Christos Vournas - July 7, 2021
When comparing with the Perihelion point, which is at January 2, the solar irradiance Earth receives now is 7% less. As a result we have at the North Hemisphere much cooler summers and much warmer winters.
In 10.000 (ten thousand) years from now, Earth’s axis will be pointing at star Vega, instead of Polaris at which it points now. So in 10.000 years the Winter Solstice will occur when Earth is in Aphelion (it happens now with Earth in Perihelion).
As a result in 10.000 years we would have at the North Hemisphere much warmer summers and much cooler winters.
A shift of 7% in the Hemispheres’ insolation intensity will happen.
Instead of the Southern Hemisphere (as it happens now) with its vast oceans accumulative capacity… there would be a +7% stronger insolation on the North Hemisphere’s plethora of continental areas.
We know continents do not accumulate heat so much effectively as oceans do, thus Earth will gradually cool down, until a New Ice Age commences!
As for the current warming phase – we still receive the +7% solar energy onto Southern Hemisphere’s oceans… and oceans willingly accumulate the excess solar energy…
It happens so during the current Winter Solstices, when Earth is still tilted towards sun with its Southern Hemisphere’s vast oceanic waters.
"Warmer conditions enhance freshening of the Arctic Ocean surface water reducing thermohaline circulation and transport of heat northward.
Cooler summers create conditions for survival of ice leading to runaway ice sheet feedback."
“Cooler summers create conditions for survival of ice leading to runaway ice sheet feedback.”
Cooler summers means warmer winters at the Northern Hemisphere. Also it means warmer summers and colder winters in the Southern Hemisphere.
We consider Earth as a whole…
Please explain how “Cooler summers create conditions for survival of ice leading to runaway ice sheet feedback.”
The cooler summers would be followed by warmer winters, warmer late autumns and warmer early springs…
And, conclusively, the average North Hemisphere temperature will be higher.
So, how possible it is for ice to pile up thru the on average year higher North Hemisphere temperatures, and how “the runaway ice sheet feedback” is possible to occur then?
I see, you support the notion the Glaciation is "the runaway ice sheet feedback".
But why it is a "runaway feedback" for you? When there is less solar energy absorption by the global surface area, Earth's surface gradually cools and the ice sheet grows...
There is not any feedback... Not any positive feedback...
Feedback means the existence of ice sheet makes it inevitable to continue growing - the runaway!
When ice covers earth it behaves in the negative feedback pattern, because ice sheet keeps earth from emitting more IR EM energy.
Open water's emissivity is higher than snow covered ice sheet's.
When ocean is covered with ice, it protects earth from the intensive cooling, thus, by ice cover Earth saves energy and being kept warmer.
There is not a positive feedback from the ice sheet cover. The feedback from ice sheet is negative.
Opponent / July 8. 2021:
"You have put a lot of work into your analysis which I thank you for. Unfortunately it is very hard to get an average temperature analysis for the moon. The figure you are quoting may not be correct [220C] The NASA version is the 270.4 C which equates well with albedo and TOA [which is basically the moon surface].
Thank you for your good faith, it is the most important!
Well, I am sorry too. When I first looked for lunar surface temperature (Dec. 2015) it was 220K.
Yes, I am fully aware of that:
Moon gives Surface temp.
min mean max equator 100 K 220 K
Moon gives Surface temp.
min mean max Equator 100 K 250 K 390 K[1
– Moon Fact sheet NASA gives
– Moon Earth Solar irradiance (W/m2) 1361.0 1361.0 1.000
Black-body temperature (K) 270.4 254.0 1.065"
------ ***** ------
When earlier this year I wanted to refer to Wikipedia, I realized the Moon surface temperature 220K was changed to 250K... It was a very unpleasant surprise for me.
How could that suddenly have changed?
So, I looked in other Wikipedia pages, I looked in other languages' pages to demonstrate the prove I had the 220K for Moon surface temperature taken from Wikipedia...
And, therefore, it was from NASA, because Wikipedia has not any other source, except NASA, for the Planet surface temperatures data.
