Average Moon Temperature

74 thoughts on “Average Moon Temperature”

1. Has the average temp changed over the past decade?

   LikeLike

   Reply

   1. Good question. That could only be figured out from the raw data. That data is too numerous for a laptop (>300MB per 10 minutes), and honestly I haven’t figured out how to combine it properly – so I use derived data from UCLA and WUSTL, who I assume figured it out properly. Unfortunately there is no time component in the derived product, only a long-term average.

      LikeLike

      Reply

   2. My equitorial T is over 215K, while Vasavada’s is 213K. A ~decade has passed. Yeah, I think the moon did warm.

      Climate alarmists will take this as proof that carbon emissions are driving temperatures as far as the moon.

      LikeLike

      Reply

2. Thanks, Zoe. Excellent article on the subject here.

   The problem with your calculation is that for your average temperature of ~ 200K, the equivalent Stefan-Boltzmann radiation is only about 90 W/m2. But we know that the moon’s albedo is on the order of 0.11 – 0.12, meaning that the moon is absorbing some 300 W/m2. It cannot be doing that and only radiate 90 W/m2.

   The problem, of course, is that radiation varies as T^4. So you need to first convert gridcell temperatures to the equivalent radiation, average the radiation, and then convert back to temperature.

   When you do that, you’ll find that the average temperature of the moon is about 270K.

   Best regards,

   w.

   LikeLiked by 1 person

   Reply

   1. Willis,
      Your first link is my first link. Do you read my articles before you react?

      So what you’re saying is that GISS, HadCRUT, Berekeley, etc. need to first convert all their temperatures to radiation, average that, and then acquire average global temperature?

      Have you told them this? What did they say?

      LikeLike

      Reply

      1. Thanks, Zoe. I read the article but I didn’t follow all of the links. So sue me.

         As to averaging the temperature, or talking to HadCRUT et al., you can do that if you’re only interested in relative temperature and you make no attempt to relate it to radiation.

         For the difference, you might enjoy my post here.

         Best regards,

         w.

         LikeLike

         Reply

   2. Willis,
      There’s more to science than just 2D surface radiation. The moon is not an effing plate.

      LikeLike

      Reply

      1. If I said the moon was a farking plate, you might have a point. Since I didn’t, I assume you’re replying to someone else.

         w.

         LikeLike

         Reply

         1. The thing is that the basic core model of the global warming fraud was always a flat earth model. It was as if there was a pancake planet, exactly twice as far from the sun as earth is, where it was noon all the time, and the only heat transfer that anyone worried about was radiation. This was the watts per square metre only story that dominated in the early days. Of course the frauds have gotten a bit more sophisticated over time. But their evolution has been to tack add-ons to a fundamentally flawed model.

            So if anyone looks like they have been influenced by this flat earth thinking Willis, expect a strong reaction in some circles.

            LikeLike

         2. I used to agree with Postma before I discovered the geothermal truth. Now I don’t because he can’t explain surface temperatures. So he banned me from his site. My arguments are here:

            https://principia-scientific.org/the-circular-reasoning-greenhouse-gas-theory-argument/#comments

            https://principia-scientific.org/postma-bams-article-submission-review-of-the-reviewers/#comments

            LikeLike

         3. I’m creating a new camp.

            Here are the camps in climate science:

            Q: Why is the surface temperature what it is?

            A:
            1) Solar alone (Postma)
            2) Solar to the core via entropy top-down “heat creep” (Doug Cotton)
            3) Solar + Gravitational Compression (Nikolov & Zeller)
            4) Solar + GHGs (Mainstream: Alarmists + Lukewarmers)
            5) Solar + Geothermal (I, Zoe)

            LikeLike

         4. Zoe Phin February 14, 2020 at 12:50 am

            5) Solar + Geothermal (I, Zoe)

            I’m also convinced that the very high temperatures on Earth are caused by the sun heating the shallow surface layer of our geothermally heated oceans to the observed temperatures.
            Although the geothermal fluxes are very low, the temperature of our crust and oceans is almost completely from geothermal origin.
            The atmosphere is obviously NOT heating the oceans and the crust 😉
            see https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/ben-wouters-influence-of-geothermal-heat-on-past-and-present-climate/

            Interested to discuss this approach.

