Kabrute Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 green house gasses are reflecting thermal energy downward, thats separate from 3He and the hydrogen boiling off the edge of the atmosphere. These are different effects taking place concurrently Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trukogre Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 2 minutes ago, Kabrute said: green house gasses are reflecting thermal energy downward, thats separate from 3He and the hydrogen boiling off the edge of the atmosphere. These are different effects taking place concurrently Earlier you said: "earth dumps raw atmosphere to delete heat into vacuum, the radiator mentioned above is energy transfer only, so while the earth is dumping hot material into vacuum that is a far cry from trying to transfer just the heat energy itself into same vacuum." Are you aware that these statements you've made are contradictory? Your first statement clearly implies that earth doesn't meaningfully radiate heat, while your later statement clearly implies that it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luminite2 Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 4 minutes ago, trukogre said: Earlier you said: "earth dumps raw atmosphere to delete heat into vacuum, the radiator mentioned above is energy transfer only, so while the earth is dumping hot material into vacuum that is a far cry from trying to transfer just the heat energy itself into same vacuum." Are you aware that these statements you've made are contradictory? Your first statement clearly implies that earth doesn't meaningfully radiate heat, while your later statement clearly implies that it does. You are confused. Carefully read what was said a few more times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trukogre Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 8 minutes ago, Luminite2 said: You are confused. Carefully read what was said a few more times. It appears that you are the one that is confused, because you seem to think that this forum is not a place for you to share your ideas and opinions, but a place for you to tell me what to do with my time. However, I'm already married, sorry. I wish you best of luck finding a romantic partner, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luminite2 Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 11 minutes ago, trukogre said: I don't feel confused. I went and carefully read an instruction manual on how to operate a 1960's era radio as well, but that didn't help either. I guess carefully reading things doesn't actually change anything. If you have opinions of your own, please go ahead, but if you want to just tell me what to do, I'm already married, sorry. You barged in here, disparaging community members with condescension and sarcasm, and are surprised that there was pushback. He said that hot helium-3 and hydrogen are ejected into space. That's what he was referring to when he mentioned dumping raw atmosphere. Your comment about greenhouse gases (which was confusing because it seems unrelated) deals with a separate process that concerns thermal energy being retained. His arguments are consistent. I don't know how true they are, but they're consistent. EDIT: Just to make this explicit: the answer to your question is "greenhouse gases limit the flow of thermal energy into upper-atmosphere gases that are then ejected into space" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trukogre Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 @Kabrute not sure what's confusing here, let me try to put it a different way. What is your estimate, in Watts, of the energetic balance of the Earth from the following factors: A. Radiative incoming/outgoing B. thermal energy carried by mass in the mass balance, between hydrogen/helium atmospheric losses and gains from meteoric/particle/cosmic ray impacts @Luminite2 I'm busy discussing thermal energy balance here, I'm not interested in your theories about barging or sarcasm. His arguments are not consistent, and I have no interest in discussing anything with you that's not related to thermal energy balance, so I'm going to go back to discussing math with Kabrute, and not talking to you any further because it's offtopic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kabrute Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 cosmic rays are the same as radiation, we can break this apart into direct energy and mass energy transfer, what your missing is that the earth is in a constant state of mass transfer with the vacuum of space, thus constantly trading energy on both its energetic (daytime) and its dormant (nighttime) sides, this thermal imbalance is what helps to drive jet streams. In addition your working with a stacked insulation system that allows mass energy to pass through He and H but is repressing infrared and weaker emissions of raw energy. in this scenario, only about 20% of H is lost to space, the rest cycles out, cools trading energy then falls back to earth depleted all of my percentages are made up on the spot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trukogre Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 6 minutes ago, Kabrute said: cosmic rays are the same as radiation, we can break this apart into direct energy and mass energy transfer, what your missing is that the earth is in a constant state of mass transfer with the vacuum of space, thus constantly trading energy on both its energetic (daytime) and its dormant (nighttime) sides, this thermal imbalance is what helps to drive jet streams. I'm not missing it, I simply haven't mentioned it because it wasn't relevant. I still don't see how it's relevant. I asked you a question which you haven't answered, it's not relevant to that question, as whether the mass transfer is constant or variable doesn't seem to affect the answer to that question. You haven't raised any points previously where the distribution of the mass transfer over time is relevant...so this apears to be simply a red herring on your part. I redirect your attention to my question in my last post. p.s. (by cosmic rays I was referring to that subset of cosmic rays which contain mass, since that was under mass transfer, so alpha and beta particles, not gamma rays) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kabrute Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 can I have some of what you are smoking? limiting variables is fine for a game system, but you can't bring in the real world and then dismiss the variables that disagree with you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trukogre Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 I can't smoke anything I have asthma, I would die. How do any variables I've dismissed "disagree" with me? How can a variable disagree with anyone? Why are you anthropomorphizing variables? