from the Sun, wouldn't that make the atmosphere warmer?

What actually happens, if you take the trouble to observe empirically,
is that YOU and trees and grass and sand and water absorb the heat,
snow and cloud reflect it back into space. Then the atmosphere
is heated by direct contact (conduction) near sea level and moves
around by a complex process of expansion (warm air rises,cool air
falls) and coriolis effect.
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/gu...s/coriolis.mov


Coorect.

We call that "weather". The poles are WARMER than they would
otherwise be, the mammals called bears and the birds called
penguins survive there (so can a man, albeit uncomfortably).
The so-called "greenhouse effect" is nonsense, the Earth does not
have a glass roof to trap CO2 and heat inside.
The equator is warmer than the poles because more energy falls
on the surface per unit area (angle of incidence). It is only in
human terms that we call the poles cold. They are in fact
220 degrees Kelvin on a cold night and 273 degrees Kelvin on
a warm day, much hotter than the Moon's poles.
The temperature of the Earth is self-regulating, the warmer it gets
the more cloud is produced to cool it, but at the poles the
more ice that is produced the cooler it gets. Earth's temperature
is water dependent. It is LOCAL temperature that concerns man
and the reality is he has no control no matter what he does.
The Sahara was a Garden of Eden during the last ice age.
There has been life on Earth for at 3,000,000,000 years, man
is a latecomer and he is a territorial animal, but if the Earth
warms he'll just have to move or die. I'll die and leave the moving
to my offspring.
As for refraction... what little there is would warm the poles,
but it's negligible. The total energy that falls on Earth is exactly
balanced by the energy radiated, the mean temperate is always
controlled by cloud.
Androcles.




Partially correct, but off-topic

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...
|
| "Sorcerer" wrote in message
| .uk...
|
| "Peter Webb" wrote in message
| u...
| |
| | "Sorcerer" wrote in message
| | . uk...
| |
| | "Peter Webb" wrote in
message
| | u...
| | |
| | | "The Chief Instigator" wrote in message
| | | ...
| | | Ajanta writes:
| | |
| | | AlexZ wrote:
| | |
| | | One explanation I have never understood is that we have
Summers
| and
| | | Winters because Earth is tilted.
| | | ...
| | |
| | | I don't have an answer but a similar question: Why are the poles
| so
| | | much colder than the equator?
| | |
| | | I imagine that the Earth's size is much smaller than Earth-Sun
| | | distance, so the poles and the equator are more or less
| equidistant
| | | from the Sun...
| | |
| | | Moreover, one of the poles is always facing the Sun and
therefore
| does
| | | receives sunlight. Then, why is this Sun-facing pole colder than
| the
| | | Equator?
| | |
| | | Possibly because at the poles, the sun can never rise above the
| | horizon
| | | farther than 23.5°, while at the equator, it's *always* straight
| | overhead
| | | in a
| | | belt that extends the same 23.5° north and south of the equator.
| (In
| | | other
| | | words, less atmosphere to have to heat up in the tropics,
compared
| to
| | a
| | | bit
| | | more at the poles.)
| | |
| | |
| | | Nothing to do with it. If the distance that light had to travel
| through
| | the
| | | atmosphere was the determinant, it would be warmer at high
| altitudes,
| | not
| | | colder.
| |
| | Evenings are cooler than afternoons
| |
| | Because of angles of incidence.
|
| Ok, less sunlight per unit area at the poles than at the equator.
| Partially.
|
| |
| | the sun appears red at sunset and dawn.
| |
| | Partially because more of its short wavelength light is absorbed by
the
| | atmosphere, which has the effect of warming the air. (But mostly
because
| of
| | refraction, which has no net effect on temperatures).
|
| Hahahaha! Ok, mighty educator, please excuse my facetious sarcasm.
| Let's see what you can teach me. If you stood on the moon the sky
| would be black, even in sunlight. Why is the sky blue if I stand
upside-
| down in Oz? :-)
|
|
|
| Refraction, mostly, as I said.

Yes, I know that's what you said, but you don't explain how
refraction makes the sky blue, mighty educator. You don't even
know what refraction is, mighty blustering educator.
Please excuse my facetious sarcasm, you bumbling idiot.



|
|
| |
| |
| | The distance through atmosphere is a determinant, less heat and
light
| | penetrates
| | and no "if" about it.
| |
| |
| | Of course. The Sun is weaker because more of its energy has been
| transferred
| | already to the atmosphere as heat.
|
| If the distance that light had to travel through the atmosphere was the
| determinant, [which OF COURSE it is], it would be warmer at high
| altitudes,
| not colder. -- Peter Webbfamily.
|
| According to Google Earth, Greenland has an altitude of 9132 feet,
| almost two miles above sea level.
| So according to Peter Webb, it is warmer, not colder in Greenland
| than ... err...
| A) Sydney?
| B) Mt. Kilimanjiro?
| C) Mauna Loa?
| D) Paris?
| E) Moscow?
| F) Hong Kong?
| G) Mt. Fuji?
| H) Capetown?
| I) Fairbanks?
| J) Cairo?
| K) London?
| L) The Ross Ice Shelf?
| M) Siberia?
| N) Rio de Janerio?
| O) The Galapagos?
|
| C'mon, Peter Webbfamily. Work with me on this, I want to learn.
| Teach me.
|
|
|
| Greenland is colder than any of those places.