Then, I looked in the "simple Wikipedia" page and found it in English again. But first let me present you some other pages:
القمر - ويكيبيديا (wikipedia.org)
الحرارة 95 كلفن، و390 كلفن تعديل قيمة خاصية (P2076) في ويكي بيانات حرارة السطح - كلفن - كلفن الدنيا 100 عند الاستواء 70 عند 85 ش المتوسطة 220 عند الاستواء 130 عند 85 ش القصوى 390 عند الاستواء 230 عند 85 ش
Lune — Wikipédia (wikipedia.org)
Maximum 396 K (123 °C) Moyenne 200 K (−73 °C) Minimum 40 K (−233 °C)
月球 - 维基百科，自由的百科全书 (wikipedia.org)
最高赤道100 K220 K390 K85°N70 K130 K230 K
月球 - 维基百科 (wikipedia.org)
表面溫度最低平均最高赤道100 开220 开390 开85°NTemplate:Lower70 开130 开230 开
Lua – Wikipédia, a enciclopédia livre (wikipedia.org)
Temperatura média: -53,1 ºC mínima: -173,1 ºC máxima: 116,9 ºC
Luna - Wikipedia
Temp. la suprafață min med max Ecuator 100 K 220 K 390 K 85°N 150 K
चन्द्रमा - विकिपिडिया (wikipedia.org)
Surface temp. min mean max equator 100 के 220 के 390 के 85°N 70 के 130 के 230 के 230 K
Луна — Википедия (wikipedia.org)
Температура мин. сред. макс. Температура на экваторе 100 К (−173 °C) 220 К (−53 °C) 390 К (117 °C)
Sorry to bother you with all those links to Wikipedia, but, you see, I have to defend my discoveries. I have to defend the rightness of my discoveries.
I have to make them known, and I have to explain them so they become well understood and well accepted.
About planet MERCURY:
Surface temp. min mean max
0°N, 0°W  -173 °C 67 °C 427 °C
85°N, 0°W -193 °C -73 °C 106.85 °C
Tmean Mercury on Equatorial circumference is 273C + 67C = 340K
Tmean.mecury = 340 K
Température de surface
• Maximum 700 K (427 °C)
• Moyenne 440 K (167 °C)
• Minimum 90 K (−183 °C)
∗ Min. – Mittel – Max.
100 K (−173 °C) 440 K (+167 °C) 700 K (+427 °C)
На поверхности от 80 до 700 К (от −190 до +430 °C)
мин. сред. макс.
0°N, 0°W 100 K (−173 °C) 340 К (67 °C) 700 К (427 °C)
85°N, 0°W 80 К (−193 °C) 200 К (−73 °C) 380 К (107 °C)
表面溫度 最低 平均 最高
0°N, 0°W  100 K 340 K 700 K
85°N, 0°W 80 K 200 K 380 K
July 15, 2021
"Half the time half the surface is in sunlight – half the time it isn’t. Regardless of how fast it spins."
No, planet is not a flat surface, which half the time is in sunlight and half the time it isn't.
Planet is a rotating sphere in the parallel solar beams flow. Planet rotates all the time... And it is important for surface temperatures how fast planet spins.
When rotating every planet's spot changes its position in relation to the solar angular incidence. Now it is at dawn position, then it is at midday, at afternoon, at dusk... at midnight...
It is a mistake thinking about the planetary rotation as "Half the time half the surface is in sunlight – half the time it isn’t. Regardless of how fast it spins."
July 19, 2021
"We do not have a warmer faster rotating planet".
An example of a faster rotating planet which is a warmer planet is Earth vs Moon.
Moon, because of the lower Albedo (a=0,11) than Earth’s Albedo (a=0,306), Moon receives 28% more solar energy than Earth…
Nevertheless, Moon is considered a much colder planet than Earth.
Moon’s rotational spin is 29,5 times slower than Earth’s. And Moon’s average surface specific heat is 0,19 times of that of Earth’s.
Moon has almost five times lower average surface specific heat than Earth. Because Moon’s surface consists of lunar regolith (soil), and Earth’s surface consists of water (ocean).
Both those physics data (the rotational spin and the average surface specific heat) are measured evidence.
What we did here is to compare two celestial bodies’ the average surface temperatures… The method we use is the “Planet Surface Temperatures Comparison Method”.
