Mechanics of Temperature Buffering

Abstract:  Hypothesis:  There may be a universal set of 
thermal regulatory mechanisms available to temperature 
systems that are or appear to be in equilibrium with their 
surroundings.



                          The Tub

Consider a tub of water...

If it is too cold, the tub of water freezes, releasing heat 
as it does.

If it is too hot, the tub of ice melts, and in so doing, absorbs 
heat as it does.

The tub contains more energy now.

If it gets hotter, the tub of water gets hotter, and in so doing, 
absorbs heat as it does.

If it gets still hotter, the tub of water turns to steam, and in 
so doing, absorbs even more heat.

If it gets a lot hotter, the steam turns to super-heated 
steam, and in so doing, absorbs even more heat.

If it gets a lot, lot, hotter, the super-heated steam starts 
breaking apart into individual atoms, and in so doing, 
absorbs even more heat.

If it gets a lot, lot, lot, lot, hotter the individual atoms 
absorb so much heat (energy), that the individual atoms 
start to break apart into individual protons and neutrons 
and electrons, and in so doing, absorb even more heat.

and for now, that is where we will leave our humble tub of 
water,  now power-packed with energy.



                Therefore the hypothesis is that:

The change in the condition of the tub of water appears to 
act as a temperature equilibrium mechanism that tends to 
minimize thermal increases or decreases of the surrounding 
environments energy level, at least, up to a point, by 
absorbing the excess energy applied to the system..

. 

         Now, on to our little "water-drop" Earth.

As you probably guessed by now, our blue earth has a large 
temperature buffering mechanism available to it as it is 
covered mostly by a somewhat dominating blue tub of water.

When it receives less heat from the Sun, the water on the 
planet freezes and releases more heat to the surrounds even 
though things appear to get colder.

Well... not as cold as it would be if the water didn't 
freeze and didn't release the contained energy within the 
water.

The frozen poles are really acting as sort of a global 
thermostat.

When the ice poles melt, heat is absorbed by the ice, and 
things aren't as hot as they would be if they didn't melt.  

When the poles gain ice mass, heat is released, and things 
would be colder than they would be if the poles didn't add 
ice mass, and release the heat from the frozen water.

In summary, there appears to be a lot of thermal buffering 
going on...  ...on any surface or subsurface and perhaps 
even supersurface in the cosmos that takes receipt of, or is 
subject to, varying amounts of energy. 



                        The Glacier

Obviously, it is easy to see then, that the melting and 
freezing of the glaciers (water) are our friends 
temperaturewise with respect to maintaining living 
conditions by buffering ambient temperatures on the planet.
nice glacier...  
               


                          See Spot

Scientists tell Joe that the temperature of the Sun has 
remained pretty constant over the last thousand years.

Glad to hear that...  

And as one who has never stuck a thermometer in the Sun's 
ass, i'll just take their word for it.  'sides, tree rings 
fink on temperature regulation too, i am told. 

But the question immediately suggests itself,  "how come?".

What is making the temperature output to the earth so 
uniform?

Seems to me that with all the "fusion processes" going on, 
that all hell would be breaking loose with respect to 
temperature variations. 

So what is doing what on the sun?  What is going on in the 
sun?



                       See Spot run.

Well... for a joe, this is sort of the hard part.  Everytime 
joe has looked up at the sun midday, it seemed to be okay to 
him and burning.. er... fusioning, pretty much the same.

So, all a joe can do is make up a hypothesis about which he 
knows nothing...  (so what else is new?)  :-)



Okay, here we go:  Back to thermal buffering concept again.  

Hypothesis:  When the sun heats up because of a slight 
increase in the fusioning rate, due to some process or 
another, (more on that later) there appears to be a 
corresponding increase in vortexing magnetic sunspots.

And, when the sun slows slightly in its fusioning rate, the 
sunspots go away and voila, we have a maunder minimum 
effect.

Needless to say, the earth's climate would reflect the 
effect of the greater or lesser amount of escaping radiation 
hitting the earth from a varying sun.

Okay, but what has any of this got to do with thermal 
buffering within the sun?



                     Run, Spot, Run...

Thermal buffering within fusion processes?  How did a 
joe get here?  Weeell... the hypothesis is that the same 
rotational events of varying plasma rates as we travel 
farther and farther into the radius of the sun tend to alter 
themselves as the net energy of the sun increases or 
decreases.

So... the hypothesis goes that:  sunspots uummm... perform 
the same thermal heat regulating function within the plasma, 
(as do the glaciers here on earth with respect to air 
temperature) with respect to the effect of the rotational 
magma's variation of temperature to the surface thermal 
transmission rate's increase or decrease, which is dependent 
upon underearth temperature transmission rates.  Naturally, 
some underearth areas will get hotter than others, if the 
magma is rotating, and where they will lie, (oceans or under 
mid continent, will have an effect as to what occurs upon 
the surface of the earth that will subsequently reveal 
itself in various weather patterns.

Because of the events that would create a hotter sun, the 
additional thermal heat is buffered into magnetic vortexes 
that we call sunspots.  That is, the resultant magnetic 
vortexes ABSORB a lot of the additional heat output by their 
natural creation.

Now, if the sun for some reason, wants to get a LOT hotter, 
we should see a real increase in the number and size of the 
sunspots if the hypothesis, and remember, that is all that 
it is, is a joseph_sixpack hypothesis, is correct. 

So we don't have to worry too much about extra heat from the 
sun unless the sunspots start going crazy in size and 
number.

Contrariwise, if the sunspots sort of disappear, we might 
concern ourselves with global cooling, at least until the 
sunspot things start reappearing on the sun once again. 



           Spot! watch out for that bicycle Spot!

               Ohhh... poor Spot got flat...

Thus endeth the theoretical thermal equilibrium discussion 
of plasma "mechanics" of regulatory temperature processes in 
the sun.  And that is why the sun tends to "burn" so evenly 
to make the world safe for butterflies and if you get too 
close to a sunspot, take the iron pliers out of your back 
pocket.



                Cheer up, things could get worse.
                         so i cheered up.
               and sure enough, things got worse...

Regulatory thermal equilibriums are interesting, so the 
question naturally arises:

Does the COSMOS have, or exhibit, an energy-mass thermal 
equilibrium, that can be said to control the vast cosmic 
'temperatures'?

Now i know you have been pondering that all week, so we will 
start right away by looking into examining all the 'heat 
absorption' and 'heat releasing' cosmic events that would 
result in a somewhat constant temperature for the Universe.

                    And here they are...



               This porridge is too cold!...

1.  Well, for an equilibrium to exist, a variation in 
temperatures would seem to have to exist as well.

So in a universe 'cooling off', some sort of 'reheating' 
would have to occur.

Enter ENTROPY caused radiation releasing reactions.



                This porridge is too hot!...

2.  If things get too 'hot' something is going to have to 
'absorb' the extra heat to prevent it from invading space 
and raising the temperature beyond its 'normal' range.

Perhaps the sigma gravitational attractions might act to 
intervene to pull out and capture surplus hot radiation into 
a myrid of event horizons that populate the cosmos.

This process would continually adjust the mass creation - 
mass destruction (well, it gets transformed into radiation)  
or the radiation creation  - radiation destruction (the 
radiation gets retransformed into mass) ratios of the 
cosmos.



              This porridge is just right!...

3.  If a thermal cosmic equilibrium exists at all, the 
existing temperatures of the cosmos are probably a good 
guess as to what temperature is the 'natural' one.



4.                    The Potted plant

Consider a small plant placed in the sunlight.  It absorbs 
some 'energy' from the sun and uses it, presumably to 
'grow'.  That is, the plant absorbs some energy from the sun 
to get bigger. If the plant weren't there, the used up 
(transformed) energy would be still bonking around town.  So 
a plant can capture energy and use it for its own purposes.  
At the end of the plants lifetime, it dries up and 'burns', 
releasing back into the world, the 'energy' that it captured 
from the sun in growing.  If you set the plant on a pyre you 
can feel the infrared radiation and see the visible light 
(presumably composed of photons) as the plant burns.

Therefore:  the fewer plants there are in your window or 
upon the earth, the fewer energetic photons will be captured 
and the higher will be the ambient energy levels upon the 
earth, (assuming nothing else picks them up) warming things 
up upon the glaciers at the poles, in the seas, and on land.  
Nature's temperature processes appear to be mainly just moby 
thermodynamics.

So if we interdict all the prospective energy transference 
events that are capable of existing on the planet, those 
heat causing events will serve to raise the temperature of 
the earth.  Contrariwise, if we leave the plants and the 
water on the planet, these things will absorb a lot of the 
heat.

And that is why joe thinks we shouldn't have cut down the 
topical forests of the amazon or the once mighty forests of 
Ireland, the Mediterranean areas and etc., etc.  especially, 
in a time of sunspots when the sun may be getting 
temporarily hotter.  The net transference of energy to mass 
would then be passed onto the ocean's waters and raise the 
ocean's water temperatures enough to possibly kill all the 
oxygen generating plankton as well as the coral reefs if the 
temperature got high enough.

Remember, the proper amount of oxygen is our friend, carbon 
dioxide is one of our waste products.  It is a no-no to 
breath our waste products, that is what our plants do for 
us.  How these macro sized gas equilibriums play out over 
the millieu is anybody's guess at this time.  Extinctions 
may have even been caused and carried out by massive, albeit 
very gradual, shifts in slowly changing gas ratios.  

i apologize for sticking my nose into this subject as this 
is really an area of investigation for professional 
(nowadays) scientists who have the government or private 
institution money and equipment to assist them in 
determining what is happening and why.

however...

That they, dependant on external sources for funding may 
have to take orders as to what is, or what is not, finally 
published for public consumption. 

For example, for reasons that should be obvious, you 
probably will never get advance notice of a meteor about to 
hit the earth.  The only way you will be able to tell is to 
notice that all the astronomers will have their lawn chairs 
out and sitting in them in the back yard with a final 
scientific watch on the action.  The politico's, the ones 
who know, will be bent over kissing their ass goodbye. 



5.                  Back to our Mundane Earth

Well, we have a lot of ice at the poles that are supposedly 
going to melt with global warming, making Florida vanish, 
and New York soggy.

Beachfront properties will be redefined.

But, what is going to happen weatherwise during the melting 
period when the earth is absorbing the extra heat.

The polar ice (both poles) is going to melt and in so doing, 
it will probably have a temperature equilibrium distribution 
during the melting period.

Translation:  it will get colder than hell for a short time 
before the ice is all gone THEN it will get noticeable that 
things are getting hotter.

BUT the oceans will absorb a lot if not all the heat so 
things might get a tad on the cloudy side too.  And with 
clouds comes rain.

Warm rain of course as by now, the ice is long gone and the 
waters have all risen all that they are going to.  Much of 
the low lying earth will be somewhat altered in habitability 
for humans.  Fish will do nicely -- and mosquitoes. 

Now the latest news is that plants (rain forests) have been 
generating a LOT of methane unbeknowst to scientists.

Seems like most things are unbeknowst to scientists...

And if they are beknowst, only they beknowst it.

Thus endeth joe's hypothesis as to why it has been so cold 
lately, in spite of the melting glaciers.  All that cold air 
has to go somewhere.



6.                    Axis of Rotation

Can we assume that the polar areas when melted won't 
destabilize and alter the planets axis of rotation a little 
because of the 'missing' melted weight of ice is no longer 
there?



7.                      Hurricanes?

Assuming that both polar ice caps are totally melted and are 
stabilized at around 40 degrees fahrenheit and that the 
equator up to the topic of capricorn and down to the tropic 
of cancer will be in a warm range due to global warming, can 
we assume that there will be a minimum of temperature re- 
equilibrium events, that is, Hurricanes and Typhoons?

Sure the water will be warmer, but so what?

Some say that hurricanes of 490 miles per hour will occur.  
But if there is no where for the hot water cloulds to 
transmit there heat because most everywhere is sort of hot, 
and temperatures are somewhat more uniform, i submit as a 
hypothesis, that few hurricanes will form, and of those that 
do, their winds will be of a very minor nature coming in at 
F1 at the max.

i suspect that this area needs to be remodeled.


8.

9.

10.