Colder than Siberia, Peter Webbfamily?
Are you sure?
Is there any snow on Mauna Loa?
How about Mt. Kilimanjaro?

| It is further from the
| equator, and the angle of incidence effect causes less flux per sqm.

Ok...


| Nothing to do with the amount of air the sun's rays go through.

Really?
Wouldn't the air absorb the energy before it reached the snow?





| Greenaland is also colder at altitude than it is at sea level. Funnily
| enough, the light goes through less air at altitude, so by your "logic"
the
| air tempertaure should be higher.

Have trouble spelling, Peter Webbfamily?
I'm asking you for explanation, Peter Webbfamily.
My "logic" is different to your "illogic", funnily enough.
The air tampirutiater in aGeraneldn is no different to
the air tmpefactieeer in Fdfhesthgh, is it?


At the top of Mount Everest, the sun goes
| througnway less air than at the equator, but its still colder.

But Mount Everest isn't flat, it presents a face toward the sun,
Peter Webbfamily.
The angle of incidence effect causes MAX flux per sqm


|
| The decrease in temperature with altititude is largely a result of Boyle's
| Law (PV=nRT),

HAHAHA!
Do you really think my car tyres are hot because they
have a higher pressure than the outside air?
How about a lorry tyre, 100 psi?
That must be really hot by your "illogic", right?
You blithering imbecile, PeterWebbfamily!



| nothing very much to do with warming be the Sun - but that is
| an altitude related effect, not a latitude related effect (as we were
| discussing).
|
| HTH
|
|
| Peter Webb
|
|
| Actually, dust motes in the atmosphere reflect blue light and
| pass red light. "Heat" is infra red radiation and that penetrates
| atmosphere easier than red light. Or does it?
|
| Infra red radiation is no more "heat radiation" than is visible light (in
| fact rather less so).

Put your hand near that device your wife cooks your dinner on,
Peter Webbfamily. You'll find it in the kitchen.
Maybe it works by Boyle's law, or maybe she uses a laser pointer.
You are a lunatic, Peter Webbfamily.
This is a science newsgroup, Peter Webbfamily, you should
study the subject instead of spouting your ridiculous nonsense, ****wit.


|
| | And if the atmosphere absorbs more
| | energy from the Sun, wouldn't that make the atmosphere warmer?
|
| What actually happens, if you take the trouble to observe empirically,
| is that YOU and trees and grass and sand and water absorb the heat,
| snow and cloud reflect it back into space. Then the atmosphere
| is heated by direct contact (conduction) near sea level and moves
| around by a complex process of expansion (warm air rises,cool air
| falls) and coriolis effect.
| http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/gu...s/coriolis.mov
|
|
| Coorect.

Don't you mean Kewrect, Peter Webbfamily?


|
| We call that "weather". The poles are WARMER than they would
| otherwise be, the mammals called bears and the birds called
| penguins survive there (so can a man, albeit uncomfortably).
| The so-called "greenhouse effect" is nonsense, the Earth does not
| have a glass roof to trap CO2 and heat inside.
| The equator is warmer than the poles because more energy falls
| on the surface per unit area (angle of incidence). It is only in
| human terms that we call the poles cold. They are in fact
| 220 degrees Kelvin on a cold night and 273 degrees Kelvin on
| a warm day, much hotter than the Moon's poles.
| The temperature of the Earth is self-regulating, the warmer it gets
| the more cloud is produced to cool it, but at the poles the
| more ice that is produced the cooler it gets. Earth's temperature
| is water dependent. It is LOCAL temperature that concerns man
| and the reality is he has no control no matter what he does.
| The Sahara was a Garden of Eden during the last ice age.
| There has been life on Earth for at 3,000,000,000 years, man
| is a latecomer and he is a territorial animal, but if the Earth
| warms he'll just have to move or die. I'll die and leave the moving
| to my offspring.
| As for refraction... what little there is would warm the poles,
| but it's negligible. The total energy that falls on Earth is exactly
| balanced by the energy radiated, the mean temperate is always
| controlled by cloud.
| Androcles.
|
|
|
|
| Partially correct, but off-topic

Is calling you "****ing idiot!" partially correct but off-topic, Peter
Webbfamily?
Androcles

