It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# Lets finish this! Numbers do not lie.

page: 17
279
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 12:02 PM

Originally posted by audas
is claiming the earth is receiving heat from the sun on a flat plane

www.alexmeske.com...

This means that as the earth receives heat from the sun and radiates heat back out to space, eventually the earth will reach a temperature at which it is at equilibrium. And this average temperature that the earth will reach entirely depends on the energy it is receiving from the sun and the energy it is radiating into space.

Yes, there are equations for this. For a black body with a heat transfer per unit time (q), a temperature (T) in degrees Kelvin and a surface area (A), the black body radiation will be the following, assuming that space is at absolute zero (which is not entirely true, but it’s close enough for our purposes):

q = σT4A

Where σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant. Which is equal to: 5.6703x10-8 (W/m2K4)

The sun’s radiation reaches the earth providing energy at the experimentally tested and proven value of 1366 W/m2. The earth, in total, will receive an amount of heat from the sun equal to 1366 W/m2 times its cross-sectional area. It will emit radiation evenly across its entire surface. Assuming the earth to be a sphere (for the sake of simplicity), that means that the equation for the earth’s theoretical temperature is:

πr2 * 1366 W/m2 = σT44πr2

Where r = the radius of the earth, πr2 is the cross sectional area of the earth and 4πr2 is the surface area.

To determine the theoretical temperature of the earth, the two πr2 bits cancel each other out. Then we juggle the numbers around to:

T = ((1366 W/m2)/4σ)(1/4)

Which leads to an average worldwide temperature of about 278 K (5 C or 41 F); which is pretty darned close to the observed average surface temperature of 287 K (14 C or 57 F).

posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 09:05 AM
I am going to do something stupid here. I am going to state my belief on the matter at hand, climate change caused by humans. Not going to back it up with any numbers. I believe that if I offered a fabulously large amount of money to anyone that could raise the average global temperature by 2 degrees Centigrade in one year and keep it at that temperature for 2 years in succession, my money would be safe. All the kings horses and all the kings men couldn't do it. Think about it. We humans like to think we are so grand. We are just flies on the wall in a really large room, and the CO2 is a couple of fly-specks.

posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 02:11 PM
Flag for effort - no star

Where's your calculation of solar energy reflected by ozone layer?

Where are the calculations concerning the fluctuations in reflections due to ozone layer seasons?

And this

"The volume of water on the surface of the Earth is an estimation, but several estimations are available and all of them are close. Therefore, in the interests of conservatism, I am using the smaller of the estimated values:"

Had you been conservative when calculating the oceans as heat sink, you would have used the larger volume.

And so on and on...

case closed?

I think not.

Any meteorologist can debunk your calculations on the simple fact that a lot of variables are overlooked or even ignored.

But it is still an impressive set of calculations.

posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 12:31 AM
No idea if the math is correct, but it's a good effort. More importantly I think it should make anyone wonder why this approach hasn't been tried and/or talked about publicly more by scientists.

posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 12:42 AM
do you mean the magik behind numbers, or wordz? Please don't ask me to explain anymore, I don't want to get killed. 7773248/753421.

posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 12:42 AM
[edit on 18-1-2010 by SpiritHipHop]

posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 12:42 AM
[edit on 18-1-2010 by SpiritHipHop]

posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 12:42 AM
[edit on 18-1-2010 by SpiritHipHop]

posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 12:44 AM

posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 04:54 PM

No idea if the math is correct, but it's a good effort. More importantly I think it should make anyone wonder why this approach hasn't been tried and/or talked about publicly more by scientists.

Are you asking why you haven't read any of the 1000's of papers that discuss the calculations?

Not sure what you point is. Doing these calculations is what scientists do for a living. Redneck doesn't. Who has more credibility.

But just for arguments sake, here is another more carefully thought out set of calculations:

Global Warming Model

Edit: yes, that is the same link I provided earlier in the thread.

[edit on 18/1/2010 by rnaa]

posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 09:39 PM

Global warming has been proving wrong. Just look at these "scientists" that were hiding important data in there emails on the warming planet...lol The whole thing is a joke now and greedy fools like Al Goooooore are making billions from it. Deny ignorance, and stop believe this adult fairy tale. (Its almost as bad as the fairy tale of evolution...almost)

posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 08:57 PM

An absurd implication of all this is that winter and summer do not exist.

-rrr

posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 08:58 PM

Actually, I think I have a better one.... Geothermal energy wasn't accounted for. How much energy comes from inside the earth? Is it enough that it should be accounted for in the calculations?

-rrr

posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 09:00 PM
Try considering quantum chaos.

www.amazon.com...

Sleep well!

posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 09:05 PM

Actually, a very substantial amount of the solar radiation is in the infrared region.

-rrr

posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 04:48 PM
last time i read this thread the numbers in the OP were being redone.
is that still happening?

posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 04:58 PM
Couldn't the solid outer surface of the earth also act as a heat sink?

There are also a number of reasons the sea level seems to be rising in certain areas, including: subduction of the earth's plate and liquids from comets.

posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 11:00 PM
redneck.

did you and the others come to a consensus?

i don't understand the math, AT all ... but judging by the debate you were on the right track no? some re-working of your theory was needed?

posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 11:37 PM
Those calculations are exactly why I chose something other than Mathematics. LOL. Awesome job though, thank you sir for sharing. ^_^

posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 09:45 PM
Ok, first some facts...

thickness of translucent aluminum foil in visible light: .013mm (possibly smaller)

length of the earth's center up to the karmen line(definition of space): 6378.1 km + 100 km = 6478.1km

area of the karmen line(surface area of the recognized boundary of space): 4(pi)r^2 = 4(pi)(6478.1 km)^2 = 527357094 km^2

volume of aluminum needed to cover space boundary: 527357094 km^2 * .016 mm = 527357094 km^2 * .000000016 km = 8.437713504 km^3

density of aluminum: 2.70 g/cm^3 = 2,700,000,000,000 kilograms/km^3

weight required to cover earth's surface: 2,700,000,000,000 kilograms/km^3 * 8.437713504 km^3 = 22,781,826,460,800 kilograms

weight of the atmosphere:5,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilograms

weight proportion of this aluminum foil shield to atmosphere:22,781,826,460,800 kilograms / 5,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilograms = 0.000455636529216% or 1 part in 220,000.

atomic weight of aluminum: 26.982 g/mol

atomic weight of air: 28.97 g/ mol

Therefore, by weight ratio, 23 trillion kilograms of mass or only 0.000455636529216% of the atmosphere's weight could block out the entire visible spectrum of light with huge effects to our climate. Since air and aluminum have similar molar masses, this is roughly equivalent to the proportion of atoms in the whole system (air atoms vs. aluminum atoms). So, we are talking about 5 ppm (parts per million) blocking out a significant portion of solar irradiance.

As you can see in the image above, visible light makes up a good portion of the energy that reaches the earth's surface(the red part). 5 parts per million could block all that out. So, the OP's error is in making energy effects proportional to the atomic ratios in the atmosphere. It states that you can multiply the proportion of the atmosphere's molecular count of CO2 by solar irradiance to come up with its max effect on the energy environment. Obviously, this is not the case.

[edit on 15-2-2010 by ncb1397]

new topics

top topics

279