            LikeLiked by 1 person

         5. Ben, have you read: ?
            https://phzoe.wordpress.com/2019/12/04/the-case-of-two-different-fluxes/

            LikeLike

         6. Travelling at the moment with limited internet access.
            Will reply later.

            LikeLike

         7. “The atmosphere is obviously NOT heating the oceans and the crust”

            But no one claims it is. The main energy input is without question insolation ( mainly in the tropics ). The proposition is that the atmosphere is slowing down the cooling of the surface: heat loss to space. The supposed AGW is the degree to which antho-CO2 is increasingly slowing that cooling process.

            The physics says that theoretically it should tend to do that unless the effect is annihilated by other climate feedbacks. I see no evidence that this is even detectable at present. In order to make this a “problem” you need to ASSUME climate feedbacks in the other direction which augment the CO2 warming. This happens in climate models since they include assumptions that create this in the code.

            Models warm too quickly , which is a pretty certain indication they made the wrong assumptions.

            If you try to frame that as the atmosphere transferring heat to the much more massive ocean heat content, it is “obvious” that is not right but that is not what the proposition is.

            What you are doing is called a straw man fallacy.

            LikeLike

         8. Greg February 29, 2020 at 11:06 am

            “The atmosphere is obviously NOT heating the oceans and the crust”

            But no one claims it is.

            Seems you’re not aware of the actual claims the GHE “scientists” are actually making.
            see eg Lacis ea 2010 featuring ao Andrew Lacis and Gavin Schmidt.

            Click to access Lacis%20et%20al.,%202010,%20Science.pdf

            Specifically:

            The Sun is the source of energy that heats
            Earth. Besides direct solar heating of the ground,
            there is also indirect longwave (LW) warming
            arising from the thermal radiation that is emitted
            by the ground, then absorbed locally within the
            atmosphere, from which it is re-emitted in both
            upward and downward directions, further heating
            the ground and maintaining the temperature gradient in the atmosphere.

            Notice “further heating the ground”.
            Since the temperature of the deep oceans is ~275K, some 20K ABOVE what the sun is supposedly capable of, the GHE theory DOES claim that the atmospheric backradiation is warming the oceans.

            LikeLiked by 1 person

         9. Notice the previous sentence saying that heat was emitted by the ground. Also notice where he says this energy came for the sun.

            Obviously the IR emitted by the surface is greater than little bit which gets re-emitted back downwards, so the net flow is the warmer body heating the colder body, not a cold body heating a warmer one.

            LikeLike

   3. With an albedo of 0.12, the average insolation reaching the Moon’s heated hemisphere is about 602 W/m^2. Zoe’s 215 K average lunar surface temperature works with the Moon’s day side radiating an average of 594W/m^2, and the Moon’s night side radiating an average of 8W/m^2.

      LikeLike

      Reply

3. Thats fantastic. Thanks. I’ve been waiting for an update on that for years.

   LikeLiked by 1 person

   Reply

4. Raised on Arthur C. Clarke stories, I was scanning the temps for frost on one side of the Terminator (not Ahnilt) and crackling heat on the other. Everything seemed way too hot until I got to the bottom and the spoiler said the temps were in ºK. Ooops. Nevermind. This is some really nice work, BTW.

   LikeLiked by 1 person

   Reply

   1. °K was first mentioned in second paragraph.

      You and our host should take note that the unit of temperature is the kelvin ( K ), there is no “degree Kelvin”.

      LikeLike

      Reply

5. Y’all might in enjoy my post today on this subject …

   Best regards to everyone,

   w.

   LikeLike

   Reply

   1. Please don’t spam my site with links to “Why scientists are encouraging people to drink more coffee” ? ? ?

      Was this an accident or a joke?

      LikeLike

      Reply

      1. My absolute and humble apologies, Zoe. It was a total error. I had thought that I’d copied this link.

         Best regards to you, and again, sorry for the mistake,

         w.

         LikeLike

         Reply

         1. Thank you.

            LikeLike

         2. Oddly , I missed Willis’ moon temp thread until this a.m. He is correct about not adding and averaging temperatures. That is not allowed in physics and his results show that it makes quite a difference on the moon.

            I raised this issue about 4 years ago on Judith Curry’s site:

            https://judithcurry.com/2016/02/10/are-land-sea-temperature-averages-meaningful/

            An average temperature is a statistic, it is not a physically meaningful quantity for energy calculations ( like global warming or moon temps ).