"Sorcerer" wrote in message
.uk...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...
|
| "Sorcerer" wrote in message
| .uk...
|
| "Peter Webb" wrote in message
| u...
| |
| | "Sorcerer" wrote in message
| | . uk...
| |
| | "Peter Webb" wrote in
message
| | u...
| | |
| | | "The Chief Instigator" wrote in message
| | | ...
| | | Ajanta writes:
| | |
| | | AlexZ wrote:
| | |
| | | One explanation I have never understood is that we have
Summers
| and
| | | Winters because Earth is tilted.
| | | ...
| | |
| | | I don't have an answer but a similar question: Why are the
poles
| so
| | | much colder than the equator?
| | |
| | | I imagine that the Earth's size is much smaller than Earth-Sun
| | | distance, so the poles and the equator are more or less
| equidistant
| | | from the Sun...
| | |
| | | Moreover, one of the poles is always facing the Sun and
therefore
| does
| | | receives sunlight. Then, why is this Sun-facing pole colder
than
| the
| | | Equator?
| | |
| | | Possibly because at the poles, the sun can never rise above
the
| | horizon
| | | farther than 23.5°, while at the equator, it's *always*
straight
| | overhead
| | | in a
| | | belt that extends the same 23.5° north and south of the
equator.
| (In
| | | other
| | | words, less atmosphere to have to heat up in the tropics,
compared
| to
| | a
| | | bit
| | | more at the poles.)
| | |
| | |
| | | Nothing to do with it. If the distance that light had to travel
| through
| | the
| | | atmosphere was the determinant, it would be warmer at high
| altitudes,
| | not
| | | colder.
| |
| | Evenings are cooler than afternoons
| |
| | Because of angles of incidence.
|
| Ok, less sunlight per unit area at the poles than at the equator.
| Partially.
|
| |
| | the sun appears red at sunset and dawn.
| |
| | Partially because more of its short wavelength light is absorbed by
the
| | atmosphere, which has the effect of warming the air. (But mostly
because
| of
| | refraction, which has no net effect on temperatures).
|
| Hahahaha! Ok, mighty educator, please excuse my facetious sarcasm.
| Let's see what you can teach me. If you stood on the moon the sky
| would be black, even in sunlight. Why is the sky blue if I stand
upside-
| down in Oz? :-)
|
|
|
| Refraction, mostly, as I said.

Yes, I know that's what you said, but you don't explain how
refraction makes the sky blue, mighty educator. You don't even
know what refraction is, mighty blustering educator.
Please excuse my facetious sarcasm, you bumbling idiot.



I am not an educator, but I have do have an Honours degree in theoretical
physics. However, the subject of why the sky is blue is no what we are
discussing.


|
|
| |
| |
| | The distance through atmosphere is a determinant, less heat and
light
| | penetrates
| | and no "if" about it.
| |
| |
| | Of course. The Sun is weaker because more of its energy has been
| transferred
| | already to the atmosphere as heat.
|
| If the distance that light had to travel through the atmosphere was
the
| determinant, [which OF COURSE it is], it would be warmer at high
| altitudes,
| not colder. -- Peter Webbfamily.
|
| According to Google Earth, Greenland has an altitude of 9132 feet,
| almost two miles above sea level.
| So according to Peter Webb, it is warmer, not colder in Greenland
| than ... err...
| A) Sydney?
| B) Mt. Kilimanjiro?
| C) Mauna Loa?
| D) Paris?
| E) Moscow?
| F) Hong Kong?
| G) Mt. Fuji?
| H) Capetown?
| I) Fairbanks?
| J) Cairo?
| K) London?
| L) The Ross Ice Shelf?
| M) Siberia?
| N) Rio de Janerio?
| O) The Galapagos?
|
| C'mon, Peter Webbfamily. Work with me on this, I want to learn.
| Teach me.
|
|
|
| Greenland is colder than any of those places.

Colder than Siberia, Peter Webbfamily?
Are you sure?
Is there any snow on Mauna Loa?
How about Mt. Kilimanjaro?

| It is further from the
| equator, and the angle of incidence effect causes less flux per sqm.

Ok...


| Nothing to do with the amount of air the sun's rays go through.

Really?
Wouldn't the air absorb the energy before it reached the snow?


Yes, the air does absorb energy before it hits the ground. This warms the
atmosphere. The more distance the light has to go through the air, the more
energy it loses to the air, and the more energy (heat) is transferred to the
air, warming it more. This should make the equator air temperature lower
than at higher latitudes, because there is less air for the light to have to
warm before it hits the ground (remember, when we measure temperature at a
place, we are measuring air temperature).

The reason that the Poles are colder is because the ground is at a low angle
to the radiation, so the energy flux per square metre of light hitting the
ground is less. Has nothing to do with the light going through more
atmosphere; that would make the Polar air temperature warmer, not colder.









| Greenaland is also colder at altitude than it is at sea level. Funnily
| enough, the light goes through less air at altitude, so by your "logic"
the
| air tempertaure should be higher.

