Outer space, hot or cold?
Now, the consensus answer is cold, 5 Kelvin or 3 Kelvin. But there are no molecules in outer space so what do the concepts of hot, cold, heat, energy even mean without the kinetic motion of molecules?
The International Space Station (diagram above) has not one, but a redundant pair of ammonia refrigerant cooling, air conditioning, refrigerating/freezing systems. Why? If space is cold? Why not just put that ice tray or margarita blender out on the back step and let outer space do its thang?
Well, because when the solar luminosity/irradiance reaches earth’s orbital distance it has a power flux of 1,368 W/m^2 and an equivalent S-B BB temperature of 394 K, 121 C, 250 F. That’s not hot by galactic standards, but it will cook earthly flora and fauna (That’s us – people.)
Everything in the path of that irradiance, barring extenuating circumstances, will be heated to 394 K.
In fact, the lit side temperature of the moon actually measures a peak of 390 K. What does that say about the earth minus an atmosphere?
A Stefan-Boltzmann Blackbody temperature of 394 K or 21 C is higher than the boiling point of water under sea level atmospheric pressure, which would no longer exist. The oceans would boil away removing the giga-tons of pressure that keeps the molten core in place.
The molten core would push through the thin crust flooding the surface with dark magma changing both emissivity and albedo. With no atmosphere a steady rain of meteorites would pulverize the surface to dust same as the moon.
The earth would be much like the moon with a similar albedo (0.12) and large swings in surface temperature from lit to dark sides. No clouds, no vegetation, no snow, no ice a completely different albedo, certainly not the current 30{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}. No atmospheric molecules mean no convection, conduction, latent energy and surface IR absorption/radiation would be anybody’s guess.
Without an atmosphere the earth’s temperature would be similar to the moon’s, say, 390 K or 102 C hotter than the WAG’d average of 288 K and not 33C colder per radiatiave greenhouse gas theory (RGHE).
Now before y’all start hatin’ on me about comparing peaks and averages remember what an average is all about. Two scenarios can have widely different ranges and still have the same average. For instance:
Earth w/ atmosphere: max 88 C, 361 K; min -58 C, 215 K; average 288 K, range 73C. Moon/Earth w/o atmosphere: max 390 K, min 186 K, average 288 , range 204C.
Earth’s atmosphere/albedo moderate both the peak and range temperatures with an overall result of cooling the earth compared to no atmosphere.
One of these scenarios is correct and the other is false. I’ll go with the one that has real, actual, lunar and ISS observations and that would NOT be RGHE theory whose attempted explanations truly violate the laws of thermodynamics.
Trackback from your site.
tom0mason
| #
Now you have this fictional dead atmosphere-less planet with an average temperature of 390 K or 102 C.
1. What happens if we now provide an atmosphere of say, one of all Neon, at the same average mass as the current state of earth’s atmosphere now. Will the earth’s temperature change and if so what to and why?
2. If all the Neon on this fictional planet is replaced with an equal mass of H2O what now are the effects on the planets temperature?
When considering these changes only stay within the masses given. From these two examples you should be able to describe, in broad terms, what an atmosphere (any atmosphere!) does to the planet’s temperature regime.
Reply
nickreality65
| #
An atmospheric layer of “stuff” is no different from the blankets on the bed, insulated walls of a house or the shiny insulation of ISS: Q = U A dT where U is the combined effects of the “stuff’s” atmospheric conduction, advection, convection, latent heat and radiative heat processes.
A voltage difference (battery) is required to move current through a complex electrical resistance.
A pressure difference (pump, fan) is required to move fluid through a complex physical resistance.
A temperature difference (sun, “surface” heat capacity) is required to move heat (energy in motion) through a complex thermal resistance.
Venus, as I discussed elsewhere on this site, is a good example.
BTW in his 1912 discussion of heat radiation theory Planck says that one of the boundary conditions is that the absorbing/radiating surface (and there MUST be a surface.) has to be larger than the radiating wave lengths. Well, that does not include molecules. Absorbing/radiating GHG molecules violate this boundary condition. RGHE theory doesn’t and isn’t workable.
Is there actual physical evidence that GHGs provide a “surface” that supports absorption/re-radiation or is this just another illusion/delusion like cold fusion, phlogiston and luminescent ether?
Reply
4TimesAYear
| #
“An atmospheric layer of “stuff” is no different from the blankets on the bed, insulated walls of a house or the shiny insulation of ISS: Q = U A dT where U is the combined effects of the “stuff’s” atmospheric conduction, advection, convection, latent heat and radiative heat processes.”
Not unless there is heat being generated under those blankets. If there is no body under the blankets, the temp remains the same as the air temp
Reply
Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE
| #
How that heat gets under the blanket doesn’t matter. Coal to electricity to heating pad or sunlight through south facing windows to floors, walls, furniture, air and back out through ceiling w/ R-16, walls with R-6, windows with R-2, through leaky doors, etc. aka U.
Nothing but an ME’s routine HVAC application.
Reply
Dr Pete Sudbury
| #
This is a new line in science: if the numbers don’t fit the hypothesis, make them up! The average temperature of the moon’s surface is -18C, that of the earth 15C. The reason you’ve come to the wrong answer is that (1) you’ve understated the temperature on the dark surface of the moon: it’s -173C, or 100K. Secondly, averaging out the coldest and warmest spots on earth isn’t going to give you an average surface temperature. As NASA says:
“…This absorption and radiation of heat by the atmosphere—the natural greenhouse effect—is beneficial for life on Earth. If there were no greenhouse effect, the Earth’s average surface temperature would be a very chilly -18°C (0°F) instead of the comfortable 15°C (59°F) that it is today. (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov pg2).
Reply
nickreality65
| #
“The average temperature of the moon’s surface (w/o atmos) is -18C, that of
the earth (w/ atmos) 15C.”
Apples and pomegranates.
Average is meaningless. If the peak is 390K, the earth w/o an atmosphere is a hot waterless wasted dirt ball contrary to the cooler claims of RGHE theory.
