The accepted research on Climate Global Warming all it leads to is a confussing cloud of inconsistencies, of discrepancies, and of uncertainties...
The research always comes to the dead end.
It is time to get back, and to start anew from the science's the very basic beginnings...
The S-B emission law cannot be applied neither to the planet solar lit side, nor to the planet darkside.
The Stefan-Boltzmann emission law is about the blackbody emission intensity of the hot bodies.
Hot bodies are the previously warmed bodies, or bodies having their own inner sourses of thermal energy.
Planets and moons surfaces' are very much insulated from the primordial heat the inner cores possesed.
Thus, planets and moons surfaces' temperatures do not rely on the inner sources of thermal energy.
Planets or moons are used to be confused with the hot bodies in the S-B emission sense, and it lead to the mistaken assertion:
“Nothing, other than the absorbed radiation is what warms the matter to some (local) temperature, which, along with the matter properties, determines the Planck spectrum and S-B flux of the outgoing thermal radiation.”
A New, a CORRECT ASSERTION should be made:
"When incident on planets and moons solar flux (the solar EM energy), the solar flux interacts with surface's matter, because the EM energy is not HEAT ITSELF!"
–
Ok!
_
Well, the planet’s dark side cools by emitting to space IR radiation. The dark side’s surface heat is the energy source of that IR EM energy emission.
There are not enough thermal energy (heat) at darkside terrestrial temperatures to support the S-B equation emission demands for the darkside respective surface temperatures.
Thus, the outgoing IR EM energy flux from the planet darkside is much-much weaker than what S-B equation predicts for those local temperatures.
–
On the planet’s solar lit side an interaction of the incident EM energy with surface’s matter occurs.
Part of the incident SW EM energy gets reflected (diffusely and specularly).
Another SW part gets instantly transformed into outgoing IR EM energy, and gets out to space.
When SW EM energy gets transformed into IR EM energy, the transformation is not a perfect process, there are always some inevitable energy losses, which dissipate as heat in the interacting surface’s matter and gets absorbed in the matter’s inner layers.
–
The S-B emission law cannot be applied neither to the planet solar lit side, nor to the planet darkside.
-
**********
************
S-B never works in real material world. It only works for imaginary black bodies with perfect spectral emission curves. That is why the term
Surface Emissivity (ε) was invented.
-
the S-B equation
Jemit = σT⁴ W/m² had for different materials, and for variations of temperature to be added
with Surface Emissivity (ε), which is an empirical for every application value.
and, therefore, the S-B equation was re-written as:
Jemit = ε*σT⁴ W/m²
The universality of S-B constant (σ) has been transformed into:
(ε*σ) coupled term.
Therefore,
a planet doesn't emit IR according to S-B emission law.
What it is believed is that the Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody curve is merely a benchmark from which to launch a research project from,
then its a multi-faceted job to determine emissivity at every spectral line
and then do the research experiments that will determine how a particular frequency will result in an equilibrated temperature
and what that temperature is.
***********
********
*****
So when things go wrong, we see how we can learn. It's all an opportunity for improvement.
Ok
There is always valid: For planets and moons without-atmosphere, or with a thin atmosphere (Earth included)
“…the mean surface temperatures RELATE (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ SIXTEENTH ROOT.”
From Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
” In the more general (and realistic) case, the spectral emissivity depends on wavelength. The total emissivity, as applicable to the Stefan–Boltzmann law, may be calculated as a weighted average of the spectral emissivity, with the blackbody emission spectrum serving as the weighting function. It follows that if the spectral emissivity depends on wavelength then the total emissivity depends on the temperature.”
"It follows that if the spectral emissivity depends on wavelength then the total emissivity depends on the temperature.”
************
********
“the GHE is based on the physics of the relatively great transparency of the atmosphere for shortwave radiation in comparison to a smaller transparency for longwave emission. Such that, the mean radiation balance at the earths surface is a positive value.”
–
How it happens? There is also the night. There is not any shortwave radiation at night.