            If you want the know mean temperature of the Greek island of Kos in the month of June it maybe informative. If you want work on energy budgets, GHG “forcings” and such it is meaningless. The current obsession with “average global temperatures” just underlines how little of this has to do with “basic physics” as they so often claim.

            LikeLike

6. Fascinating discussion, I’m not a scientist and I can’t pretend to understand the math. I do enjoy people using their intellect to rationally discuss ideas. It’s refreshing.
   #3 in your list best describes where I stand. Cause and effect rules supreme over any theoretical model. Also, all heat is “friction”. The spot where heat is occurring at its highest temperature, is also the source of the friction/reaction. Eliminate the variables, what is left must be the answer.
   For example, the south pole experiences six months no Solar input… One variable eliminated. When darkness occurs on the moon or mercury, temperatures quickly plummet to near -300°F. The south pole, in winter, averages -70°F at a height of 10,000 feet. Where does the heat come from to emit IR radiation for six months without a source? Even Mars gets 2x colder than this at night. (Earth heat through 3 miles of ice doesn’t seem to be a factor)
   That just leaves atmospheric pressure, depending on altitude, as the frictional heat source. The greatest amount of heat will occur at the bottom of the air column. The ground.
   Now compare the south pole, to the north pole which experiences the identical circumstances except for one factor, it is at sea level. More atmospheric pressure = higher temperatures then the south pole. The earth heat, in the form of warm liquid Arctic water, is beneath the average thickness of 9 feet of ice. It does not substantially raise the air temperature let alone melt the ice. Even so, it is much warmer than the south pole.
   Now plug-in the next conundrum. Watts per meter squared… The south pole, during the summer, experiences 24 hour sunlight for months! Under the standard model, it should be the hottest place on earth… It’s summertime average is -40°F. That’s only an increase of 30°, unimaginable! Perhaps the sun doesn’t have as much influence as we think. Real “Cause & Affect”, not a theory or a model but actual physical measurements.
   The chinook winds affect… Doesn’t anyone find it curious that the Chinook winds holds the Guinness book of world records for the fastest/hottest temperature fluctuations and yet does not accur in any global warming science models? Even in Antarctica, heavy cold air flows off the continent from 10,000 feet down to sea level heating 50 to 60° as the air compresses. Still cold enough to freeze science vessels in the ice.
   Next conundrum, Mount Everest is closer to the sun receiving more of its fair share of ionizing radiation and sunlight. It’s not hot. Low atmospheric pressure.
   Death Valley, on the other hand, is below sea level having higher atmospheric pressure and is consistently warmer than the surrounding desert. Even in the winter time or cloudy conditions.
   The evidence is clear and reproducible at any location or climate on earth. For every thousand feet you climb out of our atmosphere, you lose 5.4°F (depending on humidity)
   The best part is you can reproduce this Air pressure = heat experiment on every planet in the solar system. (Except for the ones without an atmosphere!) The thicker the atmosphere, the greater the heat. All of the gas giants, for example, are hotter under their atmosphere then the surface of the sun (photosphere).

   Another example I just remembered, storm systems. A low pressure cyclone occurs because matter cannot exist in the same space. Lighter/ more buoyant water vapor pushes air molecules out, resulting in a drop in air pressure, colder temperatures. Lower air pressure always is associated with lower temperatures. Same with the eye of a hurricane.

   LikeLiked by 1 person

   Reply

7. Zoe,
   My result for the Moon was 200.3K, very close to your result!

   However this may be the wrong average.
   Though the simple arithmetic average is 200.3K the result calculated from (average(T^4))^0.25 was 270K.
   The temperature of 270K is also what is predicted using an energy balance based on 1360W/m2 and a Bond albedo of 0.11.

   The difference between the simple average and (average(T^4))^0.25 appears to be greatly reduced by an atmosphere, Mars came out as 205 / 208K respectively and the Earth came out as 287.8 / 288.6K respectively.

   LikeLiked by 1 person

   Reply

   1. “The temperature of 270K is also what is predicted using an energy balance based on 1360W/m2 and a Bond albedo of 0.11.”

      And the moon is the same size as the sun from Earth’s POV. Coincidence.

      Physically placing thermometers on every square meter of the moon would record ~200K. That’s the only measure that counts. Average radiation converted to a temperature is not an experience a human or thermometer would, well, experience.