Fellow made up numberers.
https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723 (1)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117715005712?via%3Dihub (2)
http://file.scirp.org/Html/3-8302911_78836.htm (3)
(1) “Physical evidence is presented that Earth’s ATE should be assessed against the temperature of an equivalent airless body such as the Moon rather than a resented that Earth’s ATE should be assessed against
the temperature of an equivalent airless body such as the Moon rather than a hypothetical atmosphere devoid of greenhouse gases. Employing the new temperature formula we show that Earth’s total ATE is ~90 K, not 33 K, and that ATE = GE + TE, where GE is the thermal effect of greenhouse gases, while TE > 15 K is a thermodynamic enhancement independent of the atmospheric infrared back radiation. It is concluded that the contribution of greenhouse gases to Earth’s ATE defined as GE = ATE – TE might be greater than 33 K, but will remain uncertain until the strength of the hereto identified TE is fully quantified by future research.”
(2) WITHDRAWN: “Emergent model for predicting the average surface temperature of rocky planets with diverse atmospheres”
“This article has been withdrawn upon common agreement between the authors and the editors and not related to the scientific merit of the study. The Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause.”
Guess the CAGW leg breakers showed up.
(3) Never mind, this one says the same: RGHE theory blew it.
“Thus, the effective radiation temperature yields flawed results when used for quantifying the atmospheric greenhouse effect.”
“Thus, one has to conclude that concept of the effective radiation temperature oversimplifies the physical processes as it ignores the impact of local temperatures on the fluxes in the planetary radiative balance.”
In summary: RGHE theory is WRONG! The Earth’s albedo/atmosphere doesn’t keep the Earth warm, it keeps the Earth cool.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Nickreality65,
Sorry I did not acknowledge your previous comment when I submitted my previous comment.
This comment is because you later commented:
January 8, 2018 at 3:23 pm | #
““The average temperature of the moon’s surface (w/o atmos) is -18C, that of the earth (w/ atmos) 15C.”
Apples and pomegranates.
Average is meaningless.”
I agree with you: “Average is meaningless.” So why comment further? But you did, so I must. For there are more fundamental differences between the moon and the earth beside the moon’s lack of an atmosphere. One is the difference between their periods of rotation. The earth’s about 24 hours and the moon’s about 28 days. I suspect that the moon’s maximum average temperature might be less if its period of rotation was 24 hours, but do not claim to know this. I leave this analysis up to people more talented than myself.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE
| #
Jerry,
The paper cited above (1) doesn’t think rotation has much of an effect. Of course it takes some length of time for the specific heat capacity of a given “stuff” to increase in temperature when lit as well as decrease when dark. Figure 5 in the cited paper shows a very rapid heating and a slow cooling.
However, back to my basic contention: RGHE’s claim of 33 C warmer with an atmosphere. The difference is the result of subtracting 255 K from 288 K.
288 K is the supposed “average” temperature of the surface 1.5 m above the ground per IPCC and not including SSTs.
The 255 K is the S-B BB equivalent temperature at the top of what? the atmosphere.
So the 33 c is the difference between a WAGd “surface” that’s +/- several C and a theoretical temperature calculated for the ToA and NOT the temperature w/o an atmosphere as represented by ACS et. al.
More apples and acorns.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Nicholas,
“The paper cited above (1) doesn’t think rotation has much of an effect. Of course it takes some length of time for the specific heat capacity of a given “stuff” to increase in temperature when lit as well as decrease when dark. Figure 5 in the cited paper shows a very rapid heating and a slow cooling.”
Did you look at the scale of Figure 5? A lunar hour is more than an earth day. Hence, according to the figure the surface, at its greatest temperature, cools only about a degree during 24 earth hours, which does not make sense because we have observed the air temperature can decrease more than 10 degrees during a 12 hour night.
After I wrote the previous I went back to Figure 5 to make sure I did not overlook something. I can only conclude that the cooling portion of the lunar ‘diurnal’ cycle makes no sense. Or would you like to explain how the surface cools more rapidly as its temperature decreases?
Okay, now I see that the slow cooling rate near the maximum temperature is because the surface continues, for a couple of earth days, to be heated at near the maximum intensity as it slowly rotates.
“More apples and acorns” I agree you seem to be comparing apples with acorns as if there is no difference.
Have a good day, Jerry
4TimesAYear
| #
The average temperature is meaningless. The moon’s temp on the dark side is one thing – the side exposed to the sun is quite another. Our atmosphere serves to redistribute heat.
Reply
Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE
| #
“Our atmosphere serves to redistribute heat.”
Exactamundo – and w/o any S-B shenanigans.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Nicholas and 4timesayear,
Thank you both for these comments. For they have caused to read something which obviously I had not carefully read before. Since you both agreed to the importance of the atmosphere in redistributing heat, I wonder. I wonder if either of you can help me, and possibly others, better understand how the atmosphere mechanistically does this.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Rosco
| #
Are you serious ?
How can you compare the Moon and Earth ? Do they give out PhD’s in breakfast cereal packs ?
The Moon has a period of ~29.53 Earth days whilst Earth has a period of ~24 hours.
I used a graph from a report of the Diviner missions for the Moon temperature values.
At noon at ~370 K the rocky surface is NOT in radiative equilibrium with the solar radiation which is explained by conduction through the rock to subsurface layers.
Let’s perform some simplistic arithmetic (- why not all of climate science’s arithmetic I’ve seen is simplistic ?).
At ~370 K at noon our 1 square metre on the Moon is emitting ~1063 joules per second.
At sunset at ~280 K our 1 square metre on the Moon is emitting ~348 joules per second.
1063 J/sec. – 348 J/sec = 715 J/sec – an average rate which is probably not too bad a “guesstimate”.
715 J/sec x 177 hour x 3600 sec/hour = 455598000 J total. – Moon.
Let’s begin with the hottest surface temperature measured on Earth – measured with an atmosphere so probably an underestimate of the potential heating capacity of the solar radiation !
At 70.1°C or ~343 K at noon our 1 square metre on Earth is emitting ~787 joules per second.