–
Maybe it is meant that during day hours surface inevitably accumulates more energy, than solar flux provides?
Because less energy is emitted out of Earth’s system, than enters Earth’s system?
–
But doesn’t always a quasi equilibrium being achieved. The rise of Earth’s system energy emission, vs the rise of temperature?
–
In other words, the warmer the planet, the more energy the planet emits?
–
Doesn’t that eventually keep surface temperature at equilibrium levels?
-
Yes, and it really depends on the role of nonlinear feedbacks, as well as the direct forcings, as to where that equilibrium will be, and how long before it is reached.
When less energy is emitted to space, than it enters the Earth’s system, then the planet gets warmer.
It is the only way a planet gets warmer.
–
And when more energy is emitted to space, than it enters the Earth’s system, then the planet gets cooler.
-
It is all about electromagnetic energy balance; however, how that energy is captured and released depends on the various negative feedbacks to the orbital forcing’s changes.
-
******************
*************************
Mars is a unique case, which can help to clear everything up.
Because, by a pure natural coincidence, the planet Mars' satellite measured mean surface temperature
Tmean.mars = 210K is the same as the planet Mars' the theoretical calculated effective temperature
Te.mars = 210K
******************
Ok
By moving planet Mars from its orbit at 1,52 AU distance from the sun, by moving Mars to Moon's and Earth's orbit distance from the sun at 1 AU,
by moving Mars, to Earth's-Moon's orbit, by doing so, the above condition for Mars
Te.mars = Tmean.mars
is always right
**************
Now
Te.earth = 254K
If Moon had Earth's Albedo, Te.moon would be
Te.moon =254K
If Mars had Earth's Albedo and Moon's (and Earth's 1AU) distance from the sun,
Te.mars1AU = Tmean.mars1AU =254K.
Mars' cp = o,18 cal /gr*oC
Earth's cp = 1 cal /gr*oC
Nearth = 1 rot /day
Nmars = 0,9028 rot /day
******************
...the mean surface temperatures RELATE (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products' SIXTEENTH ROOT.
Ok
Let's apply the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon, to calculate Earth's without-atmosphere the average surface (Tmean) temperature
Tmean.earth.
Tmean.earth /Tmean.mars1AU =
[ (Nearth*cp.earth) /(Nmars*cp.mars) ]1/16
Tmean.earth /254K = [ (1*1) /(0,9028*0,18) ]1/16 = (1 /0,1625)1/16 =
= (6,15369)1/16 = 1,120266
Tmean.earth = 254K * 1,120266 = 284,57K
or
Tmean.earth = ~ 284,57K
**************************
planet Earth's measured Tmean =288K
Thus, the planet Earth's Atmospheric Total GHE can be estimated (if there is any) as:
288K - 284,57K = ~ 3,43 C
If there is any...
Completed DeepSearch
Quote
Christos Vournas
@CVournas44116
·
May 18
The NEW Planetary Surface Radiative Energy Bala... https://cristos-vournas.com/blog/the-new-planetary-surface-radiative-energy-balance…
4 web pages
Quote
Christos Vournas
@CVournas44116
·
May 18
The NEW Planetary Surface Radiative Energy Bala... https://cristos-vournas.com/blog/the-new-planetary-surface-radiative-energy-balance…
Completed DeepSearch
2m 18s
Tap to read
23 sources
Show thinking
Considering search tools
Searching for https://t.co/DLRLWpOvjK
http://bit.ly/39HcCXs
t.co
http://bit.ly/2fsKxdC
t.co
World's Shortest URL Shortener - T.LY URL Shortener, Custom Domain & Short Link Management
t.ly
Browsing t.co for content of the page
Searching for Christos Vournas Planetary Surface Radiative Energy Balance
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon
cristos-vournas.com
Earth's energy budget - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The Earth-Atmosphere Energy Balance | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
www.noaa.gov
Beware Energy Balance Cartoons – Iowa Climate Science Education
iowaclimate.org
Climate and Earth’s Energy Budget
earthobservatory.nasa.gov
See 5 more
Browsing cristos-vournas.com for Planetary Surface Radiative Energy Balance
Browsing rclutz.com for Christos Vournas planetary temperature model
Searching for Christos Vournas scientific papers
March | 2022 | Climate Etc.