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kabrute Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18490768 http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2596/want_to_cure_your_asthma_start_smoking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trukogre Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 Many people close to me have died from lung cancer after smoking, but you go right ahead and smoke if you want man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kabrute Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 https://www.mdanderson.org/publications/focused-on-health/may-2015/FOH-cancer-love-sugar.html according to someone random on the internet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trukogre Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 yeah, I googled that same picture. 100% of the energy budget there is radiative, and 0% is "deleted by mass loss into space". Do you have any other sources from "random people on the internet" that disagree with you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodr Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 16 minutes ago, trukogre said: blah blah blah Dude, chill out and go get a drink of water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trukogre Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 Sorry, I'm here to discuss thermal energy balance, not hydration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kabrute Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 thats not as pure energy, that is as mass is the energy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trukogre Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 Just now, Kabrute said: thats not as pure energy, that is as mass Radiation is as mass? Citation needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kabrute Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 and ultimately that thin red line is what is affected most by green house gasses as everything that is reflected before that line never makes it below them to be trapped by them. anything regarding particles is mass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trukogre Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 From your source above: "Radiation is when particles or waves are transferred in a medium or space, in the form of electromagnetic waves. " Electromagnetic waves don't have mass, so your source contradicts your claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kabrute Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 that argument goes to the heart of "What is radiation" so its supporting my claim by stating that bleeding the energy, Radiating it, uses particles as a carrier. at this point though you are reaching for any and every nit picky flaw to try to be right and the real argument is that without mass transfer, radiating energy into space is extremely difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodr Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 2 minutes ago, Kabrute said: at this point though you are reaching for any and every nit picky flaw to try to be right and the real argument is that without mass transfer, radiating energy into space is extremely difficult. I'm thankful ONI features abstract this challenge away from our quest for in-game longevity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trukogre Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 9 minutes ago, Kabrute said: that argument goes to the heart of "What is radiation" so its supporting my claim by stating that bleeding the energy, Radiating it, uses particles as a carrier. at this point though you are reaching for any and every nit picky flaw to try to be right and the real argument is that without mass transfer, radiating energy into space is extremely difficult. Here's the deal. I googled "Earth's heat balance" and the first five results only talked about radiative balance. You're claiming addiitonal knowledge about heat transfer requiring mass transfer, but you won't provide a relevant source. I'm not sure how asking you for a relevant source is "nit-picky", but if it is, then sure, whatever. If you can't provide a source, that's cool, I just won't believe you. There's no need to bring up disgusting lice and the practice of picking them off something, either you can provide a relevant source or you can't, man. Instead, you link the same five sources I saw, that only talk about radiative transfer. I'm not sure how you think that's helping here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kabrute Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 radiative transfer between? transfer implies 2 points, stop and think a moment. Starting with Heat rises, (thermal convection?) what is rising. To get to the heart of this argument, what is rising in the stack effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trukogre Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 6 minutes ago, Kabrute said: radiative transfer between? transfer implies 2 points, stop and think a moment. Starting with Heat rises, (thermal convection?) what is rising. To get to the heart of this argument, what is rising in the stack effect. The heart of this argument is very simple. You showed a chart with 64% of the radiative heat energy being lost from clouds and atmosphere. You also mentioned that the Earth loses ~100,000 metric tons of hydrogen/helium annually. You implied that there is some connection. You now need to show a source that affirms this connection. That's it. There's no need to redefine the argument, or talk about stack effects, the only thing that could possibly accomplish is let you move the goalposts, i.e. start talking about convection in the lower atmosphere, which is irrelevant to the loss of 100,000 metric tons annually. You need a source to support your original implication. Either you have one, or you don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.
Please be aware that the content of this thread may be outdated and no longer applicable.