Русский New site

Advanced search

[ New messages · Forum rules · Members ]
Page 45 of 231«124344454647230231»
Forum » SpaceEngine » Off-topic Discussions » Totally off-topic thread (Talk about anything.)
Totally off-topic thread
Antza2Date: Wednesday, 06.03.2013, 22:49 | Message # 661
World Builder
Group: Global Moderators
Finland
Messages: 1049
Status: Offline
I find it extremely strange that grown men watch a kid's show about horses, with almost religious devotion.
I eat horses. I don't watch TV shows about them.





Go to antza2.deviantart.com for cool photos!
 
anonymousgamerDate: Wednesday, 06.03.2013, 22:58 | Message # 662
World Builder
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 1011
Status: Offline
Quote (Antza2)
I eat horses.



Attachments: 6316510.gif(591Kb)





Desktop: FX-8350 4.0 GHz, 8 GB DDR3 RAM, EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FTW 8 GB, 2 TB HDD, 24 inch 1920x1080 screen
Laptop: Core i5 480M 2.66 GHz (turbo 2.93), 8 GB DDR3 RAM, AMD Radeon HD 6550m 1 GB, 640 GB HDD, 17.3 inch 1600x900 screen
 
Antza2Date: Wednesday, 06.03.2013, 23:04 | Message # 663
World Builder
Group: Global Moderators
Finland
Messages: 1049
Status: Offline





Go to antza2.deviantart.com for cool photos!
 
VoekoevakaDate: Wednesday, 06.03.2013, 23:31 | Message # 664
World Builder
Group: SE team
France
Messages: 1016
Status: Offline
I fell in love with a vegetal.








It exists with all colors...





Want some music of mine ? Please go here !

 
DoctorOfSpaceDate: Thursday, 07.03.2013, 00:11 | Message # 665
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
Pirate
Messages: 3600
Status: Offline






Intel Core i7-5820K 4.2GHz 6-Core Processor
G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory
EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC 6GB


Edited by DoctorOfSpace - Thursday, 07.03.2013, 00:57
 
WatsisnameDate: Thursday, 07.03.2013, 04:17 | Message # 666
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2611
Status: Offline
"Sir, I detect massive amounts of technobabble in this sector."




 
AerospacefagDate: Thursday, 07.03.2013, 17:51 | Message # 667
Pioneer
Group: Users
Russian Federation
Messages: 401
Status: Offline
Quote (DoctorOfSpace)
750 000 000

Still cheaper than annual US defense budget.

By the way, don't you remember our last talk about global warming? Here, I found something about that just a week ago.
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home....-debate
 
WatsisnameDate: Thursday, 07.03.2013, 22:34 | Message # 668
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2611
Status: Offline
It is good to question science as long as the questioner understands the science in question.

Global warming has not paused. Global average air temperature has plateaued, but this makes up only a tiny fraction of the heat content of the Earth system, and is easily masked by other processes, such as atmosphere-ocean interactions. Taking such things into account, the signal of global warming is just as strong as ever. It is the earth's oceans that store the vast majority of heat, and indeed the total ocean heat content continues to rise.

For as long as we increase greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, then global temperature will increase as well. This isn't debatable. It's just simple physics.





 
AerospacefagDate: Thursday, 07.03.2013, 23:03 | Message # 669
Pioneer
Group: Users
Russian Federation
Messages: 401
Status: Offline
Quote (Watsisname)
For as long as we increase greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, then global temperature will increase as well. This isn't debatable. It's just simple physics.

However, physics doesn't work this way. That's the stumbling-block of the theory. Somebody may say "but see, it's only so simple, even a kid can understand that: the atmosphere is just like a thermos, if you're increasing the insulation, the temperature will rise, as less heat will give away". And just as because it's described as something so simple, it can't work this way. There's much more behind it than we used to hear.
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Friday, 08.03.2013, 00:28 | Message # 670
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
Quote (Aerospacefag)
And just as because it's described as something so simple, it can't work this way.

Can you elaborate on this point please?





All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
 
WatsisnameDate: Friday, 08.03.2013, 01:10 | Message # 671
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2611
Status: Offline
The sun emits mostly in the visible spectrum, approximately as a blackbody. The earth's atmosphere is transparent to this radiation, so it reaches the surface, where some of it is absorbed and heats the ground. The Earth then radiates thermally, which we may again treat as blackbody. By Wien's Law, this radiation is longer wavelength infrared. The atmosphere is partially opaque to this infrared, so some of it is absorbed and re-radiated back to the ground, thus raising the equilibrium surface temperature. Of course, one must remember that a good absorber is also a good emitter, so the upper atmosphere can radiate more efficiently to space and therefore cools. (Indeed, we observe the Earth's upper atmosphere cooling.)

That's it, that's all that needs to be said to explain it to a layperson. You can even use that understanding, combine it with high school algebra, and calculate the equilibrium surface temperature of a planet and get it correct to within 90%. Don't believe it? Here's the formula. I can derive it for you if you are interested.


