March 15, 2022
"We cannot compare the planet Te and planet Tmean, Wrong. If you know both temperatures then you can compare them What you should say is that are usually different to each other."
Yes, they are different to each other. And here is why:
1). Planet doesn't reflect as a disk, but as a sphere. the not reflected portion of incident SW solar flux is not
2). Planet doesn't absorb the not reflected portion of incident SW solar flux.
What planet does is to interact with the not reflected portion of incident SW solar flux.
When interacting with matter, only a fraction of the not reflected portion of incident SW solar flux is accumulated in inner layers in form of HEAT.
3). Also, the planet mean surface temperature Tmean is amplified by the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
April 24, 2022
Christos, why don’t your equations apply to planet Venus?
Thank you for your respond. Please visit my site on the page Venus’ Tmean 735K.
“This section will be for planets with atmosphere. The wonderful thing is that when calculating, for planet Venus we obtain the Venus’ mean surface temperature T.atmo.mean.venus = 733,66 K”.
“Venus has a high content of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Also Venus has a high atmosphere ground density. That is why Venus’ the D * X/Y parameter is very high.
The Tmean.venus is calculated with the rotational spin of Venusian winds velocity, which is 60 times faster than Venus’ planet rotational spin N.venus = 60/243 = 0,24691 rot /day
This information is essential to calculate Venus’ without atmosphere surface mean temperature Tmean.venus = 258,85 K.
The Gases planets Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune have a small content of greenhouse gasses in their atmosphere. Nevertheless, these planets have very strong greenhouse effect, because their atmosphere density D is very high.
Thus the D * X/Y parameter for Gases planets appears to be very much high. ”
As you can see the influence on the planet mean surface temperature from the greenhouse gasses content depends on the greenhouse gases’ dimensionless partial density D * X/Y.
For Earth = 0,00681
For Titan = 0,05315
For Venus = 63,534
For Venus the D * X/Y is five (5) orders of magnitude higher than that of Earth.
And, for Venus, it is four (4) orders of magnitude higher than that on Titan.
May 4, 2022
"Christos Vournas Have you ever used an IR thermometer to get a temperature reading at a distance? The instrument receives IR to a sensor.
Based upon the temperature change of the sensor based upon a reference a calculation is made using the Stefan-Boltzmann relationship of radiant energy to temperature (taking into account emissivity).
You can experimentally verify that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law works in reverse by comparing the temperature reading you get on the IR thermometer with using a conventional thermometer on the same object to see how close they match (try it with water that has a reasonable high emissivity).
That a glass of water an get a reading with an IR thermometer then use a conventional thermometer on the water and see how close they match."
Thank you for your respond.
“…by comparing the temperature reading you get on the IR thermometer with using a conventional thermometer on the same object to see how close they match…”
You describe the IR thermometer calibration process… What IR thermometer does is to measure surface temperature depending on the surface’s IR radiation intensity…
Knowing " T ", we can calculate " J ". Or, knowing " J ", we can calculate " T ". The equation works either way, at the emitting surface.
Well, you do not use the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law in reverse here…
The Stefan-Boltzmann emission law states:
J = σ*Τ⁴ (W/m²) EM energy flux (1)
In your example you refer to the by surface the IR EM energy emission intensity. The reversed Stefan-Boltzmann law is about the incident on the surface EM flux’s " J " ability to warm the surface in the reversed way.
By the reversed Stefan-Boltzmann law what we are referring to is the “absorbing” surface.
The equation is no longer valid (for the purpose of irradiated surface mean temperature evaluation), as the not reflected portion of incoming flux is not entirely absorbed and emitted.
A significant part of the not reflected portion of incoming flux is merely IR emitted on the very instant EM energy hits surface. It is a fraction of EM energy which is IR emitted by surface, without first being transfomed into HEAT and then re-emitted (not the usual way Stefan-Boltzmann emission law dictates). It is more likely, as the on the instant a part of the insident SW into IR transformation and isotropic IR emission, without the intermediate accumulation in form of HEAT...
Thank you for helping to clear this out.
June 17, 2022
"The Stefan-Boltzmann law is founded on real world observations. The equation is derived mathematically for an ideal blackbody. Whether Earth departs from the ideal as radically as you claim is another question.
Expect an exponential increase in radiation from the planet with increasing temperature. It’s the negative Planck feedback."
Two planets with the same mean surface temperature can emit dramatically different amounts of energy.
Moon’s average surface temperature is Tmoon = 220 K
Mars’ average surface temperature is Tmars = 210 K
Moon’s average surface Albedo a =0,11
Mars’ average surface Albedo a =0,25
It can be demonstrated that for the same Albedo Mars and Moon would have had the same average surface temperature.
