On Aug 17, 12:09 am, Whata Fool wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:22:49 -0700, Bill Ward
>
> wrote:
> >Error #1 "Model of earth", should be "radiation exposed globe"
> > (Reading error)
>
> >Error #2 Failure to comprehend point of example. (Blinders)
>
> >Error #3 "Bill...can't read math" (Attitude)
>
> >I'll leave it up to readers to decide for themselves.
>
> Did the authors consider the difference in rotation rate and
> the much shorter day on Earth?
No they analysed a static globe i.e. no rotation, the dark side of the
globe was assumed to be at 0K and the temperature on the light side to
be:
(e.S.cos( )/sigma)^0.25 which would give a 'noon-time' temp of 360K
>
> Modeling the Earth as having no atmosphere and no water,
> showing that the temperature extremes would be much less than on
> the moon simply because the heating and cooling time would be
> much shorter.
>
Right, the moon wouldn't be as extreme as their example though!
> Once that is done then the N2 and O2 atmosphere can be
> added, and that should reduce the temperature extremes further.
>
> Adding water would really complicate the problem, but each
> water process could be calculated separately.
I guess you'd have to include a cooling/heating function to account
for rotation/memory
>
> But any modeling is only useful to understand, nature may
> figure out a way to do it's own thing and do something other than
> any prediction.
Using such a model that's far from the earth's reality and then using
its unreal results to suggest that they somehow show that the
averaging is invalid seems like a crock to me!
|