July 27, 2021
An answer to opponent
The Earth's without-atmosphere theoretical blackbody temperature according to the classical equation
Te = [ (1-a) So /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ = 255 K
And according to the corrected equation with the use of Φ -Factor
Te.correct = [ Φ (1-a) So /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ = 210 K
And according to the New Tmean equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ = 288 K
All three equations have the solar flux So = 1.361 W/m² as the only source of incident energy.
When using the New equation there is an obvious violation of first law of thermodynamics...
We are not justified to compare the theoretical blackbody equation and the New Tmean equation results.
Those two equations are completely different physics terms. They cannot be compared.
When applying to the classical planet blackbody Te equation the Warming Factor [(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴]¹∕ ⁴ we are dealing with a completely different physics term.
The Warming Factor [(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴]¹∕ ⁴ does not add some new energy forcing onto the planet's surface.
By inserting the Warming Factor we transform the planet theoretical blackbody temperature Te into the planet mean surface temperature Tmean.
July 27, 2021
What the Research was needed for?
Well, it is a good question. An opponent at one of the first presentations of the New Theory asked: "Why it should be again explained, what is already explained?"
Well, it was very much obvious to me that the Trace Greenhouse Gases Content in thin Earth's atmosphere were not able to produce any Greenhouse Warming Effect on the Earth's surface.
It was obvious to me... but when discussing the theme with a scientist, who is a specialist in climatology... he was very much certain that without Earth's atmosphere greenhouse effect Earth would have been a snowball.
Science can only progress if assumptions are tested.
The research concluded in deriving a Universal Equation for calculating surface temperatures of planets or moons, for comparison with NASA satellite measurements of such bodies in our solar system.
July 29, 2021
"The same satellite data you use to benchmark your calculation also shows that Earth’s atmosphere is highly absorbing in certain ranges of the IR spectrum (see the spectrum here
How do you explain this contradiction?"
Yes, I visited the Link you provided. There is not a contradiction with the data.
Graph shows the measured Earth emissions in certain ranges of the IR spectrum... Earth's atmosphere does not absorb what is shown in the Graph.
It is a product of a mistaken comparison of the measured IR spectrum emitted by the surface with the alleged blackbody emission curve at 288K.
Earth's surface does not have a uniform surface temperature of 288K. Thus any measured IR emissions cannot be compared with that curve.
Also it is a question what those measured emissions (the so called atmospheric windows) represent. Are they average globe emissions, are they day-time emissions?
What they are?
Earth’s atmosphere highly absorbing in certain ranges of the IR spectrum narrative is fictions, because Earth has never emitted those certain ranges of the IR spectrum.
One cannot measure IR radiative emission that is not emitted... But that does not make it being absorbed by atmosphere.
It was simply deduced those certain ranges of the IR spectrum were absorbed by the Earth's atmosphere, because they were comparing the Earth's actual emission ranges with the blackbody uniform 288K Stefan-Boltzmann emission law curve.
It was simply deduced that those certain ranges of the IR spectrum were absorbed by the Earth's atmosphere.
It happened so, because it was wrongly compared the Earth's actual emission ranges with the blackbody uniform 288K Stefan-Boltzmann emission law curve.
When certain ranges of the IR spectrum are not there... it is a confirmation planet does not emit as a blackbody.
August 4, 2021
"Basically it appears you admit that your model cannot explain Venus and it does require a GHE.
Then how is it you can call it a New Universal Law, if it does not work for Venus?"
I never said there is not GHE. What I have shown is that Earth's atmosphere is very thin and the greenhouse gases content is very small, it is trace gases in a very thin atmosphere...
I have calculated Venus' surface temperature theoretically using the New Equation, by adding in the equation the greenhouse gases' density factor.
The result is very satisfactory.
I have also theoretically calculated by the use of the greenhouse gases' density factor the mean surface temperatures for Earth's and Titan's atmosphere and the results were again very much satisfactory.
Please visit the page in my site about Venus’ 735K globally averaged surface temperature.
Thank you for asking about a very important aspect of the theme.
Link to the page:
July 6, 2021
"So you agree that the Temp of 16 x faster spinning Earth has warmed from Tmean = 287 K to 342 K, while the emitted radiation remains constant.
