In article ,
says...
The effects on the planet beneath the surface would be equally dramatic no
doubt.


Indeed. But the earths core is, itself, a nuclear power station. There
is a tremendous amount of heat being generated by radioactive decay
within the core.

I would go as far to say that it would remain a volcanic planet for many
millenia.

--
Alan LeHun

"Col" wrote in message
...

"AliCat" wrote in
message

...

Surface temperature would be below zero across
the
whole surface of the earth within a few days.
The
oceans hold an enormous amount of heat and
what we
would probably recognise as weather systems
would
continue until they froze to a great enough
depth
to insulate what heat remains trapped below to
such an extent that there was little to
differentiate between frozen water and land
(in
the order of 10's of metres, which would take
several months). Thereafter there would be
little
meridonal flow (N-S/S-N). After a year or two
or
three surface temperature would be 100K, or
less
with little or no wind at the surface. Life as
we
know it would have ceased, but some deep ocean
beasties may survive. I doubt access to
nuclear/fossil fuels would help us much. Some
bacteria may survive in deep freeze for
millennia,
most gasses would have liquefied/solidified at
this kind of timescale, with temperature not
far
off cosmic microwave background radiation
values.


I would imagine vast anticyclones of
unimaginable intensity would quickly
form over all land masses, even the tropical
ones. The Sahara can
become quite cold at night even now.
The temperature contrast from the still warm
oceans to that over the land
would be enormous. I think that the weather in
continental fringes such
as the UK would be 'interesting' to say the
least!
Ferocious blizzards would result, the snow
probably piling up many metres
high. But of course unlike now when the mild air
often wins the cold air will
push relentlessly on into the Atlantic.......

I'm not sure about this. The Earth would still be
spinning, so depressions would still form and move
across the continents, transferring energy from
the oceans and mitigating the radiative cooling.
Once the oceans froze, things would begin to
settle down.

Whatever, it would really bugger up the global
warming advocacy group's "hockey stick" forecast!

In article ,
Dave Ludlow writes:
Well Carbon Dioxide snow would be first, at a bit below -78.5 deg C.

Has that ever been seen in Antarctica? I believe the lowest temperatures
recorded there aren't too far away from that value.
--
John Hall

"I am not young enough to know everything."
Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

"John Hall" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Dave Ludlow writes:
Well Carbon Dioxide snow would be first, at a bit below -78.5 deg C.

Has that ever been seen in Antarctica? I believe the lowest temperatures
recorded there aren't too far away from that value.

I was just thinking that. I think the lowest is about -90C.
So at least in theory there should be a tiny layer of 'snowed out' CO2
on the surface of the normal snow.

Col
--
Bolton, Lancashire.
160m asl.
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co.uk

"Paul C" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 20:39:52 +0100, "Col"
wrote:

.. Oh my God! Does that mean endless snow reports from Nguk


No but it will mean that TWO will predict record high summer temperatures
based on no-sun pattern matching.








--
Paul

In message , John Hall
writes
In article ,
Dave Ludlow writes:
Well Carbon Dioxide snow would be first, at a bit below -78.5 deg C.

Has that ever been seen in Antarctica? I believe the lowest temperatures
recorded there aren't too far away from that value.
From a quick search, the lowest ever recorded temperature was
-129°F/-89.4°C at Vostok, Antarctica, on July 21, 1983. Cold enough for
CO2 snow!

Will
--
lancre.net - The personal domain of Will and Cath Wilkinson.
Remove REMOVETOMAIL. to send e-mail

PGP Fingerprint E089 1736 A023 9E5C AFA3 0B40 E5DC D80A 9E1F D521
Public key can be obtained from ldap://certserver.pgp.com

Well Carbon Dioxide snow would be first, at a bit below -78.5 deg C.

Not so. CO2 would condense out of the atmosphere if the temperature fell
to a level at which the vapour pressure of CO2 equalled its partial pressure in
the atmosphere. At sea level this is 0.37 mb, and the temperature required is
-143°C. At, say 30,000 ft the partial pressure of CO2 would only be 0.12 mb
and the temperature required would be even lower, about -148°C. So no CO2
snow. To say that CO2 should condense out below -78.5°C is like saying that
water should condense out at all temperatures below 100°C, which of course it
doesn't, because its partial pressure is much less than one atmosphere, even in
the Persian Gulf.

Fortunately(?) for
the unfortunate few left on earth, Oxygen and Nitrogen would remain as
gases way down to the minus 200s.

At MSL pressure the boiling point of oxygen is -183°C and nitrogen -196°C
so the "minus 200s" is a bit optimistic. Hydrogen goes a lot lower, of course.
(Put that fag out). But we'd all be stiffs by then anyway.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

On 24 Sep 2003 00:25:22 GMT, (TudorHgh) wrote:

Well Carbon Dioxide snow would be first, at a bit below -78.5 deg C.

Not so. CO2 would condense out of the atmosphere if the temperature fell
to a level at which the vapour pressure of CO2 equalled its partial pressure in
the atmosphere. At sea level this is 0.37 mb, and the temperature required is
-143°C. At, say 30,000 ft the partial pressure of CO2 would only be 0.12 mb
and the temperature required would be even lower, about -148°C. So no CO2
snow. To say that CO2 should condense out below -78.5°C is like saying that
water should condense out at all temperatures below 100°C, which of course it
doesn't, because its partial pressure is much less than one atmosphere, even in
the Persian Gulf.

Fortunately(?) for
the unfortunate few left on earth, Oxygen and Nitrogen would remain as
gases way down to the minus 200s.

At MSL pressure the boiling point of oxygen is -183°C and nitrogen -196°C
so the "minus 200s" is a bit optimistic. Hydrogen goes a lot lower, of course.
(Put that fag out). But we'd all be stiffs by then anyway.

Aahhh... thank you. I hoped somebody would explain it. So we'd have to
wait a bit longer after the sun went out, for CO2 snow ...

--
Dave

--
Dave

In uk.sci.weather on Tue, 23 Sep 2003 at 19:20:19, Alex Stephens Jnr
wrote :
The effects on the planet beneath the surface would be equally dramatic no
doubt.
Forget about electricity or weather, they would disappear.
Gradually the earth would cool down to the temperature of empty space (3°K?
/ -270°C).

It would take a long time - the earth's core is pretty hot.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham, England

Chris Handscomb wrote:
From a scientific viewpoint, what would happen if the sun just stopped
producing light and heat in an instant? What would happen on the day and
night sides of the Earth respectively? How long would it take for the Earth
to freeze - what would the lowest temperature be? What would happen to the
weather systems in the atmosphere, how long would it take for life to become
extinct? Would there still be electricity? For how long? Forgetting about
the social and political aspects of it?

Anyone want to be curious about this and give some answers?

Jeremy (not Chris)



George W Bush wouldn't worry, just as long as he's secured another ten
years of oil supply for the USA.

I'll get some candles in, just in case...

Excellent question!