Hot Air and Wind
16 Apr 2010, 1:05 am
Actually, does the concept of "global" warming even works outside Earth? <.< I mean, we are like inside our own gaseous bubble, so it can be heated from within, no matter from which angle we receive heat from the sun, but what about the other planets? 
It can't be "global" if there is always only a face of a planet that is exposed to the sun... =/
16 Apr 2010, 10:00 am
phil777 wrote:
Actually, does the concept of "global" warming even works outside Earth? <.< I mean, we are like inside our own gaseous bubble, so it can be heated from within, no matter from which angle we receive heat from the sun, but what about the other planets?
Read about the greenhouse effect in Venus. Venus is hotter than Mercury even though Venus is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and thus receives only 25% of Mercury's solar irradiance.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
16 Apr 2010, 1:15 pm
Wedge wrote:
phil777 wrote:
Actually, does the concept of "global" warming even works outside Earth? <.< I mean, we are like inside our own gaseous bubble, so it can be heated from within, no matter from which angle we receive heat from the sun, but what about the other planets?
Read about the greenhouse effect in Venus. Venus is hotter than Mercury even though Venus is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and thus receives only 25% of Mercury's solar irradiance.
25% of the solar irradiance if they were the same diameter, you mean? The diameter of Mercury is 4879.4 kilometers and the diameter of Venus is 12,104 kilometers, giving the surface area of the great circle for Mercury 18,699,187 km^2, and for Venus 115,066,184. km^2. Venus has about 6 times the surface area exposed to the sun as does Mercury, so the amount of solar irradiance it receives should be about 6/4 or 1.5 times that of Mercury. The mean surface temperature of Mercury is 452 Kelvin and for Venus it is 726 Kelvin, for which the ratio is 726/452 = 1.61 versus the approximate 1.5 times more solar irradiance received by the planet Venus.
16 Apr 2010, 1:22 pm
ruveyn wrote:
A project to construct wind turbine "farms" off of the coast of Nantucket Sound in Massachusetts has been tangled in federal, state and local litigation for at least ten years. The Obama administration is supposed to resolved the difficulties or put a halt to the project this year.
The wind of of Nantucket is very steady and if the turbine complex were constructed it would prove power to Massachusetts and Rhode Island. That is clean, renewable, sustainable energy. The project was opposed by such worthies as the late Sen. Kennedy of Massachusetts and the late Walter Cronkite. They complained it spoiled the view and constituted a danger to the sea gulls. Right.
Most of the opposition is from yupp-dom with houses on the beach front. They want a clear unobstructed view of the ocean while the rest of us freeze in the dark. Way to go, yuppy scumoids!
ruveyn
The wind of of Nantucket is very steady and if the turbine complex were constructed it would prove power to Massachusetts and Rhode Island. That is clean, renewable, sustainable energy. The project was opposed by such worthies as the late Sen. Kennedy of Massachusetts and the late Walter Cronkite. They complained it spoiled the view and constituted a danger to the sea gulls. Right.
Most of the opposition is from yupp-dom with houses on the beach front. They want a clear unobstructed view of the ocean while the rest of us freeze in the dark. Way to go, yuppy scumoids!
ruveyn
Wind Power is proving to be GROSSLY inefficient and expensive. I'll never forget the image of rusted windmills in Hawaii where ecotards like the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund filed a lawsuit in 1991 to stop the construction of a Geothermal power plant on the big island. Mind you that Geothermal Power is the ONLY efficient form of "green energy", that is it can be used to generate electricity without fuel consumption and guess what? Its not only inexhaustible, its EFFICIENT and ALWAYS ON!
Lack of wind can cause brown outs and even rolling blackouts; whereas windstorms can create dangerously high currents that can critically damage transformers and there is no way to store the excess power.
16 Apr 2010, 1:34 pm
MEATGRINDER wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
A project to construct wind turbine "farms" off of the coast of Nantucket Sound in Massachusetts has been tangled in federal, state and local litigation for at least ten years. The Obama administration is supposed to resolved the difficulties or put a halt to the project this year.
The wind of of Nantucket is very steady and if the turbine complex were constructed it would prove power to Massachusetts and Rhode Island. That is clean, renewable, sustainable energy. The project was opposed by such worthies as the late Sen. Kennedy of Massachusetts and the late Walter Cronkite. They complained it spoiled the view and constituted a danger to the sea gulls. Right.
Most of the opposition is from yupp-dom with houses on the beach front. They want a clear unobstructed view of the ocean while the rest of us freeze in the dark. Way to go, yuppy scumoids!
ruveyn
The wind of of Nantucket is very steady and if the turbine complex were constructed it would prove power to Massachusetts and Rhode Island. That is clean, renewable, sustainable energy. The project was opposed by such worthies as the late Sen. Kennedy of Massachusetts and the late Walter Cronkite. They complained it spoiled the view and constituted a danger to the sea gulls. Right.