The rise would come from the night-side temperature warming up more than the day side temperature cools down.
The two sides should equalize with a small net increase in Tmean.
But the current average Earth day-night temperature difference ~ 10 C (remember mostly ocean!).
Thus the rise in Tmean should <>
But you calculate a rise in Tmean of 55 C!
How do you make physical sense of that?
You say emitted total Power = " Φi*(1-a)So*πr² ( W )"
Which gives an Earth average emitted flux = Power/(4πr²) Fav = Φ*(1-a)*So/4 = (.47) *0.7*1361/4 = 112 W/m².
This still is very far below the measured Fav = 240 W/m². Same goes for your calculated input absorbed Fin = 112 W/m².
Still way below the measured Fin = 240 W/m².
So again, your theory does not agree with observations.
It is falsified."
I am not saying planetary surface emits everywhere 112 W/m².
Fav = Φ*(1-a)*So/4 = (.47) *0.7*1361/4 = 112 W/m².
I said it is average value.
Planetary surface does not emit average values, surface emits at the every infinitesimal spot and at every infinitesimal moment differently. Only when integrated the entire planet surface emits at every given instant the A*112 W/m².
A - is the entire planet surface area
Also, the blackbody effective temperature 255K is by definition a uniform surface temperature.
In the GHE theory they compare the 255K with the Earth's actual average (mean) surface temperature Tmean = 288K.
It is a huge mistake, because they treat the 288K as Earth's uniform surface temperature, which is not.
Earth does not emit at the average 288K...
August 8, 2021
" You find the Earth emits ave 112 W/m^2.
According to SB law. much much higher, ~ 387 W for an airless sphere with Earths actual T distribution.
The atmosphere and GHE reduces that to 240 W/m^2."
I never said Earth emits uniformly with IR EM emission intensity of 112 W/m^2.
I never said Earth's surface emits uniformly at the uniform surface emission temperature of 288K.
In the opposite,
But if one considers Earth as a uniform IR emitter at the uniform surface emission temperature of 255 K, then Earth should emit 240 W/m^2… as a... flat surface in full accordance with the classical Stefan-Boltzmann emission law.
A Simple Theorem, but a very important Theorem.
From the above… for every without-atmosphere planet (ι) we have:
Tmean.ι = [ Φ.ι (1 – a.ι) S.ι (β *N.ι *cp.ι)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Tmean = [ Φ (1 – a) S (β*N*cp.)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
it can be re-written as
Tmean = Te * [(β*N*cp.)¹∕ ⁴]¹∕ ⁴
The planet mean surface temperature Tmean numerical value will be equal to the planet effective temperature Te numerical value
Tmean = Te
only when the term
(β*N*cp) = 1
and, since the
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal
the planet N*cp product should be then
N*cp = 1 /β
or the numerical value of the product
N*cp = 1 /150
The Theorem leads to the following very important conclusions:
1). In general, the planet effective temperature numerical value Te is not numerically equal to the planet without-atmosphere mean surface temperature Tmean.
2). For the planet without-atmosphere mean surface temperature numerical value Tmean to be equal to the planet effective temperature numerical value Te the condition from the above Theorem the
(N*cp = 1 /150) should be necessarily met.
3). For the Planet Earth without-atmosphere the (N*cp) product is (N*cp = 1) and it is 150 times higher than the necessary condition of (N*cp = 1/150) .
Consequently, the Earth’s effective temperature numerical value Te cannot be equal to the Earth’s without-atmosphere mean surface temperature… not even close.
August 17, 2021
"The theorem looks interesting. Basically you’re saying the blackbody theory doesn’t work if the black body is rotating while getting all its energy input from a point source... " -
No, I am not saying the blackbody theory doesn't work, right the opposite - the blackbody theory works - here we apply the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law to every infinitesimal spot at every infinitesimal instant...
The New equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1 – a) S (β*N*cp.)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
is the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law applied to rotating sphere irradiated by parallel solar beams.
August 21, 2021
"Christos – you apparently “discovered” the equation. Could you please derive it from known laws?"
Equation is based on known laws, but also it is based on New laws I have discovered.
The New laws are based on known laws. Those New laws are not accepted as known laws yet…
Example: the "Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon" is not accepted as a known law yet…
Everything I have discovered I explained the best I can in my site:
Thank you for asking.