The solar flux on Moon is So =1361W/m²
The solar flux on Mars is S =586W/m²
It is obvious, that for the same average surface temperature, the emitted amounts of energy from Moon are dramatically higher than the emitted amounts of energy from Mars.
July 2, 2022
Opponent: " they can be considered (the planets) as modified CV (Christos Vournas) black bodies "
When integrating the EM energy outgoing from the entire planetary surface the forth root of this integrated outgoing energy is inevitably corresponding to the planet's actual average surface temperature (the mean surface temperature).
" by adding special ingredients to the discredited black body formula to give an overall surface radiating temperature, just like a black body. "
I use the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law in the right way.
The old imcomplete planet black body formula averages solar flux over the entire planet area in form of HEAT.
The New equation doesn't average solar flux over the entire planet area in form of HEAT.
For the New equation the outgoing EM is a result of the incident on the planet surface solar energy INTERACTION process with the matter.
Black body by definition transforms its calorimetric HEAT into its absolute temperature T forth power EM emission intensity.
On the other hand, planet doesn't emit EM energy supplied by a calorimetric source. The planet's surface temperature is INDUCED by the incident on the planet solar EM flux.
Only a small portion of the incident solar EM energy is transformed into HEAT. The vast majority of the incident solar energy is IR emitted at the same very moment of incidence and interaction with matter.
This EM energy induces the planet surface temperature without being accumulated in the inner layers.
It is entirely different physics when compared with the "quiet" blackbody calorimetric HEAT black body emission phenomenon.
August 13, 2022
A question to opponent:
"Is the Φ-factor too complex for you too? "
"Of course it is not! This factor is absolutely triviaL.
But what is not trivial at all is to formally prove its correctness in the Ein = Eout formula, what none of us on this blog is able to do, you of course included.
Thus, I repeat:
the challenge for you is to present your stuff to scientists who, as opposed to you, do NOT deny GHE.”
Thank you, a very important suggestion you make here.
The Energy in:
Ein = (1-a)S W/m²
used in the blackbody planet effective temperature Te is an empirical assertion, which is not based on any theoretical research, not to say, its correctness has not been demonstrated, quite the opposite…
The Energy in:
Ein = Φ(1-a)S W/m²
is based on measurements (the Drag Coefficient for smooth spheres in a parallel fluid flow Cd = 0,47), and it is demonstrated to be the correct one.
August 28, 2022
Here ιτ is from
"Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect"
Arthur P. Smith∗
American Physical Society, 1 Research Road, Ridge NY, 11961
” A planet without an infrared absorbing atmosphere is mathematically constrained to have an average temperature less than or equal to the effective radiating temperature. Observed parameters for Earth prove that without infrared absorp-tion by the atmosphere, the average temperature of Earths surface would be at least 33 K lower than what is observed."
“So no matter the rotation rate, no matter the surface heat capacity, the average temperature of the planet in this rotating example, with only radiative energy flows and no absorbing layer in the atmosphere, is always less than the effective radiating temperature. For very slow rotation or low heat capacity it can be significantly less; for parameters in the other direction it can come as close as 1% (i.e. up to 252 K on a planet like Earth).”
My comment is:
Both Earth and Moon rotate very-very slowly to make any claim of uniform surface temperature distribution.
Therefore, for Earth without atmosphere, according to Arthur P. Smith theory, we should be oriented close to the measured Moon’s mean surface temperature 220K, and not “up to 252 K ” as Arthur P. Smith claims.
November 16, 2022
Also, I should note that the average solar flux is a pure mathematical abstraction. Solar flux does not average over the planet surface in the real world.
When we "imagine" solar flux averaging on the entire planet surface it is like having (the false RADIATIVE equilibrium CONCEPT), it is like having the actual planet being enclosed in an imaginary sphere, which sphere is emitting towards the planet surface a constant flux of 240 W/m^2. But it is not what happens in the real world!
December 16, 2022
Since Moon’s sidereal rotation period 27,32 days (in reference to the stars) is the same as its orbital around Earth period, Moon definitely does not rotate on its own axis.
If Moon rotated on its own axis, Moon’s sidereal rotational period should have been shorter than its orbital around Earth period.
Moon’s sidereal spin (in reference to the stars) is a sum of Moon’s around Earth orbital and Moon’s around its axis movements.
Since Moon’s sidereal spin is equal to the Moon’s around Earth orbital movement, Moon’s axial spin is zero – Moon does not rotate about its own axis.
Planet Mercury rotates about its own axis.
Mercury’s sidereal rotational period: 58,646 Earth days.
Mercury orbits sun in 87,97 Earth days.
Mercury’s diurnal period is 176 Earth days.