Most of the opposition is from yupp-dom with houses on the beach front. They want a clear unobstructed view of the ocean while the rest of us freeze in the dark. Way to go, yuppy scumoids!
ruveyn
Wind Power is proving to be GROSSLY inefficient and expensive. I'll never forget the image of rusted windmills in Hawaii where ecotards like the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund filed a lawsuit in 1991 to stop the construction of a Geothermal power plant on the big island. Mind you that Geothermal Power is the ONLY efficient form of "green energy", that is it can be used to generate electricity without fuel consumption and guess what? Its not only inexhaustible, its EFFICIENT and ALWAYS ON!
Lack of wind can cause brown outs and even rolling blackouts; whereas windstorms can create dangerously high currents that can critically damage transformers and there is no way to store the excess power.
Wind turbines would not be used for baseline power supply, precisely because it is not steady. It could be used in case of an overload as an additional source of power. There are a few places in the U.S. where the wind is nearly steady and constant. Nantucket Sound is just one of those place where wind turbines could pick up the slack on a high demand day. It could also be used to pump water uphill into high head impound to be used as a instantaneous overload backup. Clearly this would require some up front investment but in the long run it could be profitable.
ruveyn
16 Apr 2010, 2:06 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Wedge wrote:
phil777 wrote:
Actually, does the concept of "global" warming even works outside Earth? <.< I mean, we are like inside our own gaseous bubble, so it can be heated from within, no matter from which angle we receive heat from the sun, but what about the other planets?
Read about the greenhouse effect in Venus. Venus is hotter than Mercury even though Venus is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and thus receives only 25% of Mercury's solar irradiance.
25% of the solar irradiance if they were the same diameter, you mean? The diameter of Mercury is 4879.4 kilometers and the diameter of Venus is 12,104 kilometers, giving the surface area of the great circle for Mercury 18,699,187 km^2, and for Venus 115,066,184. km^2. Venus has about 6 times the surface area exposed to the sun as does Mercury, so the amount of solar irradiance it receives should be about 6/4 or 1.5 times that of Mercury. The mean surface temperature of Mercury is 452 Kelvin and for Venus it is 726 Kelvin, for which the ratio is 726/452 = 1.61 versus the approximate 1.5 times more solar irradiance received by the planet Venus.
I got this from Nasa ( http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/fa ... yfact.html ). The solar irradiance to Mercury is 9126.6 W/m^2 (Watts per meters to the second power) and to Venus 2613.9 W/m^2. I know that you used very precise calculations in your measurements but 2613.9 is not 1.5 times 9126.6 at least as far as I am concerned.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
16 Apr 2010, 2:12 pm
Wedge wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Wedge wrote:
phil777 wrote:
Actually, does the concept of "global" warming even works outside Earth? <.< I mean, we are like inside our own gaseous bubble, so it can be heated from within, no matter from which angle we receive heat from the sun, but what about the other planets?
Read about the greenhouse effect in Venus. Venus is hotter than Mercury even though Venus is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and thus receives only 25% of Mercury's solar irradiance.
25% of the solar irradiance if they were the same diameter, you mean? The diameter of Mercury is 4879.4 kilometers and the diameter of Venus is 12,104 kilometers, giving the surface area of the great circle for Mercury 18,699,187 km^2, and for Venus 115,066,184. km^2. Venus has about 6 times the surface area exposed to the sun as does Mercury, so the amount of solar irradiance it receives should be about 6/4 or 1.5 times that of Mercury. The mean surface temperature of Mercury is 452 Kelvin and for Venus it is 726 Kelvin, for which the ratio is 726/452 = 1.61 versus the approximate 1.5 times more solar irradiance received by the planet Venus.
I got this from Nasa ( http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/fa ... yfact.html ). The solar irradiance to Mercury is 9126.6 W/m2 (watts per meter squared) and to Venus 2613.9 W/m2. I know that you used very precise calculations in your measurements but 2613.9 is not 1.5 times 9126.6 at least as far as I am concerned.
That is the power per area, Watts per meter squared, OK. Well then, "solar irradiance" in my last sentence is incorrect terminology. However, do the calculations yourself, as that is the amount of energy per time over an area and you need to multiply it by the area facing the sun to determine the total amount of energy received by that planet per time. (In my above calculation, I used the surface area of the circle determined by the planets' diameters, so as to avoid the trigonometry involved in the calculation using the half sphere and the angles of incidence and albedo and such....) The amount of wattage per meter squared is similar to a density, which is mass per volume. If you know the density and the volume, you can find the mass. Equivalently, you know the wattage per square meter and the amount of square meters is determinable, so thereby you can find the wattage received by each planet.