September 21, 2021
"...I think the overall maths comes down on the side that it does affect the average temperature of a planet.. The faster a planet rotates the closer it approximates an ideal black body and hence the closer it approaches to the ideal average emitting temperature of the SB law.
Note; any rotation energy is separate to and does not add any new energy to the incoming and out going energy which remains the same. The planet cannot get any hotter due to the rotation, it merely approaches the ideal average temperature which it cannot go above."
The planet old blackbody Te equation.
The planet old blackbody equation was the first attempt to theoretically estimate the planetary average surface temperatures.
Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
The equation calculates planet uniform surface temperature, which is called planet surface effective temperature (Te). It is actually not an average surface temperature, but it was accepted like, for the sake of the simplicity of approximation.
The equation used the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law, thus assuming planet surface as a blackbody surface with uniform surface temperature. It was an approximation using the average year measured solar flux' intensity on the planet lessened by the measured average planetary Albedo.
A very rough approximation, but an approximation based on measured data. The planet old blackbody equation was the first attempt to theoretically calculate the planet average surface temperatures.
The blackbody surface estimations of planetary average surface temperatures were far from being precisely theoretically calculated planet average surface temperatures, which is obvious when comparing the theoretically calculated temperatures with the actually measured planet average surface temperatures.
The planet old blackbody Te equation should be credited for establishing the scientific consensus that planet average surface temperature can be theoretically calculated by the use of the known Stefan-Boltzmann emission law and the measured solar flux and planetary Albedo.
It was the first step in the right direction! But it was not complete. For forty years the equation became widely used and the planet surface effective temperature (Te) became a synonymous of the planet average surface temperature (Tmean). In the scientific papers Te is referred to as the planet average surface temperature, which leads to a great confusion...
First we should learn to calculate the Te correctly. We should use the
Φ(1 - a)
coupled term when calculating the planetary radiative energy in
Φ(1 - a)S*πr ²
The Te correct is as follows
Te.correct = [ Φ(1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
When calculating the planets' Te correctly we would be able to see that there are planets with Te>Tmean and there are planets with Te<>
An irradiated body cannot be considered as a classical blackbody in principle
October 4, 2021
"All bodies which absorb all the energy that falls on them act as black bodies. You recognize this in your equations when you take out the albedo component [ the reflected energy]. Thus you treat all your planets as black bodies whether you admit this or not."
Blackbody surface has some constant temperature because of the inner body's outgoing to the surface energy.
The origin of this energy may be because of body having an inner source of energy, or body having accumulated a large enough amount of energy as a result of previous heating.
And blackbody has uniform surface temperature.
When surface interacts with incident radiative energy it does not behave according to the Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody emission law - it is an interaction and emission at the same instant.
Also we should notice that planet is solar irradiated from one side only, and even on the solar lit hemisphere the insolation intensity is not evenly distributed because of the planet's spherical shape.
Not to forget, planet rotates...
Thus we conclude: planets cannot be considered as blackbody surfaces.
Octorer 8, 2021
"The problems you have are accounting for internal heating and where you draw the line at defining planetary surface temperature. This is not the same as planetary temperature as estimated by satellite.
One is traditionally a TOA reading and the other, on planets with a surface and an atmosphere the temperature of a thin strip of the atmosphere and surface which in no way corresponds to the actual emission to space."
Thank you for your interest in my work! I am always here willing to explain everything concerned with the New theory and the New equation.
In order to comprehend the New theory, a reader should have been already questioning the current Greenhouse Gasses Warming theory.
One should "see" by himself that trace amounts of greenhouse gasses in a very thin earth's atmosphere cannot cause any significant greenhouse effect (1% H2O vapor, 0,04% CO2).
Also, one should "see" by himself the old planet surface blackbody temperature is a very much mistaken and misleading in every planetary case, either without-atmosphere or with atmosphere.
There is also the need to correctly estimate the incident not reflected portion of solar SW EM energy.
