"Peter Webb" <webbfamily-diespamdie@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4551995d$0$11974$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
|
| "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_e> wrote in message
| news:6df4h.140934$lT5.41240@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| >
| > "Peter Webb" <webbfamily-diespamdie@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
| > news:45516c2c$0$23136$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
| > |
| > | "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_e> wrote in message
| > | news:fID3h.136979$lT5.43933@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| > | >
| > | > "Peter Webb" <webbfamily-diespamdie@optusnet.com.au> wrote in
message
| > | > news:454ec4e1$0$17351$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
| > | > |
| > | > | "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_e> wrote in message
| > | > | news:Bly3h.97162$3x1.39450@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| > | > | >
| > | > | > "Peter Webb" <webbfamily-diespamdie@optusnet.com.au> wrote in
| > message
| > | > | > news:454eae1b$0$11972$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | "The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in
message
| > | > | > | news:szk7iydhkbp.fsf@eris.io.com...
| > | > | > | > Ajanta <ajanta@null.void> writes:
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | >>AlexZ <alexz@no.spam> wrote:
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | >>> One explanation I have never understood is that we have
| > Summers
| > | > and
| > | > | > | >>> Winters because Earth is tilted.
| > | > | > | >>> ...
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | >>I don't have an answer but a similar question: Why are the
| > poles
| > | > so
| > | > | > | >>much colder than the equator?
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | >>I imagine that the Earth's size is much smaller than
Earth-Sun
| > | > | > | >>distance, so the poles and the equator are more or less
| > | > equidistant
| > | > | > | >>from the Sun...
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | >>Moreover, one of the poles is always facing the Sun and
| > therefore
| > | > does
| > | > | > | >>receives sunlight. Then, why is this Sun-facing pole
colder
| > than
| > | > the
| > | > | > | >>Equator?
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > Possibly because at the poles, the sun can never rise
above
| > the
| > | > | > horizon
| > | > | > | > farther than 23.5°, while at the equator, it's *always*
| > straight
| > | > | > overhead
| > | > | > | > in a
| > | > | > | > belt that extends the same 23.5° north and south of the
| > equator.
| > | > (In
| > | > | > | > other
| > | > | > | > words, less atmosphere to have to heat up in the tropics,
| > compared
| > | > to
| > | > | > a
| > | > | > | > bit
| > | > | > | > more at the poles.)
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Nothing to do with it. If the distance that light had to
travel
| > | > through
| > | > | > the
| > | > | > | atmosphere was the determinant, it would be warmer at high
| > | > altitudes,
| > | > | > not
| > | > | > | colder.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Evenings are cooler than afternoons
| > | > |
| > | > | Because of angles of incidence.
| > | >
| > | > Ok, less sunlight per unit area at the poles than at the equator.
| > | > Partially.
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | > the sun appears red at sunset and dawn.
| > | > |
| > | > | Partially because more of its short wavelength light is absorbed
by
| > the
| > | > | atmosphere, which has the effect of warming the air. (But mostly
| > because
| > | > of
| > | > | refraction, which has no net effect on temperatures).
| > | >
| > | > Hahahaha! Ok, mighty educator, please excuse my facetious sarcasm.
| > | > Let's see what you can teach me. If you stood on the moon the sky
| > | > would be black, even in sunlight. Why is the sky blue if I stand
| > upside-
| > | > down in Oz? :-)
| > | >
| > | >
| > |
| > | Refraction, mostly, as I said.
| >
| > Yes, I know that's what you said, but you don't explain how
| > refraction makes the sky blue, mighty educator. You don't even
| > know what refraction is, mighty blustering educator.
| > Please excuse my facetious sarcasm, you bumbling idiot.
| >
| >
|
| I am not an educator, but I have do have an Honours degree in
theoretical
| physics. However, the subject of why the sky is blue is no what we are
| discussing.


Ah... a degree in theoretical physics. Nothing to do with physics, then.
That would explain why you don't know anything about refraction.
Of course you could google for it so that you don't seem like a
complete idiot. Try Snell's law.

