Between the earth & the sun when will an object begin to warm up {miles Earth & sun} after the freezing space?
473273
temperature will rise depending on starting temperature, albedo(reflectivity), density, and probably lots of other factors, so there is no set answer.
527301
Difficult to say for certain. Some possibilities include:\n\nSwallowed up as the Sun enters red giant stage\nYou will need: patience\n\nMethod: Simply wait for roughly 5,000,000,000 years. During its natural progress along the Main Sequence, the Sun will exhaust its initial reserves of hydrogen fuel and expand into a red giant star - swallowing up Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars in the process.\n\nEarth's final resting place: Boiling red iron in the heart of the Sun.\n\nFeasibility rating: 8/10. The problem here is that current scientific theories predict the Earth will probably survive. The increasing solar wind combined with the Sun's decreasing mass will result in the Earth gradually moving out to a wider, cooler, safer orbit.\n\nEarliest feasible completion date: AD 5,000,000,000\n\nTorn a new one\nYou will need: about half as much patience\n\nMethod: Recent experimental results seem to show that the expansion of the universe is not slowing as one might imagine it would. In fact, the expansion is accelerating. It's a bit early to say with confidence why this is happening, though phrases like "dark matter" and "phantom energy" pop up pretty frequently, but anyway, it's conjectured that if the ratio w of dark energy pressure to dark energy density in the universe is negative enough (buh?), then the universe would expand, accelerating in its expansion until it was ripped apart at the seams. To quote Wikipedia's entry: "First the galaxies would be separated from each other, then gravity would be too weak to hold individual galaxies together. Approximately three months before the end, solar systems will be gravitationally unbound. In the last minutes, stars and planets will come apart, and atoms will be destroyed a fraction of a second before the end of time." Cool, eh?\n\nEarth's final resting place: HAH! If I knew that, I wouldn't need aftershave.\n\nFeasibility rating: 8/10. Likely. Assumes the Big Rip theory is correct, which it probably is, but might not be.\n\nEarliest feasible completion date: AD 20,000,000,000, assuming w = -3/2 (could vary)\n\nSource: a theory proposed by Robert R. Caldwell, Marc Kamionkowski, and Nevin N. Weinberg in February 2003. Read it here (PDF warning! Also, dense, difficult physics!). Brought to my attention by Jonah Safar and nanite.\n\nDecayed\nYou will need: all-surpassing patience\n\nMethod: If the Big Crunch doesn't happen, and the Big Rip doesn't happen either, then we come back to the third option: the Big Chill. For this, the universe will just expand, forever. The laws of thermodynamics take over. Every galaxy becomes isolated from its neighbours. All the stars burn out. Everything gets colder until it's all the same temperature. And after that, nothing ever changes in the universe. For eternity.\n\nA lot can happen in an eternity. Protons, for example, while incredibly stable, are believed to eventually decay like any other particle. So simply wait for a period of time of the order of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years, and roughly half of the constituent particles of Earth will have decayed into positrons and pions. If that's still too much like a planet for you, you could wait for another 1036 years, leaving only a quarter of the original Earth. Or wait even longer. Eventually there will be as little of Earth left as you wish.\n\nEarth's final resting place: Miscellaneous positrons and gamma radiation (pions decay almost instantly into gamma ray photons) scattered thinly across the entire universe.\n\nComments: It's interesting to compare this method with the one right at the top (total existence failure). What we are essentially doing here is almost exactly the same thing, only instead of expecting every particle to disappear at once, we are waiting patiently for a significant proportion of them to disappear, one at a time, over the course of an unimaginable period of time. Essenti
141597
If there was no sunshine and no vertical air motion, cold air would settle to the surface, and temperature would increase going up in the atmosphere (and we'd all be dead soon ;) ). Because the ground is always radiating away heat (though often receiving more during daytime from the sun), there is a tendency for that to occur. Note the polar regions for example - during winter there is a semi-permanent temperature inversion (increase of temperature with altitude).\n\n2 things which counter the tendency for inversion are solar heating and vertical air motion.\n\nSunshine heats the ground, heat is conducted to air directly above the ground, and convection transports it up into the atmosphere. Cooling/heating of air by radiation is a slower process, so heat builds as spring and summer progress (at mid & high latitiudes) - especially in the lower atmosphere.\n\nAir moving vertically in the atmosphere (up or down) does so at the adiabatic lapse rate, which is 10 °C per km for dry air and less for saturated air (varies depending with temperature - averages about 6-7°C per km). Rising air cools at that rate, and subsiding air heats at the rate. Thus vertical air motions act to heat the lower atmosphere and cool the higher.\n\nThe combined effect of those, as a few people mentioned, is that temperature on the average decreases with altitude in the troposphere - at a rate of 6.5 °C per km (3.6 °F per 1000 ft.). Yet the lapse rate varies depending on conditions. Air during a clear night normally increases directly above the surface, strong inversions may occur during winter and ahead of warm fronts, and air can decrease at the dry adiabatic rate or briefly greater during a warm, sunny spring day. Etc.
365601
for the earth to get closer to the sun, the sun would have to grow or somehow become heavier
740599
Afraid you got it backwards, Lee -- in winter Earth is closest to the sun, in summer we're farthest away. The seasons of Earth are not caused by our distance from the sun but instead by the 23-degree tilt of Earth on its axis.
6045
There are actually, typically multiple scales to an Earth-orbit launch window, one being on the order of days long and the other being a time window within each day.  Furthermore, windows for interplanetary shots may open only every several years.  Besides fitting in with all the external time constraints (other launches, weather, etc.) you basically have to compute the window of time the launch site (LS) will be in a relationship with the desired final orbit to allow achieving it within propellant constraints.  For instance, if this is other than an equatorial orbit the launch must wait until the LS is near the orbital ground track (going in the desired direction).  There are many other constraints and considerations affecting the window, such as type of orbit, solar heating, and so on.  See the ref. for a lot of useful info.
640560
It doesn't really follow that winter occurs when the planet is furthest from the sun. If the planet's axis is tilted, then the coldest weather occurs when a particular hemisphere on the planet is turned away from the sun. In fact, in modern days Earth is at "Perihelion" (closest approach to the sun) about January 3, which is Winter in the northern hemisphere. It is furthest away (Aphelion) around July 4.\n\nOther planets will be closest and furthest away at various times, based on their orbital characteristics.
615371
If the air cools to truly frigid Arctic temperatures such as -40 C and below then the moisture capacity of the air will be so low that likely not much snow can occur. Only at these extremely low temperatures is the phrase "it is too cold to snow" fairly valid.\n\nAt the temperature of absolute zero ( 0 K, -273 C, -459 F) all air including water vapor condenses and loses all molecular energy. The temperature can not cool below absolute zero. \n\nIts can't snow in deep space.......
1029085
The Sun does not have enough mass to explode as a supernova, and its mass is below the Chandrasekhar limit. Instead, in 4–5 billion years, it will enter a red giant phase, its outer layers expanding as the hydrogen fuel in the core is consumed and the core contracts and heats up. Helium fusion will begin when the core temperature reaches about 3×108 K. While it is likely that the expansion of the outer layers of the Sun will reach the current position of Earth's orbit, recent research suggests that mass lost from the Sun earlier in its red giant phase will cause the Earth's orbit to move further out, preventing it from being engulfed. Following the red giant phase, intense thermal pulsations will cause the Sun to throw off its outer layers, forming a planetary nebula. The Sun will then evolve into a white dwarf, slowly cooling over eons. This stellar evolution scenario is typical of low- to medium-mass stars.
544676
I believe that you are referring to the fact that the earth's closest approach to the sun occurs in December/January, which are the coldest months.\n\nFirst of all, it may not be immediately obvious, but only the northern hemisphere is experiencing winter in December/January.\n\nSecondly, distance from the sun is by far not the main reason for differences in temperature on earth.  Rather, much more important is the tilt of the earth on its axis.\n\nWhen the northern hemisphere is tilted towards the sun, the solar radiation strikes earth at a more direct angle than when it is tilted away from the sun.  It just so happens that the northern hemisphere is tilted away from the sun in December/January, so this is when it is coldest, even though the earth is closer to the sun.
1049410
Antarctic.\nthe earth spins around the sun in an ellipse when the artic has its coldest point the earth is closer to the sun in comparison to when the antartic is the coldest
95409
When we're on equinoxes, ie, mid spring and mid fall, the sun is travelling on a path where its altitude at noon = your lattitude. \n\nSo lets take Montreal for example, at almost a 45 degree lattitude. Imagine a line drawn across the sky so that the highest point the sun is at is 45 degrees.\n\nLets move to summer. The angle the sun will be at, during noon on the longest day (the solstice) will be 45 + 23.5 degrees (the tilt of the earth) = 68.5 degrees.\n\nNow during winter, the sun will only climb to 45 - 23.5 = 21.5 degrees.\n\nif you've drawn these lines, you'll notice that the winter line is extremely shorter than the summer line - the amount of time the sun is above the horizon is shorter because you've dropped the arc line significantly, covering up more of the sun's path.\n\nI hope I've conveyed this adequately - the only way to properly see this is to picture it.
526984
NO, angle of the earth on it's axis limits sunlight for a few months. The days never warm up.
1137612
Empty space itself cannot have a temperature, unless you mean some\nabstruse question about quantum vacuums.\n\nHowever, if you put a physical object into space, it will reach a\ntemperature that depends on how efficiently it absorbs and emits\nradiation and on what heating sources are nearby.  For example, an\nobject that both absorbs and emits perfectly, put at the Earth's\ndistance from the Sun, will reach a temperature of about 280 K or 7 C.\nIf it is shielded from the Sun but exposed to interplanetary and\ninterstellar radiation, it reaches about 5 K.  If it were far from all\nstars and galaxies, it would come into equilibrium with the microwave\nbackground at about 2.7 K.\n\nSpacecraft (and spacewalking astronauts) often run a bit hotter than\n280 K because they generate internal energy.  Arranging for them to\nrun at the desired temperature is an important aspect of design.\n\nSome people also consider the "temperature" of high energy particles\nlike the solar wind or cosmic rays or the outer parts of the Earth's\natmosphere.  These particles are not in thermal equilibrium, so it's\nnot correct to speak of a single temperature for them, but their\nenergies correspond to temperatures of thousands of kelvins or higher.\nGenerally speaking, these particles are too tenuous to affect the\ntemperature of macroscopic objects.  There simply aren't enough\nparticles around to transfer much energy.  (It's the same on the\nground.  There are cosmic rays going through your body all the time,\nbut there aren't enough to keep you warm if the air is cold.  The air\nat the Earth's surface is dense enough to transfer plenty of heat to\nor from your body.)
34042
Temperature differential between warmer, sunlight parts of the earth and colder, darker parts of the earth.
604274
It takes light 8 minutes (plus or minus seconds) to travel from the Sun to the Earth. So if the sun 'Died' this second, it will take 8 minutes till we know about it, i.e. the lights go out and the heating is turned off.\n\nHopefully we will still have the stars and moon to merrily sooth us into our freezing tombs.
893069
The sun will get slowly brighter over the next few billion years.  Then, it will go through a red giant phase of expansion and contraction that will last another few hundred million years.  Finally, the outer envelope will blow off revealing a white dwarf that will slowly cool over several more billion years.