@ Carryfast
From “The Future Is Coming” thread in Pro forum.
Carryfast:
How do you explain the fact that you can fly at 36,000 feet in a T shirt as opposed to the temperature outside.
I know I will probably regret asking, but…What?
Sometimes CF`s prose is obscure, but we can see what he is getting at, however in this case (OK far from unique) it just seems…bizarre.
lancpudn:
That explains A LOT! 
Word soup. Recognisably English but not necessarily in any particular order.
the maoster:
Word soup. Recognisably English but not necessarily in any particular order.
Exactly!
But sometimes you can see what he is trying to say.
Here, I can`t see any sense at all unless he is saying a human can…sit in an open cockpit plane, or balloon in a T-shirt at 35,000 feet?
Which is of course possible, but the survival rate would be approximately…zero?
(Sorry no links to studies! Not enough volunteers?)
Higher than Mt Everest, so very thin oxygen, and the minus 54 Celsius might make a T-shirt wearer a bit goose-pimply?
A marathon runner Wim Hof did the full 26miles in Tshirt and shorts at minus 20C in 2009 Finland.
You wont be getting enough oxygen to exercise that hard, and so generate heat at 35,000.
35000 feet in an open cockpit wearing a Tee shirt? At least you’d be able to hang your overcoat on your ■■■■■■■!
Not even a Geordie ■■■■■■■ a Saturday night out could survive that.
You say that you can understand what I’m saying IE you know I meant flying in an airliner.So what’s bizarre about it.
It’s the inconvenient proof that pressure not CO2 cooked Venus.
Just like pressure not CO2 is helping to keep the interior of the plane at a comfortable temperature v outside.
the maoster:
35000 feet in an open cockpit wearing a Tee shirt? At least you’d be able to hang your overcoat on your ■■■■■■■!Not even a Geordie ■■■■■■■ a Saturday night out could survive that.
As opposed to 35,000 feet ‘inside’ a Boeing 747, or a B29, as opposed to a B17.The clue was in the words ‘temperature outside’ at that height.Obviously lots of climate change happening in that plane and nothing to do with CO2.
Two Victorian Balloonists survived, just, an estimated 37,000 ft. No oxygen, an estimated 37.000 ft. No oxygen, heavy clothing.
bbc.com/future/article/2016 … gh-as-jets
Not T-shirt weather, but survivable.
He could be on to something after all; airline pilots have reported geese and certain flavours of vultures at heights in excess of 30000 feet! I bet they weren’t even wearing Tee shirts!
the maoster:
He could be on to something after all; airline pilots have reported geese and certain flavours of vultures at heights in excess of 30000 feet! I bet they weren’t even wearing Tee shirts!
Love it
I could be wrong but I read it as don’t accept crap jobs with “other work” or you’ll be typecast as a mug 
driveress:
I could be wrong but I read it as don’t accept crap jobs with “other work” or you’ll be typecast as a mug
It’s actually related to the question what would Earth’s ground temperature be at 90 bar air pressure let alone 30 million miles closer to the Sun.Using the standard lapse rate.
Which the Climate believers all want to avoid answering for some reason.
driveress:
I could be wrong but I read it as don’t accept crap jobs with “other work” or you’ll be typecast as a mug
Hmmm.
36,000 ft.? Av height of a floor 3.2m or 10.5 ft.
So hes talking about carting a fridge up 3,400 floors! Yep, in that case hes right. Mug.
Shard tallest in UK shade over 1,000 ft
Burj Khalifa tallest in world 2,717ft
(and the advert is NOT Special Effects)
youtube.com/watch?v=AAR1j6UfoG0
^^^I love a “how we did it”!
driveress:
^^^I love a “how we did it”!
I saw the original advert and thought it was clever.
The follow up is excellent.
.
But as another aside…(its Bullys so all is OK)…More than one guy or gal would have been up there regularly: someone has building and maintaining these things as a day job.
Cue a Fred Dibnah video someone?
Carryfast:
You say that you can understand what I’m saying IE you know I meant flying in an airliner.So what’s bizarre about it.
It’s the inconvenient proof that pressure not CO2 cooked Venus.
Just like pressure not CO2 is helping to keep the interior of the plane at a comfortable temperature v outside.
Well sorry, but I didn’t understand that you were talking about the miracle of somebody wearing a t-shirt at 35,000 feet.
.
.
In a sealed, pressurised, temperature controlled, aircraft.
Came across this too.
Recording of a pilot with hypoxia and Air Traffic Control. A short time at high altitude without supplementary oxygen or air supply and…
youtu.be/nz5d4Q_ykFc
Dear Carryfast, aircraft are pressurised to keep the folks inside breathing, with sufficient oxygen in each lungful to keep them comfortable, not to keep them warm. The temperature inside is maintained, not by the pressure, but by heaters. In light aircraft this heat is typically provided by a combustion heater not unlike the night heater in a lorry cab, while in larger jet aircraft it is typically provided by drawing air which has been heated by compressing it - either by the engines’ own turbines or by electrically powered compressors.
Note that in the latter case it is not the static pressure that increases the temperature of the air, it is the work done in compressing it. Without this continuous input of heat, the cabin would quickly cool and all inside would likely suffer hypothermia on any sort of long-haul flight.
Roymondo:
Dear Carryfast, aircraft are pressurised to keep the folks inside breathing, with sufficient oxygen in each lungful to keep them comfortable, not to keep them warm. The temperature inside is maintained, not by the pressure, but by heaters. In light aircraft this heat is typically provided by a combustion heater not unlike the night heater in a lorry cab, while in larger jet aircraft it is typically provided by drawing air which has been heated by compressing it - either by the engines’ own turbines or by electrically powered compressors.Note that in the latter case it is not the static pressure that increases the temperature of the air, it is the work done in compressing it. Without this continuous input of heat, the cabin would quickly cool and all inside would likely suffer hypothermia on any sort of long-haul flight.
A B17 crew v B29 would disagree with you.
Both had a similar 35,000 feet service ceiling.
Obviously no pressurisation in the B17.
The fact is higher pressure air will get warmer for the equivalent heat input
Which is why they didn’t even bother with any cabin heater in the B17.
But they did wear heavy electric heated flying suits unlike in the B29.
It’s also why it’s warmer at the base of Kilimanjaro than at the top.
As for light aircraft cabin heaters they obviously aren’t flying at that height.