|
| >
| > |
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > |
| > | > | > The distance through atmosphere is a determinant, less heat
and
| > light
| > | > | > penetrates
| > | > | > and no "if" about it.
| > | > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | Of course. The Sun is weaker because more of its energy has been
| > | > transferred
| > | > | already to the atmosphere as heat.
| > | >
| > | > If the distance that light had to travel through the atmosphere
was
| > the
| > | > determinant, [which OF COURSE it is], it would be warmer at high
| > | > altitudes,
| > | > not colder. -- Peter Webbfamily.
| > | >
| > | > According to Google Earth, Greenland has an altitude of 9132 feet,
| > | > almost two miles above sea level.
| > | > So according to Peter Webb, it is warmer, not colder in Greenland
| > | > than ... err...
| > | > A) Sydney?
| > | > B) Mt. Kilimanjiro?
| > | > C) Mauna Loa?
| > | > D) Paris?
| > | > E) Moscow?
| > | > F) Hong Kong?
| > | > G) Mt. Fuji?
| > | > H) Capetown?
| > | > I) Fairbanks?
| > | > J) Cairo?
| > | > K) London?
| > | > L) The Ross Ice Shelf?
| > | > M) Siberia?
| > | > N) Rio de Janerio?
| > | > O) The Galapagos?
| > | >
| > | > C'mon, Peter Webbfamily. Work with me on this, I want to learn.
| > | > Teach me.
| > | >
| > | >
| > |
| > | Greenland is colder than any of those places.
| >
| > Colder than Siberia, Peter Webbfamily?
| > Are you sure?
| > Is there any snow on Mauna Loa?
| > How about Mt. Kilimanjaro?
| >
| > | It is further from the
| > | equator, and the angle of incidence effect causes less flux per sqm.
| >
| > Ok...
| >
| >
| > | Nothing to do with the amount of air the sun's rays go through.
| >
| > Really?
| > Wouldn't the air absorb the energy before it reached the snow?
| >
|
| Yes, the air does absorb energy before it hits the ground. This warms
the
| atmosphere.

So it should be hot at altitude for two reasons, then.
Direct heat and warm air rising.... according to your "illogic".
And the light has more air to go through at the poles than
at the equator, so the poles should be warmer than the equator
by your "illogic".

| The more distance the light has to go through the air, the more
| energy it loses to the air, and the more energy (heat) is transferred to
the
| air, warming it more.

Cosy at the poles, then?

| This should make the equator air temperature lower
| than at higher latitudes, because there is less air for the light to
have
to
| warm before it hits the ground (remember, when we measure temperature at
a
| place, we are measuring air temperature).
|
So a guy with an honours degree in theoretical physics thinks
the poles should have no snow or ice on them?

| The reason that the Poles are colder is because the ground

Ground? I was told to "remember, when we measure temperature at a
place, we are measuring air temperature." Ground has nothing
to do with it. I've remembered.

| is at a low angle
| to the radiation, so the energy flux per square metre of light hitting
the
| ground is less. Has nothing to do with the light going through more
| atmosphere; that would make the Polar air temperature warmer, not
colder.

Ah... So polar air is warmer than Florida air. I wonder why Florida
crackers
don't go around in seal skins and bear furs to keep warm...

"Greenaland is also colder at altitude than it is at sea level. Funnily
enough, the light goes through less air at altitude, so by your "logic"
the air tempertaure should be higher." -- Peter Webbfamily.
"The more distance the light has to go through the air, the more
energy it loses to the air, and the more energy (heat) is transferred to
the
air, warming it more. " -- Peter Webbfamily.
"remember, when we measure temperature at a place, we are measuring air
temperature." -- Peter Webbfamily.

You are a real ***** with honours, aren't you, Peter Webbfamily?
If I were as stupid and illogical as you I'd shoot myself... or shut up.

| >
| >
| >
| >
| > | Greenaland is also colder at altitude than it is at sea level.
Funnily
| > | enough, the light goes through less air at altitude, so by your
"logic"
| > the
| > | air tempertaure should be higher.
| >
| > Have trouble spelling, Peter Webbfamily?
| > I'm asking you for explanation, Peter Webbfamily.
| > My "logic" is different to your "illogic", funnily enough.
| > The air tampirutiater in aGeraneldn is no different to
| > the air tmpefactieeer in Fdfhesthgh, is it?
| >
| >
| > At the top of Mount Everest, the sun goes
| > | througnway less air than at the equator, but its still colder.
| >
| > But Mount Everest isn't flat, it presents a face toward the sun,
| > Peter Webbfamily.
| > The angle of incidence effect causes MAX flux per sqm
| >
| >
| > |
| > | The decrease in temperature with altititude is largely a result of
| > Boyle's
| > | Law (PV=nRT),
| >
| > HAHAHA!
| > Do you really think my car tyres are hot because they
| > have a higher pressure than the outside air?
| > How about a lorry tyre, 100 psi?
| > That must be really hot by your "illogic", right?
| > You blithering imbecile, PeterWebbfamily!