Image Thread 28

[Norgarth]

these ones may belong more in the politic images thread, I'm not sure.

[Norgarth]

[robkelk]

Title text: "Any time I misspell a word it's just because I have too much integrity to copy answers from the dictionary."

[Norgarth]

[Norgarth]

[Labster]

I think this glib explanation is somewhat wrong.  It has very little to do with the strength of the jet stream; the jet stream isn't an object in itself but created by the general circulation of the atmosphere.  What's happening is that the atmosphere is trying to balance the heat which is mostly absorbed in the tropics and equalize the temperature by transferring it towards the poles which are cooler. 

By increasing the temperature, you increase those intrusions of warm air to the high latitudes, which by necessity displaces more cold air to the low latitudes.  You've increased the amplitude of the waves (particularly Rossby waves) by increasing the energy in the system.  The jet stream can be stronger or weaker in this new system, depending on weather -- it doesn't have to be zonal flow to be strong.

I think you are both wrong here.

Well, more like not exactly right, although Labster gets closer.

The problem, I think, is that the total amount of energy in the system is changing. If the total amount of energy was stable, even if it was noticeably warmer than today, the jetstream would likely be a stable phenomenon.

Also; if you presume that the Earth is a tiny section of the surface of a sphere the size of Earth's orbit centered on the Sun the insolation at the poles is not notably smaller than the insolation at the equator. It's just because the Earth is, itself, also a sphere that the same amount of sunlight from the Sun's perspective is spread across a much larger surface area from Earth's perspective, and most of it is currently snowy white, which reflects very well. I wouldn't be surprised to have the temperature at the poles noticeably increase as a result of higher temperatures exposing water and rock, with a much lower albedo, than the current ice and snow.

No, it wouldn't be stable because of the Coriolis effect.  The stable configuration is on a non-spinning earth with convection cells that run equator to pole.  Rossby waves would still exist with constant insolation from a star; rotation + heating differential will always produce weather.

You also forgot that the angle of the sun affects albedo on water.  The poles will absorb more light but not as much as you think because oblique angles tend to reflect light (source: went to the ocean and looked at sunset, also 6 years of atmospheric science at university).  But if we get into land use change and global albedo, eventually I'm going to end up talking about methane clathrates and no one wants to be scared about that.

[robkelk]

The far side of the Moon is not necessarily dark.



Photo from Artemis I, credited to NASA (and thus in the Public Domain).

[Norgarth]

[Norgarth]

[Norgarth]

[Norgarth]

[Norgarth]

[robkelk]

Could be either Pennsylvania Route 132 or Pennsylvania Route 926

Meanwhile, in Toronto:

[Bob Schroeck]

Could be either Pennsylvania Route 132 or Pennsylvania Route 926

Yeah, was going to say... our friends Kat and Joe used to live not far off Street Road in Bensalem, PA. (That would be Route 132.)

[Norgarth]

[Norgarth]

[Norgarth]

edit:remover the ISS pic, since Hmelton made some good points.

[hazard]

This looks like an accident waiting to happen due to the irregularity of the steps.

[hmelton]

I know I need a picture, but I'm simply to busy to find one so I'm going to rant and give you a couple of websites for research about just how silly showing a picture of the space station in Earth orbit and then quoting a "temperature for space" and using it to try and refute a statement about solar panel  temperatures within an atmosphere.

The image of the space station and then the badly misleading quote about the temperature of space followed by "A fox rotting your brain" just no. No NO! NO!

You do know that the space station or all powered bodies in space have a heat rejection problem, they after all are placed in what is probably the best insulators and can only reject heat as radiation. The solar panels on the space station require active cooling and the crew must act quickly if the pumps ever fail.

I think the temperature you quoted "for space" is related to the residual background radiation and has a large number of  assumptions that are not in any meaningful way related to the solar panels on Earth's surface or even to a set of solar panels placed on a space station in near Earth orbit and only roughly 93 million miles from a strong energy source. To say nothing of the changes to heat radiation caused by being in Low Earth Orbit.

A inert body far from a energy source like the sun will eventually reach a balanced thermal state where the  thermal radiation released will equal the background radiation absorbed and the object could approximate the temperature you quoted.

Space can't really be said to have a temperature as you think of it in a atmosphere, the "temperature" for space usually quoted is under the current most accepted theory related to the residual microwave noise supposedly created from the initial  "BIG BANG!!!!!!!!"

Using that temperature "for space" along  with a quote about the temperature working range of solar panels is... is...

I can't come up with a example to show you how bad OFF! that was.

HERE READ THIS!
https://www.space.com/21059-space-statio...aphic.html


also for a much more FUN!!! site with many more details about space and objects within space.
study the articles that can be found here

I highly recommend finding the articles about "cloaking" or hiding space ships in space to get an idea about space temperatures.
https://projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/

HDM

[Norgarth]

[Norgarth]

[Norgarth]

[Norgarth]

[Norgarth]

[Norgarth]