787 J/sec x 6 hour x 3600 sec/hour = 16999200 J total. – Earth.
Even if Earth reached ~394 K our 1 square metre would be radiating at 1361 J/sec –
1361 J/sec x 6 hour x 3600 sec/hour = 29397600 J total.
The total joules for the Moon is at least 15.5 times that of our ~394 K Earth and 26.8 times that of 70.7°C Earth in these simplistic calculations !
Any idiot can see that the Moon is going to lose far more energy and cool to much lower temperatures than the Earth ever would based on the period of rotation alone !
“If there were no greenhouse effect, the Earth’s average surface temperature would be a very chilly -18°C (0°F) instead of the comfortable 15°C (59°F) that it is today.”
This statement is incredible nonsense.
Only climate science could equate the heating power of the Solar radiation at ~1361 W/m2 to that emitted by a unit emissivity blackbody at a temperature of ~394 K.
Actually they equate some fictitious nonsensical ~239 W/m2 in one of the funniest pieces of absurdity I have ever seen.
Let’s see how this really stacks up shall we ?
Solar thermal power stations can heat water to temperatures up to ~400°C by concentrating the radiation – or at least hot enough to produce super heated steam to generate electricity.
Who really believes that the radiation from any object at ~394 K – ~121°C could achieve the same result ?
Climate “scientists” I guess !
Reply
Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE
| #
“Do they give out PhD’s in breakfast cereal packs ?”
Ummm, almost.
For several years I was the not so innocent bystander observing the PhD process (my daughter).
Seems to me a PhD is about half expertise and half academic politics.
I find it disconcerting the apparently barely twenty somethings touting “climate science” (whatever that is.) PhD’s.
I needed four years of real world experience before I could sit for the PE exam.
I guess Kool Aid is more palatable when one is young and naive.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Rosco,
“Are you serious?” It would help if you would specifically refer to who you is. For you ask: “How can you compare the Moon and Earth?” For while there is evidence that you is Pete, I consider that the Moon and Earth can be compared, as long their differences are not ignored, and I’m not an atmospheric scientist.
“The Moon has a period of ~29.53 Earth days whilst Earth has a period of ~24 hours.” I agree with these observations but I have no idea of what the graph from a report of the Diviner missions is, or reports.
“At noon at ~370 K the rocky surface is NOT in radiative equilibrium with the solar radiation which is explained by conduction through the rock to subsurface layers.” This statement caused me look at SURFRAD and SCAN data (see recent comment to Nicholas) in a different way than I had before. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/surf_check.php This data is the Downwelling Solar, Upwelling Solar, and the Upwelling Infrared measured at Desert Rock NV on June 22, 2017. This data is measured and record every minute. We have to go the data site to get the precise measurements. So I construct a crude table for these values (watts/m2) in the order just listed for 12:00am, 1:00pm, and 2:00pm.
12:00 1062.9 232.9 697.4 333K
1:00 1012.3 202.0 707.0 334K
2:00 911.8 204.9 705.4 334K
Hence, Rosco is correct that in this case there is not radiative balance at midday as we see that it occurs minutes after 2:00pm. But the temperatures calculated from the Upwelling Infrared values for each hour could be considered the same.
So thank you Rosco for giving me opportunity to bring this information to your attention. And I have to point out, there is only one reason that the earth’s surface temperature at Desert Rock is about 334K while the moon’s temperature at midday is about 370K. It is the difference in the rates of rotation of the two bodies. Can we all agree to this?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Rosco
| #
Hi Jerry
“I agree with these observations but I have no idea of what the graph from a report of the Diviner missions is, or reports.” – Here is the graph :-
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ty5x0rijruqrp5c/6-1%20Diviner_Lev3_BTG_Final_013.png?dl=0
The biggest mistake made by people who assert there is such a thing as radiative equilibrium is they are simplistic and take no account of spectral considerations.
Asserting that it is sound to add 239.7 W/m2 Solar radiation to 239.7 W/m2 IR from the atmosphere and calculate the surface is at 303 Kelvin emitting 479.4 W/m2 because of this algebraic sum is just wrong. You cannot add up 2 or more discreet radiative flux values incident on a surface and calculate the resulting temperature from the sum because there is no such thing as radiative equilibrium which is the cornerstone of all of the greenhouse effect fantasy.
I showed that adding radiative fluxes and using the sum to calculate temperatures is completely mathematically incorrect in an article I wrote and published here in early 2017 – around March.
When the two fluxes occupy different spectral bands such a simplistic application of algebra is absurd beyond belief.
“And I have to point out, there is only one reason that the earth’s surface temperature at Desert Rock is about 334K while the moon’s temperature at midday is about 370K. It is the difference in the rates of rotation of the two bodies. Can we all agree to this?”
Well – actually yes and no.
Earth’s atmosphere reduces the heating potential of the solar radiation during the day but the rate of temperature increase of surfaces exposed to the Sun is still staggering.
The period of rotation becomes completely significant during late afternoon and overnight – the period of cooling.
If the Moon had a 24 hour period it would be significantly hotter on average even if the maximum temperature were lower – which in my opinion it would not be anyway.
Weather reports show many places on Earth where air temperature decreases per time match or exceed the radiative only cooling rate of the lunar surfaces – this is when the period of rotation is predominant.
From the time of zero solar input Earth’s surfaces have about 15 hours to cool by all available means whilst the Moon’s surfaces have 2.7 weeks of cooling time.
Surely the fact that at sea level the places on Earth where it is cold suffer long periods of no solar input.
And the ridiculous greenhouse effect fantasy ignores all of the properties of gases in a gravitational filed where the higher the pressure the higher the temperature is a fact beyond dispute.
The completely absurd statement quoted by Dr Pete – “If there were no greenhouse effect, the Earth’s average surface temperature would be a very chilly -18°C (0°F) instead of the comfortable 15°C (59°F) that it is today” is unbelievably naive.
Fact is the author showed that radiation based temperatures of an object illuminated by the solar radiation alone describe the temperatures observed with zero greenhouse effect embellishment.
Irradiated by 2601 W/m2 an object would have a temperature of ~463 K – Venus has a temperature of ~737 K. Does this support a “greenhouse effect” – NO!
Using the Universal gas laws a cubic metre of CO2 subjected to 92 bar of atmospheric pressure has a calculated temperature of ~737 K.
In fact using NASA supplied data and the universal gas law there is nothing odd about the temperature for any planet with an atmosphere in the solar system as I showed in an article I wrote here many years ago.
Finally, Earth’s radiative temperature is around minus 18°C – true – but to claim a few molecules in 10,000 are responsible for the higher surface temperatures whilst ignoring all the established science of gas pressure, volume and temperature relationships as well as the well described lapse rate demonstrates stupidity beyond belief or a gullible intellect too lazy to consider any possible alternatives which have a sound scientific basis – unlike an unproven and discredited hypothesis with zero empirical evidence.
Reply
Squidly
| #
Exactly! .. and this is what I point out to people that are hell bent on “average temperature” … as others have indicated here, “average temperature” is meaningless.
Awesome comment Rosco! … awesome!
jerry krause
| #
Hi Rosco,
I see I did not reply specifically to this comment. I looked at the graph and the diurnal temperature oscillation of the rock, which I had never seen before, and it befuddled me and caused me to ponder. Which I have never got beyond yet.
But you wrote: “I showed that adding radiative fluxes and using the sum to calculate temperatures is completely mathematically incorrect in an article I wrote and published here in early 2017 – around March.” I agree one can only calculate temperatures from measured radiations.
So I need to ask: Is it okay to subtract measured Upwelling Solar radiation from measured Downwelling Solar radiation to compare with measured Upwelling Infrared radiation to determine if there is a radiation balance or which way the radiation is unbalanced?
“If the Moon had a 24 hour period it would be significantly hotter on average even if the maximum temperature were lower – which in my opinion it would not be anyway.”
Are you saying, in your opinion, that the moon’s maximum temperature would not be influenced by a much slower rate of rotation?
“Finally, Earth’s radiative temperature is around minus 18°C – true – ” If this is true, how is it that the Upwelling Infrared radiation measured at Desert Rock NV calculates using the S-B radiation law to about 334K (61C)? (my comment to you at January 9, 2018 at 7:20 pm)
Have a good day, Jerry
Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE
| #
“Can we all agree to this?”
No.
It’s not the rotation, what about the different albedo?
The moon gets .87 of 1,368, the earth gets .70 of 1,368.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Nicholas,
First, I have acknowledged to Rosco that my question: ‘Are you saying, in your opinion, that the moon’s maximum temperature would not be influenced by a much slower rate of rotation?” contains an absolute mistake. I intended to ask: Are you saying, in your opinion, that the moon’s maximum temperature would not be influenced by a much faster rate of rotation?
And I pointed out to Rosco that in his calculation of temperature from radiation via the S-B law his 0.88 emissivity was actually an albedo which reduced his calculated temperature and that the emissivity used was 1.
So, having set the record straight, I will await your comment about my corrected question.
Have a good day, Jerry
jerry krause
| #
Hi Nicholas,
Have reviewed the ncdc data for Mercury NV and its site is at the same latitude and longitude as the Desert Rock SURFRAD site. Had to do this because Nevada as two Mercury airports.
However, the two radiation measurements you reported for 7/12/2017 are not being measured at the ncdc site. At least in the data file there is only one being reported. So I wonder if your data was part of some article. For I also found that the ncdc data is being used in peer reviewed articles which I have yet to find for the SURFRAD or SCAN data.
There is one significant difference between the Downwelling Solar radiations being measured at 12:00am and 1:00pm on the 12th. Later there is general agreement between the measures. I could not compare the morning measurements because from the SURFRAD data there is considerable influence of cloud. But one cannot deny the difference between the midday measurements is a problem. Or not a problem if the reason for the difference is not recognized, if there is a reason. For the Direct Normal Solar values near midday do correspond closely to the Downwelling Solar of the ncdc data. At this point I do not consider this a primary issue.
The primary issue is that ncdc reports measured surface temperatures which make sense to me even if I do not know how this is being done. For the surface temperatures reported before sunrise are a degree or so less than the air temperatures being measured and about 5 degrees less than the soil temperature at 5cm depth. Thus, measured data is that the surface is cooling the atmosphere as reasonably expected by many but not by Carl Brehmer and others who have written that the air temperature is only warmer than the surface temperature for a brief period shortly after sunrise.
Sometimes I have been accused of being ‘too smart’. Einstein wrote: “It’s not that I’m so smart, it’s just that I stay with problems longer.” And one problem is not having enough necessary observed data. But you (ncdc) have solved that problem for me. Thank you again for your information and your conversation.
Have a good day, Jerry
Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE
| #
Measuring LWIR at the surface is a fool’s errand.
You cannot use S-B BB when there are other heat processes present.
Good luck making any sense out of these data.
Bottom line is this: 288 K – 255 K = 33 C warmer with an atmosphere is rubbish as is the RGHE theory that attempts to explain it.
Quality Controlled Data Sets: monthly/daily/hourly w/ column explanations
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/qcdatasets.html
Mercury, NV
Surf T avg S-B BB Up SolRad Down S-B BB
Date LST Time C W/m^2 W/m^2 C
20170712 600 22.90 434.67 50.00 -100.68
20170712 700 25.20 448.35 254.00 -14.29
20170712 800 27.60 462.96 321.00 1.30
20170712 900 29.90 477.29 313.00 -0.42
20170712 1000 32.20 491.95 731.00 63.96
20170712 1100 34.30 505.63 877.00 79.66
20170712 1200 35.60 514.24 924.00 84.29
20170712 1300 36.40 519.59 931.00 84.97
20170712 1400 37.70 528.38 906.00 82.54
20170712 1500 38.30 532.48 821.00 73.89
20170712 1600 38.30 532.48 678.00 57.68
20170712 1700 37.80 529.06 546.00 40.26
20170712 1800 36.50 520.27 270.00 -10.31
20170712 1900 35.30 512.24 59.00 -93.40
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Nicholas,
Go to https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html radiation plots at Desert Rock NV 7/12/2017.
I am quite sure the Mercury airport is only a mile or so from the Desert Rock NV SURFRAD site.