      LikeLike

      Reply

      1. “And the moon is the same size as the sun from Earth’s POV. Coincidence.”

         The cycle time of luminosity variations in the star Betelgeuse, 700 light years away, is 430 days. That just happens to be the period of the Chandler nutation in the Earths polar axis. Coincidence, most likely.

         “Physically placing thermometers on every square meter of the moon would record ~200K. That’s the only measure that counts.”

         Wrong. That is not “a measure”, it is millions of measurements. Those individual measurements “count” at individual sites and may be used to calculate energy terms. Means of temperatures from different sites are not physically meaningful and no human has ever experienced such a mean temperature.

         LikeLike

         Reply

         1. The average family has 2.3 children. ZERO families have ever “experienced” 2.3 children.

            LikeLike

         2. “The average family has 2.3 children. ZERO families have ever “experienced” 2.3 children.”

            Stupid analogy. Temperatures are not limited by whole numbers. You can have 2.3 degrees. Sorry you didn’t know.

            LikeLike

         3. True, no human has ever been to every square meter of moon with a thermometer in his hand. In any case, both human and thermometer will not experience the temperature converted to radiation, averaged, then converted back to temperature (the Willis method).

            LikeLike

         4. It’s not stupid, it is to point out that no one experiences statistics. No being on earth experiences the mean of land and sea surface temperatures , even locally. Yet that seems to have become the definitive parameter we are supposed to destroy our society to “control”.

            At the same time that the means to control this is supposed to be by changing atmospheric CO2 and its “radiative forcing”, we are choosing a physically meaningless metric, not directly related to energy to measure it.

            LikeLike

         5. Right, no ONE being. But we have many thermometers and satellites and we can average it. There’s nothing wrong with this. Did you know that the average North Korean is shorter than a South Korean? Can we learn something from this fact? Sure.

            LikeLike

         6. Lies, damned lies and statistics.

            There is nothing wrong with statistics , it is what you do with them that can go wrong. If you take a thousand temperatures throughout the volume of a pool, you can use them to estimate the total heat content, since it is a uniform medium with the same SHC.

            If you try to use the average temp to work out the energy radiated to space by the surface you will go wrong.

            As I explained above, there are limited situations with special conditions where temp can be used as a proxy for energy but it is still the energy you need to be averaging because it is an extensive property of matter. Temperature is not.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensive_and_extensive_properties

            LikeLike

8. Something interesting, the deepest shaft. The further down you go, hotter it gets.
   http://www.superiorarizonachamber.org/2017/06/07/mining-mile-175-degrees-600-gallons-water-minute/
   There are more recent YouTube videos.

   LikeLiked by 1 person

   Reply

   1. I analyze borehole measurements:
      https://phzoe.wordpress.com/2019/12/06/measuring-geothermal-1/

      LikeLike

      Reply

9. My guess :

   3) Solar + Gravitational Compression (Nikolov & Zeller)

   ( is there something to win ) /s

   LikeLiked by 1 person

   Reply

   1. Great. Could you explain how the directed motion of gravity produces RANDOM movement of molecules (Kinetic Energy)?

      I feel N&Z have it completely backwards.

      LikeLike

      Reply

      1. Compression causes warming ( more random kinetic energy). Look up Foehn wind phenomenon to understand how it work in the atmosphere as air drops down the leeward side of a mountain.

         LikeLike

         Reply

         1. BTW the source of the energy is this case is ocean heat content. It’s rather complex series of interactions but if you chase it back the heat energy in the Sirocco winds comes from the ocean originally. This is why that fuss about on meteo station on the tip of the Antarctic peninsula showing 17.5 deg C is a total red scarf trick and bears absolutely no relation to the rest of the Antarctic continent, nor “global warming”.

            LikeLike

         2. “Look up Foehn wind phenomenon to understand how it work in the atmosphere as air drops down the leeward side of a mountain.”

            That side of things is not the real problem. If the air rolls off Atherton tablelands down to Cairns it will heat when it reaches Cairns pressure. No problem there. Like when you compress air in a scuba diving tank. What we really want to know is that if we reduced the air pressure of the globe, such that Cairns air pressure is what Atherton tablelands pressure used to be, would the average temperature of Cairns drop close to what the Atherton tablelands was before?