Here L* is the luminosity of the star, Ab is the planetary albedo, a is the planet's orbital distance, epsilon is the radiative efficiency of the planet, and sigma is the Stefan–Boltzmann constant. Plug in values for Mercury, an airless world, and you get within a few Kelvins of the correct answer. Same with Mars. And the Moon. Apply it to Venus and you'll be under by several hundred degrees. Why? Because Venus has an enormous greenhouse atmosphere, which effectively reduces the efficiency at which it can radiate thermally. In the context of the above formula, this is like a decreasing epsilon, since we treated the planet surface and atmosphere together as a unified entity.

If you apply this formula to Earth, you'll get a surface temperature of 255K, or -1°F. Below the freezing point of water. This tells you that the greenhouse effect of the Earth raises the global temperature by about 33 Kelvin. We owe our very existence to the greenhouse effect.

Now of course we have simplified things a great deal in the above description. If you want the full understanding, and better accuracy in the calculation, then you need to account for the finer details:

The sun is not a perfect blackbody. Neither is the Earth. The atmosphere must be modeled three-dimensionally. The spectra of each of the atmospheric gases must be treated precisely. Heat transfer through the various Earth systems must be handled. The thermal properties of different surfaces must be accounted for. This is a lot of work and a lot of math, which is where global climate models come in. But again, it doesn't change the physical principles which were described above, nor does it seriously affect the results.

Now you may continue to be dumb and argue about this if you choose, but at that point I'm simply going to tell you to grab an atmospheric science textbook and educate yourself.





 
Joey_PenguinDate: Friday, 08.03.2013, 02:39 | Message # 672
Pioneer
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 311
Status: Offline

Hello this time to the *campers*! It is so *spicy* to be wearing new *face*. Other *campers* are changing their *face*. Instead of the probe, but now I am Orz, and soon *the change* will be complete. So much a fun *game*! It is so *silly*. Six or nine *pieces* ago, myself the Orz did not even *smell* your *level*. Now we are having great *parties*. So much great, that Orz may never leave. Never.





Careful. The PLATT Collective has spurs.
 
AerospacefagDate: Friday, 08.03.2013, 02:45 | Message # 673
Pioneer
Group: Users
Russian Federation
Messages: 401
Status: Offline
Quote (HarbingerDawn)
Can you elaborate on this point please?

This probably requires a little more explanation, as far as my aptitude in the language allows me to.

Watsisname, apparently this is exactly what I'm talking about - this relatively simple model of greenhouse effect, that takes into account most basic principles of theoretical physics. A mathematical model. Like, when you're heating a water in a kettle, you can calculate the heat transfer, approximate time when it boils up, amount electricity or gas used for this operation. But what's really different is that the atmosphere isn't a kettle, it does not retain the composition, scale and properties of a simple object, and even with 3D-modeling of this principle is still not sufficient for proper calculation.

What you presented there is basic substantiation for global warming, but not just only one possibility, as long as we don't know the full equation, we can't predict the real outcome by random guessing, forceful or compromised solution - that is nonsense.
Quote (Watsisname)
But again, it doesn't change the physical principles which were described above, nor does it seriously affect the results.

So here is the main issue. The basic formula is of course right, and the data as well may not be falsified, but the conclusion my still be wrong. What we see here is not a completed equation, scaled for whole atmosphere, but only a 1/10 or 1/100 of it's final form, although most of it's components may be insignificant. Let's say, after all approximations, we have 3 or 4 main components of the formula - radiation transfer, convection, reflection, heat transfer from other sources or chemical reactions in nature.

Radiation transfer can be easily measured and included by aforementioned methods. Reflection can somehow be dealt with some other methods - reflection from surface, from clouds, from particles in the atmosphere, from those greenhouse gases. Heat transfer can be measured. And the convection and other things are probably something we still have to figure out.

And it is said that radiation from sun and it's reflection is the most significant thing in the process, and we can deal with effects of it, not directly, but through regulating just greenhouse gases. And it finally comes to something like "if we build wind generators instead of coal power plants, the global warming will slow down, seas won't rise and the hurricanes won't come". Finally, this outcome is the most outrageous thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trKF55sy6EI

But what if outside the scale of 2-5°C, that we observe now, some other factors are more significant? Could it be that when in next 50 years when temperature will rise to +5 or 7°C above normal, some other process will pile in. We don't even know what it is, because we have just a little amount of data for last 150 years, mostly fragmentary. As the result, for example, permafrost may be affected, large amounts of gas hydrates may be released, clouds may get thicker - or instead, completely opposite may happen. And all of our "efforts" will go in vain, in someone's pocket or to the scrapyard.


Edited by Aerospacefag - Friday, 08.03.2013, 02:49
 
WatsisnameDate: Friday, 08.03.2013, 03:57 | Message # 674
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2611
Status: Offline
I don't feel like educating you on the extraordinary depth of scientific knowledge and understanding of atmospheric science, nor do I feel it is even possible for me to do so within the confines of a public forum. If you are interested then get a textbook.




 
midtskogenDate: Friday, 08.03.2013, 06:43 | Message # 675
Star Engineer
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 1672
Status: Offline
I don't think the math is disputed here, or what happens in a lab. The question is what happens when you put it to the test in a complex, chaotic system like Earth's atmosphere. Will you see the same thing? In the case of adding CO2, will we measure the same temperature rise? No, not even close. That's at least what IPCC tells us.




NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
 
Forum » SpaceEngine » Off-topic Discussions » Totally off-topic thread (Talk about anything.)
Page 45 of 231«124344454647230231»
Search: