NavList:

   

Reply

Alex wrote:

> I think it does: if the anomalous refraction always decreases
> with height of the observer, than  the anomalous refraction from
> the space ship would be smaller than that from a sailboat.
>
> And we all agree that it is probably not smaller.
>
> In view of these thought experiments I suppose that
> anomalous refraction is not a monotone function of the height.

Nobody suggested that it was, at least not over the range from sea level
to the Space Station. The position that Bruce and I have been supporting
is that anomalous dip is usually less pronounced for an observer on the
bridge of a modern ship or in the top of a sailing ship than for one
located near the waterline or aboard a small yacht.

As I tried to point out before, in these cases, we are concerned with
the anomalies caused by temperature variations within the one air mass
in contact with the sea surface. Those anomalies are generally somewhat
less at heights of a few tens of metres than they are within a metre or
two of the surface. Observations at enormously-greater heights of eye
are subject to additional anomalies caused by thermoclines that are not
parallel and planar.

We know from common observations of the setting Sun that the combined
effects of all of those disruptions of the path of a light ray passing
through the atmosphere (from the vacuum of space to the surface) at a
low angle can be quite large, relative to the normal range of anomalies
in dip observed by mariners. It would be the same for a ray passing from
the surface to the Space Station but that has little to do with the
issue at hand.


Trevor Kenchington


--
Trevor J. Kenchington PhD                         Gadus@iStar.ca
Gadus Associates,                                 Office(902) 889-9250
R.R.#1, Musquodoboit Harbour,                     Fax   (902) 889-9251
Nova Scotia  B0J 2L0, CANADA                      Home  (902) 889-3555

                     Science Serving the Fisheries
                      http://home.istar.ca/~gadus

   

Reply