            I think it probably would drop much of the way. But its hard to prove that. And which is the most productive model? Should we have this air pressure model and use internally generated energy, plus other factors as an add-on? Or should we go to Zoe’s model?

            At least we know that the focus on CO2 is incredibly excessive. Because if it had much of an effect the average temperature of Cairns and the Atherton tablelands would be quickly converging. This we don’t see.

            LikeLike

      2. “motion of gravity” ain’t the picture. Gravity is a attribute, a feature of mass – every mass comes with the attribute “gravity”.

         Gravity itself doesn’t exist. But every mass is bound / burdened with gravity.

         Hope that answers the question.

         LikeLike

         Reply

         1. It’s similar to the idea that two rocks don’t attract gravitationally, even when you bring them together, holding one on each hand. If you drop them, they fall because they are attracted towards the core of the Earth. The material between, ie the crust and the mantle, has nothing to do with it. It’s completely different to what scientists say but makes perfect sense. I feel like I’m a bit like a flat-earther ie totally at odds with mainstream normality!

            LikeLike

         2. “It’s similar to the idea that two rocks don’t attract gravitationally, even when you bring them together,”
            Gravity is a very weak force. You more mass/weight than could lift with hands, and even at mass smaller than car
            the force is hard to measure- you could not feel the difference But it common science experiment to measure the force gravity that was first done centuries ago. wiki:
            “The Cavendish experiment, performed in 1797–1798 by English scientist Henry Cavendish, was the first experiment to measure the force of gravity between masses in the laboratory and the first to yield accurate values for the gravitational constant.”
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
            Henry used two lead balls weighing 348-pound (158 kg) and two balls weighing 1.61-pound (0.73 kg)
            Also here a You tube video {using about 1/6 of that above mass]
            In real time, it’s quite slow/boring to watch {and bonus, you get to watch lead bounce]:
            

            Due to rock low density, you need a lot larger and heavier rocks get the same effect. In space one has quite massive rocks and some these space rock have have smaller rock moons orbiting them. And such space rock have have impacting the Earth surface for billions of years, and therefore if they had dark matter we would have found this dark matter at the Earth surface.

            LikeLike

         3. gbaiki, we’re not talking about already formed massive bodies.

            What we’re talking about is STARTING to convince some atoms, molecules to further travel alongside, together, as if they were “glued” one of the other.

            As they meet with different velocities in different directions gravity’s to weak to bind them to become CELESTIAL BODIES – electrostatic forces WILL DO !

            LikeLike

      3. Pls. don’t make that grave. Gravity is just 1, of course a heavy, facet of: mass.

         LikeLike

         Reply

         1. When you use the term “m-a-s-s” you are subscribing to an assumption that all matter is equal. No-one has cut a planet in half to see whether it’s the same all the way through.

            LikeLiked by 1 person

10. Greg March 1, 2020 at 4:52 am

    Obviously the IR emitted by the surface is greater than little bit which gets re-emitted back downwards, so the net flow is the warmer body heating the colder body, not a cold body heating a warmer one.

    That is what SHOULD be obvious, even to climate scientists and other Greenhouse believers. Unfortunately it is not.
    
    This cartoon shows on average 2x greater than the amount of solar that “directly heats the ground”.
    From Lacis ea 2010:
    “

    The Sun is the source of energy that heats Earth.

    This completely ignores the fact that >99% of Earth consists of molten rock and molten metal, with a temperature (much) higher than the surface of Earth. Although solar flux is the highest energy flux at the surface, the heat content of Earth (including crust and oceans) is almost entirely from geothermal origin.
    Our Sun just slightly increases the temperature of the upper 10-20 meters of crust and perhaps the upper 400-500m of our oceans.
    The hot oceans are the main reason for the > 90K higher average surface temperature of Earth compared to our Moon.
    So yes, the atmosphere does slow the energy loss to space, and without atmosphere it would be colder on Earth, but the atmosphere does NOT “further heat” the crust and the oceans.

    LikeLike

    Reply

11. @Ben: It is a misunderstanding to think that the vacuum space around the Earth’s atmosphere is “cold.” Vacuum space contains virtually no atoms / molecules and is therefore neither cold nor hot. Only radiation that travels through the vacuum space (such as solar radiation) can heat bodies. Bodies in a vacuum cool slowly by radiating their energy away.