Just to see a figure of the radiation measurements and air temperature check the six measured radiations and the air temperature. But after studying the figure a little, go to the data set for precise numbers .
12:00am local time is 20:00 UT
So for the four local times 20,21,22, 23hrs the air temperatures are 36.2, 36.3, 37.2, 37.3C
So what listed as surf T are air temperatures
.
Your next column for these four times are calculated from your measured surf Ts using the S-B law. I have no idea what BB means.
The measured Upwelling IR for the four times are 675.2, 689.8, 675.5, 668.5 same units as yours.
The Downwelling Solar for the same times are
1001.9, 994.1, 908.9, 809.3
The Upwelling solar for the same times are
205.1, 209.5, 194.9, 175.6.
When you subtract the Upwelling IR and the Upwelling Solar from the Downwelling Solar you are calculating the radiation balance. Which I believe are your right most column except there is no measured Upwelling solar. But they could have used an average albedo to calculate a value for this from the measured Downwelling Solar.
Which, the albedo, can be calculated from the measured Upwelling Solar and measured Downwelling Solar.
So the four SURFRAD radiation balances are
121.6, 94.8, 38.5, -34.8
So we know that the radiation balance between solar and IR radiations occurs between 2 and 3pm local time.
What we do not yet know is the possible surface temperatures are assuming an emissivity of 1. Using an emissivity of less than 1 will only increase the calculated surface temperature.
330, 332, 330, 329K or 57, 59, 57, 56C
Now i suggest you go to https://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/index.html
and Essex CA which is the SCAN site in the n of Los Angeles.
Go to Soil and Air Temperature, hour, chart, 2017, July, 12, View Historical and you will see soil temperatures at the 2in depth that are comparable to the calculated SURFRAD surface temperature and air temperatures that are comparable to those of the Desert Rock site.
I have trying to advertise the critical importance of the SURFRAD data and the SCAN data. That is why I was so interested in what appeared to be similar measurements but hopefully you can see they are not because of the serious error of using air temperatures as if they were surface temperatures.
So thank you much for the opportunity you gave me.
Have a good day, Jerry
jerry krause
| #
Be sure to autoscale
jerry krause
| #
Hi Nicholas,
As an introduction to ncdc data for Mercury you had written: “Measuring LWIR at the surface is a fool’s errand. You cannot use S-B BB when there are other heat processes present. Good luck making any sense out of these data.”
I need to get up in front before you or someone points out the difference between of the two Downwelling Solar at midday at the two nearby sites is ‘proof’ of the problems associated with radiation measurements. There are four solar radiation measurements made at SURFRAD sites. While I have only studied the SURFRAD data for little more than two years, I know have seen something which I doubt many have seen.
When all four Solar radiation are nice smooth curves during the daytime, we ‘automatically’ consider the atmosphere to be cloud free. Many, I believe can understand the origin (cause) of Downwelling Solar, Upwelling Solar, and Direct-Normal Solar. But I have been asked: What is Diffuse Solar?
What is Diffuse Solar when there appears to be no evidence of cloud? For some know that when we cannot see shadows all the solar by which we see things is diffuse solar. So we all should know that cloud droplets cause diffuse solar. And I believe many more should understand that cloud droplets scatter solar by the Tyndall Effect (Scattering) as taught to his physic students by Richard Feynman.
Now, if one studies the Diffuse Solar measured at Desert Rock during June and July for all the years that these measurements have been made there, I doubt if you will find many, if any below 70 watts/m^2. On July 12, 2017 the measured values during much of the time the minimum value was about 150 watts/m^2.
If you go back to July 12, 2012, you will find clear evidence of cloud. So one had to go back to July 8, 2012 to find a day which has no evidence of cloud. On this day the measured value of the Diffuse Solar is about 95 watts/m^2. On the 7th the Diffuse Solar is about 90. On the 6th the DS is up to about 95 at midday and even a little higher before and after. On the 5th we see evidence of a cold front moving through during the previous night. Now we consider the measured air temperatures at 4pm local time beginning with the 5th: 33, 35, 37, 39, about 93 watts/m^2 and 39C, about 93 watts/m^2 and 40C, about 111 watts/m^2 and 41C, about 178 watts/m^2 and 41C, and finally to the really cloudy 12th: about 317 watts/m^2 and 33C.
From my studies I conclude that the maximum temperature begins to increase as the DS begins to increase above its minimum measured value during the early summer season until the value reaches maybe 180-200 watts/m^2 and when the DS reaches this range the next day will be likely what July 12, 2012 was at Desert Rock. Now, this conclusion is only about the Desert Rock site because I have primarily studied it because days for which there is no obvious evidence of cloud are rare at the other six SURFRAD sites and having two or three such day are really rare.
Now, the issue (problem) was the midday differences between the values of Downwelling Solar at Desert Rock and Mercury sites. I speculate that the radiometer used at Desert Rock ‘detects’ more of the Diffuse Solar radiation than that used at Mercury. At 3pm the values measured became comparable. Since I have never seen any of the radiometers used I obviously know nothing about their physical design.
As I said I wanted to get out in front of any doubts about the differences, and I must admit I wanted to plant the idea there is ‘always’ cloud sized droplets in the atmosphere which may by other observations appear cloudless. But Horace de Saussure, more than two centuries ago, probably considered this as he clearly reported he observed that the cloudless skies had different shades of blue.
Have a good day, Jerry
jerry krause
| #
Hi Pete,
You might consider: http://principia-scientific.org/new-scientific-law-greenhouse-effect/
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Nicholas,
You wrote: But there are no molecules in outer space so what do the concepts of hot, cold, heat, energy even mean without the kinetic motion of molecules? You know the answer to your question is: NOTHING
You should know the proposed temperature (5 Kelvin or 3 Kelvin) is the result of a radiation measurement and the application of the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law. What is the primary ‘original’ of this radiation? The very hot stars of the universe which are very widely spaced.
I did not bother to read beyond the first paragraph, so I have no idea of what you, Tomomason, and Pete did write.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE
| #
The apparent temperature on physical objects vary with distance from the sun’s photosphere, a matter of geometry and algebra.