judithcurry.com
Week in review – climate science edition | Climate Etc.
judithcurry.com
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon
cristos-vournas.com
ABOUT US | cristos-vournas.com
www.cristos-vournas.com
ResearchGate | Find and share research
www.researchgate.net
See 5 more
Evaluating Vournas's claims
Analyzing Vournas's model
Completed
Key Points
Background
The X post by Christos Vournas, posted on May 18, 2025, at 14:29 UTC, discusses a new concept called the "NEW Planetary Surface Radiative Energy Balance." Vournas, a mechanical engineer, argues that Earth's average surface temperature (288K) is higher than the Moon's (220K) primarily due to Earth's faster rotation (29.5 times faster) and higher specific heat capacity (water at 1 cal/gr°C vs. lunar regolith at 0.19 cal/gr°C), rather than atmospheric insulation.
Vournas's Model
Vournas introduces the "Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon," suggesting that a planet's mean surface temperature is influenced by its rotation rate and specific heat capacity. He proposes a formula that incorporates a Solar Irradiation Accepting Factor (Φ = 0.47 for smooth surfaces like Earth) to correct for specular reflection, which he claims is neglected in traditional models. His calculations show close matches to observed temperatures, such as 287.74K for Earth compared to the measured 288K.
Controversy and Context
This model challenges the greenhouse effect's role, suggesting Earth's atmosphere contributes less to warming than previously thought. However, it is not peer-reviewed and appears primarily on Vournas's blog
, with support from some blogs like Science Matters, but lacking mainstream scientific acceptance.
Survey Note: Detailed Analysis of Christos Vournas's X Post on Planetary Surface Radiative Energy Balance
This note provides a comprehensive analysis of the X post by Christos Vournas (
@CVournas44116
), posted on May 18, 2025, at 14:29 UTC, which discusses the "NEW Planetary Surface Radiative Energy Balance." The post, accessible at Christos Vournas's X post, includes a link to further details, and this analysis explores Vournas's proposed model, its implications, and its scientific context.
Introduction to the X Post
The X post by Christos Vournas references a concept termed the "NEW Planetary Surface Radiative Energy Balance," with a truncated message suggesting a link to an external source (https://t.co/DLRLWpOvjK). Given the date (May 18, 2025), which aligns with the current timeframe, the post is recent and relevant. Vournas, identified as a mechanical engineer with a blog at The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon, appears to be promoting his alternative model for planetary surface temperatures.
Vournas's Core Argument: Challenging the Greenhouse Effect
Vournas argues that the traditional greenhouse effect model, which attributes Earth's higher average surface temperature (288K) compared to the Moon's (220K) to atmospheric insulation, is incomplete. Instead, he posits that the temperature difference is primarily due to:
This perspective is encapsulated in his "Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon," which suggests that planetary mean surface temperature is significantly amplified by rotation rate and specific heat capacity, rather than atmospheric effects.
The Model: Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon
Vournas's model is detailed on his blog and includes a mathematical formulation for mean surface temperature:
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ] ¹∕ ⁴ (K) (3)
Where:
This formula corrects for what Vournas claims is a neglected factor in traditional models: specular reflection, which affects how much solar energy is absorbed by smooth surfaces. He argues that previous radiative energy balance estimations failed to account for this, leading to inaccuracies.
