Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
radiative
coupling to something like the 2 pi steradians that aren't open
"sky."
I've noticed that a lot of people seem to be uncomfortable with that
explanation despite its fundamental correctness. Of course, it's not
completely correct because the atmosphere is not completely
transparent. Indeed, on cloud covered nights the sky is basically
opaque and, as a result, radiative loss to the sky is not as big an
effect. (More correctly, while radiation to the sky is just as big
an effect, depending only on the temperature of the radiating object,
it is countered by massively larger radiative input from the clouds
above at temperatures > 273 K rather than the piddling input from
deep space at 3 K.) Moreover, there are lots of competing and
complicating processes including convection in the air, conduction
both to the air and through supports to the ground, and radiative
coupling to something like the 2 pi steradians that aren't open
"sky." As a result the effect isn't always so apparent. But most
people do know that, in midwinter, clear skies make for much colder
nights.