Venus: average orbital radius = 1.0821E+08 km, area = 1.4713E+17 km^2, power flux = 2,615 W/m^2, SB BB temperature = 463 K. (See my Venus paper.)
Earth: average orbital radius = 1.4960E+08 km, area = 2.8124E17 km^2, power flux = 1,368 W/m^2, SB BB temperature = 394 K.
Mars: average orbital radius = 2.2799E+08 km, area = 6.5320E+17 km^2, power flux = 589 W/m^2, SB BB temperature = 319 K.
No molecules in space and earthly atmospheric molecules up to 32 km are two very different conditions. As noted elsewhere, the atmospheric molecules behave primarily per Q = U A dT up to 32 km and S-B grey body above that.
Reply
Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE
| #
The fundamental problem is this: RGHE theorists attempt to explain the mechanism and process behind the GHE phenomenon, 33 C warmer w/ than w/o atmos, which, in fact, does not exist. The consequence is a bunch of esoteric QED & S-B handwavium that few even really comprehend and without question violates the laws of thermodynamics.
Q = U A dT explains why the earth is the temperature it is without a lot of nonsense and is demonstrated everyday with basic HVAC.
Reply
John Nicol
| #
This is a good and thoughtful article which relates not only to the “temperature” of outer space.
However, temperature is also measured in terms of electromagnetic radiation. The real question about the temperature of space can therefore be answered in terms of what is the energy density of the radiation field at a point in space where, as you say, there are no molecules to be hot or cold. In the vicinity of sunlight this temperature is, again as you rightly say, 121 C or 394 K. However, on the dark side of earth well above the atmosphere, and on the dark side of the moon, the temperature in that space is only 3 K – there is no question about that.
A couple of your sums are a bit wrong – 394 K is actually 121 C not 102 C (Typo?).
The temperature on the dark side of the moon will tend towards that of the night sky from space – about 3 K, but will not reach it because of heat stored withing the surface from the period of exposure to the sun. In a 24 hour rotation – such as the earth without an atmosphere, the mean temperature is, as you say, 288 K, and is NOT dependent on CO2 to reach that. This again, as for the moon , results from the energy from daylight hours being stored in the crust of the earth (about 30-50 cm for which the temperature cycles over 24 hours.) and in the surface few metres of the oceans. What is the temperature of the dark side of the moon at the point JUST before it begins to see daylight again? I suspect it is a long way from zero or 3 K.
Reply
Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE
| #
390 – 288 = 102
394 – 273 = 121
Reply
Squidly
| #
While “temperature” is “measured” in terms of electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetic radiation is not “heat”.
Reply
Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE
| #
I don’t know if y’all are familiar with the included linked data sets. I selected hourly data for Tucson, AZ from 7/1/16 through 7/8/16, inserted in Excel and plotted the hourly variations in average air temperature and solar radiation.
The 24-hour results even with an atmosphere are remarkably similar to Figure 5. As the sun rises the air temperature rises in some exponential or power curve(needs some work) and when the sun sets the air temperature cools at a fairly linear rate.
Comparing the earth’s 24-hour cycle and the moon’s 29-day cycle is not apples and pomegranates or apples and acorns, but perhaps more like Jonathans and Wine Sap or maybe Fuji.
I sent John O’Sullivan a copy of the Excel file and graph. Maybe he can post a copy of the graph.
Daily Documentation: https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/daily01/README.txt
Daily station-year files: https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/daily01/
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Nicholas,
I was not aware these observations (measurements) which your brought to our attentions. I looked at both links and must admit that until you inform me as to which column of the data file is what, I am lost. I do not have the skill (talent, ability) to take numbers from a data file and use Excel to make a graph as you have. But I can give you two other government projects which seem to be generally unknown as the data sets you have brought to our attention. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/metplot.html
and https://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/scan/
Last night I worked on some SURFRAD data to bring to Rosco’s attention. Which seems might be very similar to yours. While we cannot post figures in comments, you can go the site and find the radiation figure plotted for you. As I worked I did not copy the specific link so when I go back i will get it to you.
The important issue we are discussing real data and not I thinks.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE
| #
I would like to reiterate and refocus my two basic points:
1) Without an atmosphere the earth’s physical condition and thermal behavior would be similar to that of the moon. Seems to be lots of nit-picking on the nuances of that comparison.
2) The notion the the “surface” (Whatever that is.) would be 33 C warmer with than without an atmosphere as explained by CO2/GHG based RGHE/QED/S-B BB theory is collective nonsense.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Nicholas,
#1 Are you claiming that the period of rotation makes no difference? Is this consideration nit-picking?
#2. While I agree that the greenhouse effect is nonsense, water and its significant latent heats can not be ignored (overlooked). Without water the earth would be drastically different and obviously barren like the moon. I still consider the faster rate of rotation of the earth would produce a diurnal temperature oscillation whose range would be significantly less than that which is observed for the moon.
I see an article by John Dyer about water has just been posted. Haven’t read it yet but it should be a good read.
Let’s kept this conversation going.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Squidly
| #
I disagree with this in part. I believe with a faster rotation we would see a shorter range (as you have indicated), but I believe we would also see a bit higher temperature, especially average temperature. Just like the 100 cm depth being of constant temperature, this thermal battery (if you will) would serve to impede cooling, allowing specifically the “average” temperature to increase. The high temperature however would likely not increase to that greater than the highest temperatures we see on the moon.
Reply
Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE
| #
The peak/max temperature is limited by the net S-B BB temp while considering the albedo. 1,368 = 394 K 0.15 albedo = 1,368 * .85 = 378 K
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Squidly,
Study some of the SCAN data (https://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/scan/) and you will find the sometimes the temperature at 40in depth is greater than that at 20in depth and sometimes the opposite. This usually depends upon season. I just converted 100cm to inches and see it is about 40 inches. So if you study the SCAN data it is easy to find that the temperature at 100cm is not usually constant even during a day. While the change is not large at 40in, there can be seen an observable change as you propose.
But as you do not propose, the direction of the change changes with the seasons at some locations.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE
| #
According to RGHE theory “back” radiation from the 0.04% CO2/GHG heated atmosphere warms the surface.