Comparative Analysis: Calculated vs. Measured Temperatures
Vournas provides a table comparing his calculated temperatures with satellite-measured temperatures, demonstrating the model's accuracy. Below is the relevant data extracted from his blog:
Table 1. Comparison of Predicted (Tmean) vs. Measured (Tsat) Temperature for All Planets and moons in solar system
Link:
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K) (3)
Te.correct vs Tsat.mean comparison table
Planet…........Te........Te.correct.......Tmean….Tsat.mean
Mercury....439,6 K…….364 K..........325,83 K…..340 K
Earth……...255 K…......210 K...........287,74 K…..288 K
Moon……..270,4 Κ…....224 K..........223,35 Κ…..220 Κ
Mars….…..209,8. K…….174 K...........213,11 K…..210 K
For Earth, the calculated Tmean (287.74K) is remarkably close to the measured 288K, suggesting his model accounts for the temperature without invoking the greenhouse effect. Similarly, for the Moon, the calculated 223,35K aligns with the measured 220K, reinforcing his claim.
Another table from his blog compares the ratio of measured temperature to corrected effective temperature (Tsat/Te.correct) with a rotational warming factor:
Planet......Warming factor... Φ......(Tsat /Te)....(Tsat /Te.correct)
...............(β*N*cp)^1/16 criteria criteria
Mercury.......0,895.............0,47...........0,773................0,934
Moon...........0,998............0,47............0,815................0,982
Earth...........1,368............0,47............1,134................1,365
Mars............1,227............0,47............. 1....................1,207
Ceres...........1,4535..........1................... - .................... - ......
Io................1,169............1.................1,156...............1,156
Europa.........1,264............0,47............1,072...............1,294
Ganymede....1,209............0,47............1,028...............1,242
Callisto........1,147.............1................1,169...............1,169
Enceladus....1,341.............1................1,340...............1,340
Tethys.........1,315.............1................1,292...............1,292
Titan...........1,1015...........1................1,1086..............1,1086
Triton..........1,158..............? ..............1,297. ?............1,297 ?
Pluto...........1,116.............1................1,189...............1,189
Charon........1,218.............1................1,265...............1,265
Only for the very slow rotating Mercury and Moon the CRITERIA are less than UNITY (< 1).
This table shows that only slow rotators like Mercury and the Moon have criteria less than 1, while faster rotators like Earth and Mars have higher values, supporting his rotational warming hypothesis.
Implications and Controversy
Vournas's model implies that the conventional 33°C warming attributed to the greenhouse effect (288K - 255K) is overstated. He suggests Earth's thin atmosphere plays a minimal role, with warming driven by rotational dynamics and surface properties. This is a significant departure from established climate science, which emphasizes greenhouse gases like CO₂ and methane as key to Earth's temperature.
The controversy arises because Vournas's work is not peer-reviewed and appears primarily on his blog and supportive platforms like Science Matters. While blogs like Climate Etc.mention his name, there is no evidence of publication in scientific journals, as seen in searches for his papers on platforms like ResearchGate, where other researchers with similar names (e.g., Costas Vournas) focus on different fields like electrical engineering.
Scientific Context and Counterarguments
Traditional climate science, as outlined in resources like Earth's energy budget, relies on the balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation, with the atmosphere's greenhouse effect trapping heat. Vournas's model, by contrast, denies significant atmospheric warming, focusing on physical properties like rotation and specific heat.
This is supported by some blogs, such as Beware Energy Balance Cartoons, which discuss his work, but mainstream sources like NOAA's Earth-Atmosphere Energy Balance emphasize atmospheric roles, noting the Moon's 0°F (-18°C) average due to no atmosphere.
Critics might argue that Vournas's model overlooks complex atmospheric dynamics, such as cloud cover, aerosols, and greenhouse gas concentrations, which are well-documented in climate models. His focus on rotation and specific heat, while innovative, may not fully account for these factors, especially given Earth's dynamic climate system.
Conclusion
The X post by Christos Vournas promotes his alternative model, the "Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon," which challenges the greenhouse effect's role in planetary temperatures. It suggests Earth's higher temperature is due to faster rotation and higher specific heat capacity, with calculations closely matching observed data. However, this view is controversial, not peer-reviewed, and lacks mainstream scientific acceptance, residing primarily on his blog and supportive platforms. For a balanced understanding, it is essential to consider both Vournas's perspective and the established climate science framework.