    Compared to the vacuum space, our atmosphere has more options for removing heat. In addition to the above-mentioned absoption options, the conduction and convection help to keep the surface cool. The widespread idea that our atmosphere causes the earth to cool less quickly is based on a completely wrong view. Precisely the contrary is the case. If it wasn’t for the atmosphere, the earth would have far fewer options to dissipate its heat.

    LikeLike

    Reply

    1. Do you know of any way to quantify any of that Jack? Like to get a measure for how good an insulator space is?

       LikeLike

       Reply

       1. @Visigothkhan: See the work of Alberto Miatello. A link to the article can be found in my reaction to Ben. This article also contains a calculation.

          LikeLike

          Reply

12. JackNL March 2, 2020 at 11:47 am

    The widespread idea that our atmosphere causes the earth to cool less quickly is based on a completely wrong view.

    Sorry, not buying. Just look at the lunar temperatures:
    https://www.diviner.ucla.edu/science
    Our moon has no atmosphere to speak of.Yet it is perfectly capable of radiating into space and cool down as quickly as the setting sun allows.
    Only exception the 89 lat plot that bottoms out around 40K,most probably due to the lunar geothermal flux providing a minimum temperature of ~25-50K

    LikeLiked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. @Ben: read this.

       https://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Vacuum_space_and_Spencer.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjIm9LuvPznAhWJyqQKHUaHBLAQFjAAegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw0NMWcbUfNr226uoR2JYwX4

       LikeLike

       Reply

    2. Ben,
       I’m currently working on a new article “Deducing Lunathermal”. Having trouble with all the parameters. Can’t get them to match all observations. But preliminary results show moon-wide average geothermal to be around 105 Kelvin, i.e ~7 W/m^2.

       LikeLike

       Reply

       1. Zoe Phin March 2, 2020 at 4:01 pm

          https://www.diviner.ucla.edu/science
          Seeing the 89 lat temperature converge to ~40-50K after > 120 earth days without sun and the temperature of the Hermite crater (25K) I’d go for ~100 mW/m^2 of geothermal flux.
          The very low conductivity of the lunar regolith makes 7 W/m^2 look pretty high imo.

          LikeLike

          Reply

          1. Ben,
             I distinguish between geothermal flux and geothermal emission. The geothermal flux is a gradient measure. It’s important for prospectors but not for surface T.

             The 89th latitude is a very tiny portion of the moon. I was talking about the average for the whole moon.

             Without that 105K support, the sun would have to waste its energy heating deeper, i.e. the surface temperature would go down. If the moon was a dead rock at 0K, the surface T would be fully sun controlled and at T=~160K, rather than the 200K it is with the 105K lunathermal support.

             LikeLike

          2. Zoe Phin March 2, 2020 at 5:42 pm

             Without that 105K support, the sun would have to waste its energy heating deeper, i.e. the surface temperature would go down.

             Agree, but this temperature doesn’t say much about the MAGNITUDE of the flux.
             As long as the mantle is (much) warmer than the surface the Geothermal Gradient settles at the average surface temperature for a given location.

             

             This one includes permafrost, but the principle applies universally.
             For the moon we need to know the temperature the surface would cool down to after switching of the sun.
             89 lat and the Hermite crater give a good indication. The other latitudes carry stored solar energy to the night side and have a “warmer” GG, so take a loooong time to cool down. ~7 days is not enough.

             I distinguish between geothermal flux and geothermal emission.

             Seems less relevant for Earth, since ~70% of the surface is ocean. The flux (~100 mW/m^2) “heats” the water in contact with the ocean floor by conduction only. Solar flux and GF are separated by some 3000 m water.
             Yet 100 mW/m^2 is enough to bring all ocean water from freezing to boiling in just 500.0000 year.
             Reason the oceans are not boiling is the cold water that sinks to the ocean floor at (very) high latitudes (brine).

             LikeLike

    3. Remember that the moon is a particularly cold lump of rock. The moon has no hot core like the earth does. After the sun has warmed up – a thin shell of the lunar surface – most of the heat is accumulated by the mass of the moon through conduction. A much smaller part of heat is emitted.

       Conduction has much more potential to dissipate heat than emissions.

       LikeLiked by 1 person

       Reply

       1. Jack, my preliminary research shows that if there was no ~105K geothermal source, the average moon T would drop from ~200K to ~160K.