It is the portion which when interacting with planetary surface is not being reflected (diffusely or specularly), but being transformed into LW EM outgoing to space energy. The coupled Φ(1 - a) term gives the correct "energy in" amount for the entire planet estimation:
energy in = πr²Φ(1-a)*S (W)
"Energy in" is not considered in the New theory' approach as "absorbed". Only a tiny portion of it is actually absorbed in the inner layers. The most of "energy in" is instantly transformed into LW EM outgoing to space energy.
That is how the solar lit hours IR outgoing EM energy occurs. That is why in the New planet without-atmosphere mean surface temperature equation the entire "energy in" = πr²Φ(1-a)*S (W) portion is considered as the IR instantly outgoing EM energy.
And this exactly, the IR instantly outgoing EM energy, is what determines the average surface temperature Tmean.
That is why there are not any mystics in the New equation.
The New equation is capable to very much precisely theoretically calculate the planet mean surface temperatures because the equation is based on a very much solid theoretical ground.
Best regards, Christos
October 28, 2021
"A perfect example is a comparison between the planets Venus and Mars. Both have CO2 concentrations > 95%. The temperature on Venus is 460 deg C. The temperature on Mars is -63 deg C. CO2 has a large impact on the temperature of Venus and little effect on the temperature on Mars. Why?
The pressure on Venus is 90 atm, and the pressure on Mars is 0.006 atm. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere of Venus is orders of magnitude greater than the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere of Mars. That’s why the difference."
"...The pressure on Venus is 90 atm, and the pressure on Mars is 0.006 atm."
It is not only the CO₂% content in the Earth's atmosphere general content that matters, but we have also to consider how many CO₂ molecules are in Earth's atmosphere in total.
If Earth's atmosphere was consisted from the actually existing CO₂ molecules only, the atmospheric pressure on the Earth's surface would have been 0,0004 atm.
October 29, 2021
"Actual is measured at 288K
Mathematical Abstraction results in 255K
What is your explanation of the difference?
S/B is wrong?"
S/B is wrongly used. It should be used on every infinitesimal spot at every instant and then integrate over the sphere's surface. Thus the New equation has emerged.
The New equation takes in consideration three major new concepts:
1). Planet does not absorb the not reflected portion of the incident solar SW EM energy.
What planet does is to instantly transform the not reflected portion from SW into IR outgoing emission. Only a very small fraction is accumulated in the inner layers.
2).Planet reflects as a sphere (Φ -factor).
3). Planet rotates (Planet Rotational Warming Phenomenon).
The Planet Mean Surface Temperature Equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
gives wonderful results
Tmean.earth = 287,74 K, Tmean.moon = 223,35 K, Tmean.mars = 213,21 K and Tmean.mercury = 325,83 K
Using the new equation, the new estimate closely matches the estimate surface temperatures from satellite observations:
Tsat.mean.mercury = 340 K
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K
Tsat.mean.moon = 220 K
Tsat.mean.mars = 210 K
Mercury....439,6 K...325,83 K....340 K
It is time to abandon the old
Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ incomplete equation.
November 5, 2021
"You claim that planet rotation is responsible for the earth’s 33 C temperature rise, and the planet should be at 255 K, but it’s actually at 288 K."
I never claimed that!
What I have discovered is the Planet mean surface temperature equation:
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
The equation precisely calculates all planets and moons without-atmosphere in solar system the average (mean) surface temperatures.
For planet Earth without-atmosphere the calculated mean surface temperature is Tmean.earth=288K.
The planet blackbody equation (effective temperature):
Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
is a mathematical abstraction. The number it calculates for earth's effective temperature Te=255K is meaningless. The Te=255K cannot be compared with Earth's actual mean surface temperature, because one cannot compare two different terms - a planet actual mean surface temperature Tmean.earth=288K with a mathematical abstraction Te=255K.
What I claim is that there is not +33oC greenhouse effect on Earth's surface.
The difference of +33oC does not exist in the real world. The Planet mean surface temperature equation:
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
is based on the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law, but it is also based on the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
Earth's surface on average is much warmer than Moon's. Yes, it is true. And the difference is due to Earth's 29,53 higher rotational than Moon's spin.
Also Earth is covered with water, and where it is not covered with water it is wet (forests, glaciers, fields with crops, lands after rain, and vast snow covered areas). Thus Earth's cp =1 cal/gr.oC Moon's surface is dry regolith. Thus Moon's cp =0,19cal/gr.oC. Earth's cp is five (5) times higher.