The surface area of the circle determined by the diameter of Mercury is 18,699,187,000,000 m^2 or 1.87*10^13 m^2. The surface area of the circle determined by the diameter of Venus 115,066,184,000,000 m^2 or 1.15*10^14 m^2. The numbers you posited are 9126.6 W/m^2 for Mercury and 2613.9 W/m^2 for Venus. So, Mercury would receive 9126.6 W/m^2 * 1.87*10^13 m^2 and Venus would receive 2613.9 W/m^2 * 1.15*10^14 m^2. How many Joules per second do each planet receive?
16 Apr 2010, 4:55 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Wedge wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Wedge wrote:
phil777 wrote:
Actually, does the concept of "global" warming even works outside Earth? <.< I mean, we are like inside our own gaseous bubble, so it can be heated from within, no matter from which angle we receive heat from the sun, but what about the other planets?
Read about the greenhouse effect in Venus. Venus is hotter than Mercury even though Venus is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and thus receives only 25% of Mercury's solar irradiance.
25% of the solar irradiance if they were the same diameter, you mean? The diameter of Mercury is 4879.4 kilometers and the diameter of Venus is 12,104 kilometers, giving the surface area of the great circle for Mercury 18,699,187 km^2, and for Venus 115,066,184. km^2. Venus has about 6 times the surface area exposed to the sun as does Mercury, so the amount of solar irradiance it receives should be about 6/4 or 1.5 times that of Mercury. The mean surface temperature of Mercury is 452 Kelvin and for Venus it is 726 Kelvin, for which the ratio is 726/452 = 1.61 versus the approximate 1.5 times more solar irradiance received by the planet Venus.
I got this from Nasa ( http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/fa ... yfact.html ). The solar irradiance to Mercury is 9126.6 W/m2 (watts per meter squared) and to Venus 2613.9 W/m2. I know that you used very precise calculations in your measurements but 2613.9 is not 1.5 times 9126.6 at least as far as I am concerned.
That is the power per area, Watts per meter squared, OK. Well then, "solar irradiance" in my last sentence is incorrect terminology. However, do the calculations yourself, as that is the amount of energy per time over an area and you need to multiply it by the area facing the sun to determine the total amount of energy received by that planet per time. (In my above calculation, I used the surface area of the circle determined by the planets' diameters, so as to avoid the trigonometry involved in the calculation using the half sphere and the angles of incidence and albedo and such....) The amount of wattage per meter squared is similar to a density, which is mass per volume. If you know the density and the volume, you can find the mass. Equivalently, you know the wattage per square meter and the amount of square meters is determinable, so thereby you can find the wattage received by each planet.
The surface area of the circle determined by the diameter of Mercury is 18,699,187,000,000 m^2 or 1.87*10^13 m^2. The surface area of the circle determined by the diameter of Venus 115,066,184,000,000 m^2 or 1.15*10^14 m^2. The numbers you posited are 9126.6 W/m^2 for Mercury and 2613.9 W/m^2 for Venus. So, Mercury would receive 9126.6 W/m^2 * 1.87*10^13 m^2 and Venus would receive 2613.9 W/m^2 * 1.15*10^14 m^2. How many Joules per second do each planet receive?
Really I don´t think that when it comes to heating a planet the total amont of energy received is what explains the relative temperature. I think that the amount of energy per area is what defines the relative temperature of the planet (I could be wrong). Think of a tiny planet that receives 100 W it would heat much more than a very large planet that received 100 W. The total amount of energy tells nothing about relative temperature. (you can also think this way think of New York receiving 100 W then think of USA receiving 100 W). The total amount of energy tells nothing if you don´t know the area. That is why I think that the amount of enery per area (solar irradiance) is what defines the relative temperature of the planets.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
16 Apr 2010, 5:37 pm
Wedge wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Wedge wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Wedge wrote:
phil777 wrote:
Actually, does the concept of "global" warming even works outside Earth? <.< I mean, we are like inside our own gaseous bubble, so it can be heated from within, no matter from which angle we receive heat from the sun, but what about the other planets?
Read about the greenhouse effect in Venus. Venus is hotter than Mercury even though Venus is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and thus receives only 25% of Mercury's solar irradiance.
25% of the solar irradiance if they were the same diameter, you mean? The diameter of Mercury is 4879.4 kilometers and the diameter of Venus is 12,104 kilometers, giving the surface area of the great circle for Mercury 18,699,187 km^2, and for Venus 115,066,184. km^2. Venus has about 6 times the surface area exposed to the sun as does Mercury, so the amount of solar irradiance it receives should be about 6/4 or 1.5 times that of Mercury. The mean surface temperature of Mercury is 452 Kelvin and for Venus it is 726 Kelvin, for which the ratio is 726/452 = 1.61 versus the approximate 1.5 times more solar irradiance received by the planet Venus.