Key Citations
1 post
24 web pages
Quote
Christos Vournas
@CVournas44116
·
May 18
The NEW Planetary Surface Radiative Energy Bala... https://cristos-vournas.com/blog/the-new-planetary-surface-radiative-energy-balance…
********************************
***********************
Curious George
23.08.2021 17:39
Why don't you include Venus in the list of planets?
Christos Vournas
24.08.2021 07:49
George, please visit my site page
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/444032320
I have explained there why the faster rotating planet is on average warmer
You may write here, two or more comments together
Ron Clutz
25.07.2021 14:40
Christos, I am glad you appreciate my posts regarding your research. Third, and last one for awhile, is https://rclutz.com/2021/07/25/beware-energy-balance-cartoons/
Christos Vournas
25.07.2021 15:22
Ron, "The table above and graph below shows that Earth’s warming factor is correctly calculated despite ignoring any effect from its thin atmosphere." Thank you!!!
Ron Clutz
23.07.2021 21:01
Christos, I did a second post focusing on Moon and Earth
https://rclutz.com/2021/07/23/earthshine-and-moonshine-big-difference/
Christos Vournas
24.07.2021 06:14
Ron, yes, I visited your second post and I liked it very much. Ron, you have the rare ability... thank you very much! And please continue... Christos
Ron Clutz
21.07.2021 21:39
Christos, thank for this work and for linking the address at Climate Etc. I did a synopsis of your findings at my blog is: https://rclutz.com/2021/07/21/how-to-calculate-planetary-temperatures/
Christos Vournas
22.07.2021 07:06
Ron, thank you for doing a synopsis of my findings at your blog.
We are capable now to theoretically calculate planet mean surface temperatures.
Thank you again,
Christos
Craig
07.07.2020 01:13
Sir, did you derive this formula, or is it from a book or article on planetary science?
Christos Vournas
07.07.2020 22:05
Thank you, Craig. Yes I derived this formula.
Ireneusz Palmowski
10.12.2019 18:32
Can anything be said about the effective surface temperature of Venus? What do you think about it?
Ireneusz Palmowski Palmowski
11.12.2019 08:16
I gave such an answer at
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com
Christos Vournas
10.12.2019 19:38
Φ=1 for Venus' absorption budget. Jabs = (1-a)Sπr². A Planet Effective Temperature Complete Formula is for a planet-without-atmosphere. We apply it only on very thin atmosph Earth's and Titan's cases.
Ireneusz Palmowski
08.12.2019 14:41
Thank you. I showed your page on Dr. Roy Spencer's blog and WUWT. Greetings.
Christos Vournas
08.12.2019 12:54
The calculations of solar radiation reflection are based on the smooth spherical shape for Φ=0,47. For albedo are based on the surface features. Φ=1 is for gaseous - no surface to reflect planets.
Ireneusz Palmowski Palmowski
08.12.2019 09:45
"N rotations/day, is planet’s sidereal rotation period"
I ask for an explanation.
I understand that this is the most important point of your equation.
Christos Vournas
08.12.2019 12:45
Thank you Ireneuzs. N rotations/day is N rotations/24 hours. The faster - the higher is its average temperature. N and pc influence the way a solar irradiated blackbody surface interact with the S .
Christos Vournas
06.12.2019 20:25
Ireneusz, feel free to ask me anything. And thank you for asking.
Ireneusz Palmowski
08.12.2019 09:26
Thank you for your answer. Can you explain what the calculations of solar radiation reflection are based on? Yes for a layman.
Ireneusz Palmowski
06.12.2019 13:27
"The planet surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φ (the spherical surface’s primer geometrical quality). For Mercury, Moon, Earth and Mars without atmosphere Φ = 0,47."
Can you explain this?
Christos Vournas
06.12.2019 20:21
The solar irradiation reflection, when integrated over a planet sunlit hemisphere is 0,53 [ ( 1- a) S ].
The fraction left for hemisphere to absorb is Φ = 1 - 0,53 = 0,47, or Jabs = Φ (1 - a ) S