What is obvious from trending and comparing the air and soil temps where available in the linked data sets:
1) The air temperature heats and cools a lot rapidly because of its low thermal mass.
2) The ground temperature heats and cools a little slowly because of its high thermal mass. At 100 cm it is almost constant.
3) When the sun sets, the air cools off below the temperature of the ground which continues warmer than the air until the sun rises the next day. This is especially the case during the colder months and in northern reaches where hours of sun light are reduced.
4) In cold regions and deep winter the ground eventually freezes, but only after some time of exposure to sub-freezing air temperatures.
I’ll copy John O’Sullivan with some example Excel files that he is welcome to share.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Nicholas,
I refer you to: https://principia-scientific.com/scan-data-clarifies-nocturnal-inversion-mechanism/ Figures 3&4 Relative to the comments you can see that Carl Brehmer agrees with your comments #1&3.
“1) The air temperature heats and cools a lot rapidly because of its low thermal mass.”,
At Essex CA on 6/30/2017 and the next day, the only time period that the air temperature heats more rapidly than the measured soil temperature at 2 inches increases is at sunrise and shortly thereafter. As you can read in the comments Carl refuses to acknowledge that the soil temperature at 2in depth is not the temperature of the soil surface, which we do not know because it is not measured.
In my comments I did not try to reason what the surface temperature might be because I consider reasoning a form of argument, which (argument) I consider has no place in science. But we have reproducible observations (measurements) which need to be explained. You and Carl seem comfortable with the idea that “The air temperature heats and cools a lot rapidly because of its low thermal mass.” But you and he do not seem to ask: How (why) is the air near (about 1.5m above the surface) actually heated or cooled?
Carl did not explain how the soil temperature at the 2 inch depth was more than 10C greater than the air temperature at midday. Carl never referred to the temperature difference between the 2in depth and the 4in depth.
I now call attention to what happens after 8pm when the 2in temperature drops below that of the 4in depth. And I now ask: What do you think is occurring to the temperature difference between the 2in depth and the surface (whose temperature has not been measured)? Can I reason that the temperature difference between the 2in depth and the surface is greater than that between the 2in and 4in depths? This because both the 2in and 4in temperatures are decreasing until after sunrise the next morning.
I stop here to allow you to digest that to which I have directed your attention.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE
| #
In order to perform a proper heat balance, the system boundaries must be inclusive. In the case of the earth/sun I define the system boundaries from the center of the earth to the center of the sun. Unless we are in orbit or traveling to Mars we don’t care much about the sun to ToA.
I’m sending an animated power point to John O’Sullivan to pass on to you or anyone else interested. I believe I’ve submitted this in the past.
As evident from the temperature profile seen by oil drillers and ground source heat pump installers, there is a heat flow from the core to the surface with a fairly constant temperature at about 30 m.
Irradiation enters the ToA heating atmospheric molecule and the land and ocean surface. How fast these surfaces absorb and release heat depends on their particular specific heat capacity which also depends in part on density.
Heat is energy in motion and it flows unassisted in ONLY one direction, from hot to cold.
There is an energy flow boundary balance point at that 100 m depth, maybe even 100 cm or 1 m.
When the air and ground are hot, energy flows towards the core to some intermediate balance point raising the temperature of the ground.
When the air and ground are cold, energy flows from the core to the surface and the temperature profile shows the ground losing temperature.
So, the top 100 cm or so of the ground acts as a temperature/energy surge tank similar to the hydraulic equivalent.
During the day the temperature profile heats/raises temperature of the layers in order: 5 cm hotter than 10 cm which is hotter than 20 cm which is hotter than 50 cm which is hotter than 100 cm.
During the night the temperature profile reverses and inverts the layers. 5 cm becomes cooler than 10 cm which is cooler that 20 cm which is cooler than 50 cm thanks to heat rising from the core.
I’ve sent John a Power Point of two graphs that illustrate this.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Nicholas,
I consider you have just become a ‘modeler’ and not a scientist. But sometimes you are a scientist when you refer to what is actually seen (observed, measured).
Yes, I know because there have several recent posts here on PSI about the fission reactions which provide the sensible heat (temperature-average kinetic energy) to melt iron. But I doubt, but do not know, that the temperature at that depth beneath the surface has a detectable diurnal oscillation.
What is commonly observed at SCAN sites is the temperatures at 2, 4, 8, 20, 40 inches depths. These temperatures, measured each hour and recorded, are regularly changing during a 24hr period. This primarily because of solar radiation during the day, which can be quite variable on a minute by minute time scale because of possible clouds (SURFRAD measurements).
If one studies most all the SCAN measurements, you might quickly come to the conclusion that soil moisture can significantly influence the thermal conductivity of the soil in various layers. Did you include this factor in your carefully defined system which you have put in motion?
But the bottom line is our conversation is very important because we know about the history of this thing we now term science which was begun by Galileo, Brahe, and Kepler in their time. They each tried their best but Galileo would not accept the validity of Brahe’s naked eye observation and Kepler’s analysis of them because Galileo had the belief that the planets’ paths about the sun had to be perfect circles with the sun at the center. We now know without any doubt that Galileo’s belief was wrong. Just as at their time, Galileo, Brahe, and Kepler, knew, without a doubt, that the earth did not stand still.
So please do not be offended by what I have written indicating I am not in total agreement with you at this point. For a fact, which we know from the history of science, is there are wrong ideas which can be uncovered if we carefully observe (measure) the right things. But another fact is some have come to the conclusion we can never observe (measure) with absolute precision. So there always remains some uncertainty about what we believe to be almost true.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE
| #
IMHO the only question that needs to be resolved is the claim/assumption that the surface is 33 C warmer w/ atmosphere as determined by the difference between 288 K and 255 K. IMHO this comparison/temperature difference has no real physical basis and yet is the absolute foundation stone of RGHE.
If 33 C is indefensible, so is RGHE.
jerry krause
| #
Hi Nicholas,
I agree totally with you (comment at 5:47pm).
So please consider: http://principia-scientific.org/new-scientific-law-greenhouse-effect/
Have a good day, Jerry
Rosco
| #
Hi Jerry – January 10 at 8:57 pm.