That is why earth's mean surface temperature is Tmean.earth=288K.
And Moon's is Tmean.moon=220K.
The difference 288K-220K=68oC is due to "Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon".
Planets' mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products' sixteenth root.
November 5, 2021
"The energy balance is not a function of rotation, and it stays in balance during any change in rotation."
Yes, the energy balance is not a function of rotation, and it stays in balance during any change in rotation.
I never said otherwise. When planet surface is solar irradiated the EM energy interacts with matter. On that very instant the followings happen:
REFLECTION AND EMISSION !!!
1). The reflected portion of the incident solar flux's SW EM energy (specularly and diffusely) goes out on the same very instant solar flux hits the surface.
2). Transformation into IR EM emission energy.
The transformed portion of the incident solar flux's SW EM energy also goes out on the same instant solar flux hits the surface.
3). Only a very small fraction of the incident solar flux's SW EM energy gets accumulated in the inner layers on the same very instant solar flux hits the surface.
When rotating faster the amount of energy accumulated in inner layers is still a very small fraction of the incident solar flux's SW EM energy, but it is larger, than for the slower rotation.
It should be noticed, we observe a different kind of emitting behavior from the solar lit side compared to the dark side.
1). From the solar lit side the outgoing IR emission occurs because of solar flux's not reflected portion, when interacted with surface's matter, the on the same very instant partial transformation from SW into IR outgoing EM energy.
2).From the dark side the outgoing IR emission occurs according to the blackbody emission σT^4 Stefan-Boltzmann emission law.
There is not any other source of energy...
When rotating faster, planet is warmer, because there is a different IR outgoing EM energy distribution.
November 13, 2021
"Your theory fails to match observations..."
Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon states:
Planets mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products sixteenth root.
I have demonstrated the rightness of this statement when doing planets mean surface temperatures comparison. When a physics phenomenon is being correctly and precisely demonstrated it is called observation!
December 19, 2021
"The Earth surface is a grey body, it emits a broad spectrum close to that of a blackbody. It cannot emit a spectrum with deep notches in it, at precisely the CO2 and H2O absorption bands.
Only the presence of these gases above it can do that."
Exactly, it emits a spectrum with deep notches in it… the trace gasses CO2 and H2O in rare earth’s atmosphere absorption bands are not capable to absorb the deep notches allegedly emitted energy.
In other words, there are not enough CO2 and H2O in Earth’s atmosphere to create those deep notches!
The supposedly absorbed energy (the absence of it that is seen in those deep notches) have never been emitted by the planet’s surface.
December 23, 2021
Isn't it obvious?
If we had perpendicularly oriented towards Sun:
1. A smooth surface disk with radius r.
2. A smooth surface sphere with radius r.
3. A smooth surface cone with base radius r pointing to the sun.
Disk would have absorbed the most solar energy.
Sphere would absorb less than disk.
Cone would absorb less than sphere.
Isn't it very much obvious?
Jan. 26, 2022
“Give it a rest. I already debunked your theory. You’re trying to resurrect a corpse.”
"You use basic physics in a flawed way.
What I do is to inform the new generations of scientists and to make efforts to convince the old generations.
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon cannot be debunked, because it is an observed fact – it is a PHENOMENON.
A phenomenon you may not understand, a phenomenon you may not able to explain for yourself or it is very much difficult for you to accept, but that is how the things are with physics PHENOMENA – they are there."
March 10, 2022
I have some thoughts to share with you on the planet without-atmosphere Te =255K issue.
It was always coming back from opponents - "it is not possible for a warmer planet without-atmosphere (Tmean =288K) to emit the same amount of IR EM energy, as the uniform surface temperature blackbody planet at (Te = 255K)."
- Theoretically the uniform surface temperature for the same emitted IR EM energy should be necessarily higher, than the actual the planet's average surface temperature.
- (Thus, the Earth's without-atmosphere mean surface temperature should be lower than 255 K, since Earth has not uniform surface temperature. And the greenhouse effect should be bigger than +33oC, and no one knows how much bigger, so everyone conveniently turned a blind eye on this simple but very important fact).