I got this from Nasa ( http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/fa ... yfact.html ). The solar irradiance to Mercury is 9126.6 W/m2 (watts per meter squared) and to Venus 2613.9 W/m2. I know that you used very precise calculations in your measurements but 2613.9 is not 1.5 times 9126.6 at least as far as I am concerned.
That is the power per area, Watts per meter squared, OK. Well then, "solar irradiance" in my last sentence is incorrect terminology. However, do the calculations yourself, as that is the amount of energy per time over an area and you need to multiply it by the area facing the sun to determine the total amount of energy received by that planet per time. (In my above calculation, I used the surface area of the circle determined by the planets' diameters, so as to avoid the trigonometry involved in the calculation using the half sphere and the angles of incidence and albedo and such....) The amount of wattage per meter squared is similar to a density, which is mass per volume. If you know the density and the volume, you can find the mass. Equivalently, you know the wattage per square meter and the amount of square meters is determinable, so thereby you can find the wattage received by each planet.
The surface area of the circle determined by the diameter of Mercury is 18,699,187,000,000 m^2 or 1.87*10^13 m^2. The surface area of the circle determined by the diameter of Venus 115,066,184,000,000 m^2 or 1.15*10^14 m^2. The numbers you posited are 9126.6 W/m^2 for Mercury and 2613.9 W/m^2 for Venus. So, Mercury would receive 9126.6 W/m^2 * 1.87*10^13 m^2 and Venus would receive 2613.9 W/m^2 * 1.15*10^14 m^2. How many Joules per second do each planet receive?
Really I don´t think that when it comes to heating a planet the total amont of energy received is what explains the relative temperature. I think that the amount of energy per area is what defines the relative temperature of the planet (I could be wrong). Think of a tiny planet that receives 100 W it would heat much more than a very large planet that received 100 W. The total amount of energy tells nothing about relative temperature. (you can also think this way think of New York receiving 100 W then think of USA receiving 100 W). The total amount of energy tells nothing if you don´t know the area. That is why I think that the amount of enery per area (solar irradiance) is what defines the relative temperature of the planets.
The total amount of energy received from the sun is practically all the energy a planet gets. If this doesn't have an effect upon the temperature, then it better have a goodly supply of fuel, because you aren't going to get energy from nowhere. The kinetic energy in the atmosphere, that is the temperature, is derived from the sun. The greenhouse effect allows for partial retention of energy derived from solar radiation. Also, you didn't bother to calculate the numbers because you presumed that the total radiant energy received from the sun had no effect upon the temperature.
The total radiant energy per time received by Mercury is 9126.6 W/m^2 * 1.87*10^13 = 1.71*10^17 Watts and The total radiant energy per time received by Venus is 2613.9 W/m^2 * 1.15*10^14 m^2 = 3.01*10^17 Watts. The ratio of wattage for Venus to Mercury is 3.01*10^17 Watts to 1.71*10^17, or 3.01/1.71 which is equal to 1.76.
The average temperature of Venus, according to http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/fa ... sfact.html, is 737 Kelvin. The average temperature of Mercury, according to http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/fa ... yfact.html, is 440 Kelvin. The ratio of the average temperatures for Venus to Mercury is 737 Kelvin to 440 Kelvin, or 737/440 which is 1.68.
So, Venus receives 1.76 times the total radiant energy that Mercury receives, yet Venus has only 1.68 times the average temperature. Venus thus is actually reflecting a fair amount of energy into space, 1.76 - 1.68 = 0.08 or 8% of the total radiant energy received, which is 2 * 10^16 Watts.
16 Apr 2010, 7:54 pm
See http://www.aquanet.com/index.php?option ... 6&Itemid=1
It indicates that a network of variably dependability in wind power could be arranged for the overcoming of unreliability of individual sites.
17 Apr 2010, 7:15 am
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
So, Venus receives 1.76 times the total radiant energy that Mercury receives...
Yeah but that energy has to heat an area almost 10 times as big as Mercury, doesn´t it?
Last edited by Wedge on 18 Apr 2010, 8:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
17 Apr 2010, 1:06 pm
Wedge wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
So, Venus receives 1.76 times the total radiant energy that Mercury receives...
Yeah but that energy has to heat an area almost 10 times as big as Mercury, don´t it?
Correct it does, but the percentage of light reflected into space is less due to a lower concentration of it. Having an atmosphere to retain thermal energy helps too, which does play into the greenhouse notion.