          LikeLike

          Reply

       2. https://www.universetoday.com/93696/if-the-moon-currently-has-liquid-magma-why-isnt-it-erupting/

          LikeLike

          Reply

13. It is said that a mars sized object hit the earth. (I’m looking over my shoulder and I see an elephant in the room)
    2 miles of the lunar crust facing the earth is missing, exposing the lunar core. Much of the surface is covered in either basalt or obsidian… Scorch marks probably from an atmosphere encounter at high-speed. If it is lava, the lunar seas are large enough to cover the North American continent and yet there are no volcano(s). Would not that volcano be miles high in the low gravity of the moon? Mount Olympus on Mars is 7 miles high but the base only covers the area of Arizona.
    It’s odd that rock analysis verify that the moon and the earth are made from the same substance. If the moon deposited its outer crust on the earth on top of lime stone from our ancient atmosphere, heat and pressure would turn the calcium carbonate into fossil fuel as the lunar material that now forms our drifting continents slide around in continental drift.
    This also explains how heavy metals are found on earths surface. Such an impact would not only blast granite up from the depths but heat and pressure at the impact site would cause transmutation of the elements normally found only in a supernova. We are not made of star stuff, but moon stuff!
    The heavy metals created in such an impact would not fly outward as atomized plasmas but would be forced into the surrounding dirt as it fell to the surface of the earth captured where we can easily access it. The half-life of uranium would have been spent had it not occurred only a few billion years ago. Not at earths creation, but after life transformed our atmosphere into oxygen which burned on impact. The first and greatest extinction event.
    Magnetic induction will react to any heavy metals in the lunar core. Earths magnetic field is weak. Jupiter, on the other hand, has such a strong magnetic induction to “Io” that the moon is continuously erupting even though it’s in tidel lock. That’s a lot of heat 5 AU from the sun. I wonder if it’s the influence of the great red spot which appears to also be a second magnetic south pole? The magnetic fields will fluctuate strongly with every rotation.

    LikeLike

    Reply

14. “It is said that a mars sized object hit the earth. (I’m looking over my shoulder and I see an elephant in the room)”

    This ought to be interpreted as yet another NASA creation myth. This is their creation myth for how the moon was born. These are very primitive people and lacking in creativity. So you’ll probably get better creation myths from the Maori or the Hopi Indians. Its notable that NASA’s creation myths betray the idea that nothing is created except in violence. Its the banking dynasts state of mind. He claps his hands and people come running. He manipulates a war and he achieves some of his goals. So their universe starts with an explosion, their solar system with an implosion, their higher elements are all created in supernovae explosions and the moon is created out of a crash. All complete bullshit and antithetical to any understanding of how complex things are manufactured.

    LikeLike

    Reply

15. @Visigothkhan: See the work of Alberto Miatello. A link to the article can be found in my reaction to Ben. This article also contains a calculation.

    LikeLike

    Reply

    1. I’ll take a look. But Ben’s argument strikes me as pretty sound. In my model the earth will be creating a lot more internal energy than the moon. But there seems to be a big temperature difference here. Maybe more than could be accounted for from new energy creation. Until we can get pretty good evidence to the contrary; Ben’s argument may have the upper hand.

       We can see the stars and galaxies far away. That implies aether in between. Where there is aether there should be both thermal energy and electrical energy transmission. For there not to be thermal energy transmission to space, under those observations, then we are going to need conversion to something other than light ….. and then reconversion back to light when it hits an atmosphere. This is real possibility and we may be experiencing the universe in real-time if so.

       There is some evidence for this possibility. But its by no means cut and dried. On both sides of this argument, there are people brought up on aether denial. So it takes awhile for all parties to bring their head around.

       LikeLike

       Reply

16. No wonder the moon cools so fast. That is not because there is no atmosphere, but because the heat disappears very quickly in the very cold mass of the moon by conduction.

    When do you think that you will be supercooled the quickest?
    1) naked in windless weather with a temperature of 0 gr. C. (Mostly emission, with some degree of convection/conduction)
    2) naked in the water with a temperature of 0 gr.C. (conduction)

    The rapid cooling of the moon certainly does NOT prove that the surrounding space would be cold. It shows that conduction has much more potential to dissipate heat than emissions.