“Are you saying, in your opinion, that the moon’s maximum temperature would not be influenced by a much slower rate of rotation?”
My answer is yes, I am saying that for the reason that follows.
I think there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the maximum temperature measured on the Lunar surface is the maximum possible given the Solar constant of ~1361 W/m2 and the estimated emissivity of ~0.88 for the Moon.
The fourth root of (1361 x 0.88/ sigma) = ~381 K – ~108°C – which isn’t bad considering the uncertainty in emissivity.
So, in my opinion, if the Moon had a longer period of rotation than it currently has the maximum temperature would be the same.
“Finally, Earth’s radiative temperature is around minus 18°C – true – ” If this is true, how is it that the Upwelling Infrared radiation measured at Desert Rock NV calculates using the S-B radiation law to about 334K (61C)? (my comment to you at January 9, 2018 at 7:20 pm)”
“Earth’s radiative temperature” is recorded by satellites in space. The fact that the average emissions are of the order of ~239 W/m2 does not in any way mean that there aren’t surfaces on Earth where the actual temperature is over 50°C, such as the terra cotta coloured concrete path outside my laundry is right now measured by a cheap IR thermometer which is OK on a sunny day in SE Queensland with air temperature ~30°C – or conversely significantly lower than 0°C.
The satellites use various bandwidths and compare values to Planck curve maximum’s to measure temperature of surfaces.
You have likely seen this graph to which I have added some geometrical shapes – https://www.dropbox.com/s/kxg7i7iumfdshbm/nimbus-satellite-emissions-infra-red-earth-petty-6-6.jpg?dl=0 ?
It doesn’t mean the maximum temperature the sensor records is less than 29°C.
If you perform an estimate of the total emissions as I show in this graph you will find it is of the order of ~250 W/m2 or slightly more.
You can estimate the total emissions by approximate geometrical shapes of the area under the curve.
For example the area from 400/cm to 600/cm is roughly a rectangle of 100 mW/m2/sr cm^-1 high by 200 cm^-1 wide = ~20000 mW/m2 /sr. The area above this is roughly a triangle of 200 wide x 20 mW high x 0.6 (my estimate) with an area of ~1200 mW/m2.
The total estimate is ~250 W/m2 which is approximately the emissions from an object at ~257 K or minus 15.5°C.
This graph is often presented as “proof” of the enormous “heat trapping” capacity of CO2 – the area between 600 and 800 AND YET the TOTAL emissions from this graph are of the order of ~250 W/m2 which is slightly more than alarmists claim proves the minus 18°C temperature of the Earth without “greenhouse gases”.
It seems all that “heat trapping” accounts for nought !
The final point is measured radiation fluxes. Obviously the satellites can measure surface temperatures.
However I have no faith in the measurements made by the devices called Pyrgeometers.
IF Wikipedia’s description of the mathematics used to “measure” downwelling IR is true then it is easy to show that such algebra is wrong using Planck curves.
The algebra using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation as employed by these devices cannot be verified by the exact same algebra using Planck curves.
The Stefan-Boltzmann relationship between flux emitted and temperature is a result of the data obtained during the cavity oven experiments. The relationship between the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and Planck’s is indisputable and lead to establishing the value of sigma. This radiation is called blackbody radiation.
As both are based on blackbody radiation any algebraic manipulation of flux must be verified by Planck’s equation. I showed almost all of the algebraic manipulations employed as climate “science” fails this necessary requirement.
If algebraic sums totally fail with respect to blackbody radiation how can they possibly somehow be magically right in the real world where the radiation is decidedly NOT blackbody radiation yet the formula for blackbody radiation are used ?
What a joke !
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Rosco,
I had just started a response but it has disappeared and maybe for a good reason. Before I began by asking you to please read my comment at https://principia-scientific.com/baldness-the-greenhouse-gas-theory/. Where I conclude: “The bottom line of science is we all, with our faults and rights, must work together to eliminate our faults as we gather together our rights.”
When you wrote: “I think there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the maximum temperature measured on the Lunar surface is the maximum possible given the Solar constant of ~1361 W/m2 and the estimated emissivity of ~0.88 for the Moon.
The fourth root of (1361 x 0.88/ sigma) = ~381 K – ~108°C – which isn’t bad considering the uncertainty in emissivity.” You made a mistake. The calculation you described assumes an albedo of 0.88 and an emissivity of 1. I immediately picked up on your mistake because I have used the S-B radiation law to convert radiations to temperatures. So I knew that an emissivity less than one produces a temperature greater than the temperature calculated with an emissivity of one.
Next you wrote: “So, in my opinion, if the Moon had a longer period of rotation than it currently has the maximum temperature would be the same.” This caused me to question what I had written. And I quickly found that I had made a mistake–my slower rate of rotation should have been a faster rate of rotation.
I have read the remainder of your comment. I must restate that I consider average anything is nonsense because what science requires is actual observations. Yes, you can refute this by reminding me that temperature is proportional to the average kinetic energy of a huge number of tiny particles, termed atoms or molecules, undergoing random motions. But you conclude with a question: ” how can they possibly somehow be magically right in the real world where the radiation is decidedly NOT blackbody radiation yet the formula for blackbody radiation are used ? Yes, you used the S-B law to calculate a value which was quite near the temperature measured (with a temperature measuring device) near, but beneath, the surface of the moon. I believe, but I do not know because I am too lazy to check it out, that the moon landings were at a latitude where the surface temperature would never increase to near a maximum temperature of about 390K.
For I have used a simple, inexpensive, net radiometer designed and constructed hby Suomi, Kuhn, and ??, be hung beneath an atmospheric sounding balloon to measure the difference between the upwelling IR radiation and downwelling IR radiation during the nighttime to measure the downwelling IR radiation during the nighttime by directly measuring the temperature of its absorbing surface. But I have also used it to measure the downwelling solar at middday near the summer solstice at 45N. And by pointing this radiometer at the sun I have measured a maximum temperature of more than 380K several times. Was this only magic?
“The bottom line of science is we all, with our faults and rights, must work together to eliminate our faults as we gather together our rights.”
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply