I honestly think you’re forgetting the atmosphere and like, physical ground under our feet.
no im not, you’re forgetting that the sun exists
Max-Min temps (F) yesterday across 3 different continents:
Lucknow 82-53
Mandalay 90-67
Kisangani 91-76
Porto Velho 85-77
Temps drop by 22 F at night (avg) around the equator. Most tropical land reaches freezing in 1.5 days if the sun vanishes. Forget temperate.
Best case scenario is Tropical rainforest since water holds heat. Middle of Amazon gets “only” an 8 F (4.4 C) drop in 12 hours, so 3.3 days to reach freezing.
keep in mind that these temp drops occur right now, in reality meatspace, despite “the atmosphere and like, physical ground under our feet”. (both of these exist)
Actually, on second thoughts, this comment explicitly proves that you’re a reactionary hiding their lack of investigation behind accusations of immaterialism - just by applying your own logic to real world numbers, you’ve gone from a day to half a week. You have no place opining on this subject.
Yeah, you’ll notice that your “massive” 22°F is the difference between direct sunlight and no sunlight. Do you think there’s another sun to take away after the first one, to get rid of even more sunlight and drop the temperature another 22°?
Why don’t you believe that physical materials are capable of holding heat energy? Why did you latch on to atmosphere and ground instead of the biggest energy store on the planet, the ocean (you don’t need to answer that we know it’s because those are the ones I named)? Why do you think that the temperature difference between day and night - sunlight and no sunlight - is the same as the general rate at which energy is lost from the planet? Have you not ever been outside at night to discover the largest part of the temperature drop happens as soon as the sun disappears?
You’re doing a very good job of the typical liberal application of raw, familiar logic to a new situation, but the only part of it you actually understand is that the sun supplies lots of energy, and haven’t made it any further than that.
no im not, you’re forgetting that the sun exists
Max-Min temps (F) yesterday across 3 different continents:
Lucknow 82-53
Mandalay 90-67
Kisangani 91-76
Porto Velho 85-77
Temps drop by 22 F at night (avg) around the equator. Most tropical land reaches freezing in 1.5 days if the sun vanishes. Forget temperate.
Best case scenario is Tropical rainforest since water holds heat. Middle of Amazon gets “only” an 8 F (4.4 C) drop in 12 hours, so 3.3 days to reach freezing.
keep in mind that these temp drops occur right now, in reality meatspace, despite “the atmosphere and like, physical ground under our feet”. (both of these exist)
Actually, on second thoughts, this comment explicitly proves that you’re a reactionary hiding their lack of investigation behind accusations of immaterialism - just by applying your own logic to real world numbers, you’ve gone from a day to half a week. You have no place opining on this subject.
Yeah, you’ll notice that your “massive” 22°F is the difference between direct sunlight and no sunlight. Do you think there’s another sun to take away after the first one, to get rid of even more sunlight and drop the temperature another 22°?
Why don’t you believe that physical materials are capable of holding heat energy? Why did you latch on to atmosphere and ground instead of the biggest energy store on the planet, the ocean (you don’t need to answer that we know it’s because those are the ones I named)? Why do you think that the temperature difference between day and night - sunlight and no sunlight - is the same as the general rate at which energy is lost from the planet? Have you not ever been outside at night to discover the largest part of the temperature drop happens as soon as the sun disappears?
You’re doing a very good job of the typical liberal application of raw, familiar logic to a new situation, but the only part of it you actually understand is that the sun supplies lots of energy, and haven’t made it any further than that.