    LikeLike

    Reply

    1. Sure but you cannot rightly just use new data to shore up ONE paradigm. The scientific method, properly considered, should require you to review the data with three-five differing models in mind.

       Highly pressurised nitrogen at 100 degrees Kelvin will cool me faster than space at the same temperature ….. but the claim is being made that space is a super-insulator. Thats a big claim and I don’t see it. I think this is swinging from one extreme, into another, under conditions of aether-denial.

       LikeLike

       Reply

       1. Read the Miatello article. He calculated the effect. This is not a new fact. Look at insulation glass and a vacuum bottle flask, both use the principle. We have known the insulating effect of vacuum space for decades.

          LikeLike

          Reply

       2. “but the claim is being made that space is a super-insulator. That’s a big claim”

          Where did I say that? I mainly say that the idea that the space has a temperature of 0k is wrong. The space itself has no temperature. In addition, I say that the space lacks two of the three possible ‘heat transfer principle’. No conduction, no convection, there’s only emission to matter, which is only sporadically present.

          By the way, why would you think our atmosphere would be such a good insulator? Because everyone says so? Don’t believe the hype.

          LikeLike

          Reply

17. “No conduction, no convection, there’s only emission to matter, which is only sporadically present.”

    Why not emission to space? Since we can see starlight from millions of light-years away, that looks like emission to space. Since we are told that space is 3 degrees Kelvin that also looks like emission to space.

    LikeLike

    Reply

18. gbaikie – (there wasn’t a ‘reply’ option to your comment) – I’m familiar with mainstream physics and the Cavendish experiment which shows that there is a minuscule force of attraction measured between everyday objects at close range. This doesn’t exclude the possibility of strong gravitational matter existing at Earth’s core. Your point about this dark matter not being found on the surface of the Earth is a valid one but I would make the case that it would arrive with such high energy within comet cores as to go through the crust and meet up with the Earth’s interior.

    The other interesting case is that this dark matter may have been found in small quantities in our ancient past and become part of religious objects aka ‘ark of the covenant territory’..

    The science community is at a stumbling block and so far-out ideas should be carefully considered imo.

    My belief system is that the Moon doesn’t pull on the oceans *at all* to create the tides and that the water is pushed from underneath due to earth-tides
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_tide

    LikeLike

    Reply

    1. –This doesn’t exclude the possibility of strong gravitational matter existing at Earth’s core. Your point about this dark matter not being found on the surface of the Earth is a valid one but I would make the case that it would arrive with such high energy within comet cores as to go through the crust and meet up with the Earth’s interior.–

       That is possible. It’s particularly possible due to unknown characteristic of dark matter.
       But with dense material we know about, like depleted Uranium: 19,050 kg per cubic meter or tungsten: 19,300 kg
       per cubic meter, if you had pure tungsten or Uranium which was 10 km in diameter, then it which not do this.
       If it was 100 km in diameter, it might. But I am taking about space rock which less 2 km in diameter and we know there density {and it’s like 2 – 4000 kg per cubic meters and if have dark matter in them the mass of dark matter would have to be small portion of the entire rock mass. Which still leaves us with the unknown characteristic aspect.
       We could talk about the theoretical sustenance of Neutronium – wiki: “(sometimes shortened to neutrium, also referred to as neutrite is a hypothetical substance composed purely of neutrons.”
       And considering recent news about our galaxy forming roughly in current shape much earlier than was imagined- that might indicate more Neutronium in our galaxy- then before was imagined.
       Of course we don’t how Neutronium would react to “normal matter”. But there are pretty good theories indicating it does exist.
       It also possible that Earth or more likely Jupiter has created dense matter, which the planets make in pressures we can’t make. So talking about diamond like material, which could carbon made an even higher pressure, or some other element or compound, so like pure silicon or tungsten.

       LikeLike

       Reply

       1. Okay, you seem vaguely open to the idea but are keen to keep to the mainstream standard of density=mass/volume to explain the unexplainable. It reminds me of the top scientists who are pursuing the idea of superfluid dark matter so that new physics doesn’t need to get involved.
          I can only hope Professor Ghez of UCLA announces Einstein’s gravity theory incorrect after she has recently declared it showing signs of vulnerability
          https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/einstein-general-relativity-theory-questioned-ghez

          LikeLike

          Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Enter your comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (required) (Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of new comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

Δ