Have trouble spelling, Peter Webbfamily?
I'm asking you for explanation, Peter Webbfamily.
My "logic" is different to your "illogic", funnily enough.
The air tampirutiater in aGeraneldn is no different to
the air tmpefactieeer in Fdfhesthgh, is it?


At the top of Mount Everest, the sun goes
| througnway less air than at the equator, but its still colder.

But Mount Everest isn't flat, it presents a face toward the sun,
Peter Webbfamily.
The angle of incidence effect causes MAX flux per sqm


|
| The decrease in temperature with altititude is largely a result of
Boyle's
| Law (PV=nRT),

HAHAHA!
Do you really think my car tyres are hot because they
have a higher pressure than the outside air?
How about a lorry tyre, 100 psi?
That must be really hot by your "illogic", right?
You blithering imbecile, PeterWebbfamily!



| nothing very much to do with warming be the Sun - but that is
| an altitude related effect, not a latitude related effect (as we were
| discussing).
|
| HTH
|
|
| Peter Webb
|
|
| Actually, dust motes in the atmosphere reflect blue light and
| pass red light. "Heat" is infra red radiation and that penetrates
| atmosphere easier than red light. Or does it?
|
| Infra red radiation is no more "heat radiation" than is visible light
(in
| fact rather less so).

Put your hand near that device your wife cooks your dinner on,
Peter Webbfamily. You'll find it in the kitchen.
Maybe it works by Boyle's law, or maybe she uses a laser pointer.
You are a lunatic, Peter Webbfamily.
This is a science newsgroup, Peter Webbfamily, you should
study the subject instead of spouting your ridiculous nonsense, ****wit.


|
| | And if the atmosphere absorbs more
| | energy from the Sun, wouldn't that make the atmosphere warmer?
|
| What actually happens, if you take the trouble to observe empirically,
| is that YOU and trees and grass and sand and water absorb the heat,
| snow and cloud reflect it back into space. Then the atmosphere
| is heated by direct contact (conduction) near sea level and moves
| around by a complex process of expansion (warm air rises,cool air
| falls) and coriolis effect.
| http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/gu...s/coriolis.mov
|
|
| Coorect.

Don't you mean Kewrect, Peter Webbfamily?


|
| We call that "weather". The poles are WARMER than they would
| otherwise be, the mammals called bears and the birds called
| penguins survive there (so can a man, albeit uncomfortably).
| The so-called "greenhouse effect" is nonsense, the Earth does not
| have a glass roof to trap CO2 and heat inside.
| The equator is warmer than the poles because more energy falls
| on the surface per unit area (angle of incidence). It is only in
| human terms that we call the poles cold. They are in fact
| 220 degrees Kelvin on a cold night and 273 degrees Kelvin on
| a warm day, much hotter than the Moon's poles.
| The temperature of the Earth is self-regulating, the warmer it gets
| the more cloud is produced to cool it, but at the poles the
| more ice that is produced the cooler it gets. Earth's temperature
| is water dependent. It is LOCAL temperature that concerns man
| and the reality is he has no control no matter what he does.
| The Sahara was a Garden of Eden during the last ice age.
| There has been life on Earth for at 3,000,000,000 years, man
| is a latecomer and he is a territorial animal, but if the Earth
| warms he'll just have to move or die. I'll die and leave the moving
| to my offspring.
| As for refraction... what little there is would warm the poles,
| but it's negligible. The total energy that falls on Earth is exactly
| balanced by the energy radiated, the mean temperate is always
| controlled by cloud.
| Androcles.
|
|
|
|
| Partially correct, but off-topic

Is calling you "****ing idiot!" partially correct but off-topic, Peter
Webbfamily?
Androcles

On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 16:33:27 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"Sorcerer" wrote in message
o.uk...
Let's see what you can teach me. If you stood on the moon the sky
would be black, even in sunlight. Why is the sky blue if I stand upside-
down in Oz? :-)

Refraction, mostly, as I said.

That's interesting. So, if I moved a bit I would see a different
colour?

It would seem that red sky at night isn't shepherd's delight after
all. :-(

Dear Peter Webb:

"Peter Webb" wrote in
message u...
....
Why is the sky blue if I stand upside-down in Oz? :-)

Refraction, mostly, as I said.

Rayleigh scattering, not refraction.
http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/sky_blue.html

....
Nothing to do with the amount of air the sun's
rays go through.

"Nothing" is too strong a word. "Little" or "Very little" are
more correct. Ambient conditions have more to do with local
sensible temperature than dissipation of insolation over the path
*to* the local area.

You won't convince Androcles, by the way.

David A. Smith