🚀 go-pugleaf

On 5 May, 16:45, The Ghost In The Machine
<e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
> By lucky chance the Moon's apparent size is the same as
> the Sun's.  A naive model of the luminosity would suggest
> that the "inlunation" would therefore be about
> 0.12 * (1350 W/m^2) = 162 W/m^2.

As per damage-control usual, that's excluding the secondary/recoil
worth of IR/FIR(longwave photons), easily worth more than twice the
visual albedo spectrum that's reflecting 8~12%, whereas where else do
you suppose all of that other solar influx (88~92%) that's directly
impacting our naked moon is going?

>
> A better model would simply note that an object with
> apparent magnitude -26.73 would have 1350 W/m^2 insolation,
> and for every 5 units of increase of apparent magnitude the
> incoming flux decreases by a factor of 100.  Therefore,
> since the full Moon's apparent magnitude has been
> measured at -12.6, it is almost a million times fainter.
> This yields a value of about 3.01 milliWatts/m^2.  Over the
> "disk viewing area" of the Earth (which is 1/4 of the
> real surface area [*]), that translates into an additional
> 384 gigaWatts worldwide during a full moon, and about 200
> gigaWatts on average during the entire lunar cycle.
>
> (It's not 192 because of Earthshine, so I'm fudging a bit.)

You certainly are fudging, because, that's still excluding the
secondary/recoil worth of IR~FIR, that's worth twice and possibly as
much as three fold the 12% visual limited spectrum, which makes that
384 gigaWatts become worth 1536 gigaWatts at full moon, and otherwise
sharing perhaps worth 768 gigaWatts on average, which is still pretty
much nothing compared to the all-inclusive tidal friction that's
continually working our environment inside and out, unavoidably
causing so much other GW trauma, to the tune of having been sharing
many other teraWatts that's mostly contributed to what's within our
salty oceans and otherwise deep below our too left dumbfounded feet.

We humans at having supposedly been generating 13.5 TW in addition to
our body heat, are as such only worth having added 26.41 mw/m2,
whereas even 10 fold that amount is still only worth 264 mw/m2
(obviously that's entirely surface limited, thus excluding the whole
cubic volume worth of Earth, of which our moon's tidal force and
subsequent friction doesn't exclude).

>
> What one can do about these gigaWatts, I for one do not
> know.  Compared to Sol's contribution of about
> 1.72 * 10^17 W on the sunlit side of the Earth, a few
> hundred gigawatts is negligible.
>
> [*] if one has a sphere of a certain radius r, and a disc with the same
> radius, the area of the disc is pi * r^2, and the surface area of the
> sphere is 4 * pi * r^2, by elementary geometry.

Apparentlty, your "elementary geometry" auto-excludes those pesky IR
and FIR spectrums, just like it previously and otherwise continues to
auto-exclude whatever anti-cathode contributions of gamma and hard-
Xrays.

The full moon's IR shine is offering a fairly considerable thermal
budget (especially while orbiting that physically dark moon at 100
km), that's simply of much greater thermal energy than our atmospheric
filtered and thus moderated IR planetshine(266 w/m2), as having been
LEO measured by God/NASA, whereas our moon's IR shine is especially
extra toasty once we add in the secondary/recoil worth of such raw IR/
FIR spectrums from all of those pesky longwave photons.

Too bad we still haven't established any science platform within our
moon's L1.  Perhaps China or India will soon enough take care of that,
especially since doing such will be so fly-by-rocket efficient to
accomplish and even to interactively station-keep whatever within our
moon's L1.
-
Brad Guth