Our Moon doesn’t rotate about its own axis.
Moon’s sidereal rotation period is equal to its around Earth orbital period:
27,32 Earth days.
Moon’s diurnal period is 29,5 Earth days.
Now let’s see:
Earth’s and Moon’s orbital period around sun is
Lunar diurnal cycle period is
Lunar sidereal period in reference to the stars is
Lunar orbital period around Earth is
Let’s have the rates:
Moon revolves in reference to the sun
1 /365,25 = 0,002737850 rot/day
Moon’s diurnal cycle rate is
1 /29,53 = 0,033863867 rot/day
Moon’s sidereal period rate is
1 /27,32 = 0,036603221 rot/day
(1 /27,32 = 0,036603221 rot/day) = (1 /29,53 = 0,033863867 rot/day) + (1 /365,25 = 0,002737850 rot/day)
Let’s do the (1 /365,25 + 1 /29,53)
1 /365,25 = 0,002737850 rot/day
1 /29,53 = 0,033863867 rot/day
========= 0,036601717 rot /day = 1 /27,3211
1 /27,32 = 0,036603221 rot /day = it is Moon’s sidereal period rate!
Therefore there is not any Moon’s rotational rate (rot /day) about Moon’s local axis.
December 17, 2022
"It seems that you deny warming can be due to greenhouse gases. If so, then how do greenhouses work? How it is warmer on a cloudy night after a sunny day, compared to a clear night?
Is it not determined by the amount and types of gases in the atmosphere to let in various frequencies of the sun’s radiation, but to not let out re-radiated infrared frequencies, thus trapping that heat?
Many scientists believe certain gases, typically minimum 3-element such as H2O, CO2, CH4 and so on, trap such radiation, including Carl Sagan in the 70s. It would be very easy to prove or disprove, with scientific experiments in a controlled environment, such as a real greenhouse, with each gas introduced and removed. Clearly water vapour, H2O does trap heat. We know that for sure.
Of course there are some minor quantities of greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere. Earth's atmosphere is a very thin atmosphere, and the greenhouse gasses are present in a content wich only can be described as "trace gasses" content.
Thus the greenhouse effect on Earth's surface is very small, it is very insignificant on the global scale.
“How it is warmer on a cloudy night after a sunny day, compared to a clear night?”
Of course it is warmer on a cloudy night, compared to a clear night.
But there is not for the entire Earth’s surface the +33C greenhouse warming effect.
"You align numbers which have no real link to each other.”
January 22, 2023
“Im not interested in vague assertions you repeatedly post here, and which are, as I can see, absolute nonsense. You align numbers which have no real link to each other.”
A planet mean surface temperature equation should include all the planet surface the major features and all the planet surface major parameters.
March 12, 2023
"We both know that your fudge factor is not albedo."
Yes, the Φ =0,47 is not albedo, it is the planet spherical shape and planet surface roughness coefficient.
"If your fudge factor was right, you would not need to appeal to the Earth spin."
Why would not?
"In fact if what you say about the Earth spin is right, then you have proved that not all energy on Earth does not come from the Sun."
Yes, what I say about Earth spin is right.
And all the energy on Earth surface comes from sun.
Those calculations are adequate to the very much convincing reproducible experiments!
March 15, 2023
"There has to be a tested hypothesis. Otherwise its not reliable.
No quality assurance? No replication? No checking? No testing?
Not even peer review?
"There has to be a tested hypothesis. Otherwise its not reliable.”
Or , as Richard Feynman said “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Well, the method we use in present research is "the planets surface the satellite measured temperatures comparison".
We do everything correctly. Haven't we demonstrate reproducible experiments?
When we do the same calculations on every planet and on every moon in solar system and the results are so very much close to those measured by satellites... those calculations are adequate to the very much convincing reproducible experiments!
March 31, 2023
When some of the planet surface is solar irradiated, some of the SW EM energy is transmitted through the surface. Which raises an interesting question:
If look upon reflection as the rebound of photons at a surface and transmission as their penetration through the surface, then why, if all photons are identical, are some reflected and some transmitted?
Even more puzzling is why photons should be specularly (by which is meant mirror-like) reflected, because for photons imagined as particles of vanishingly small dimensions, all surfaces are rough
When interacting with matter photons get reflected, or transformed into IR outgoing EM energy, or absorbed as heat.
The reflection is always a mirror-like action, when surface is more mat, there are much more microscopical mirrors, and there is a stronger the diffuse reflection part.
Diffuse reflection is not an isotropic phenomenon, like the actual emission is.
Also reflection is always directional, since light comes in from some direction. That is why the Φ -factor, for smooth spherical surface is about 0,47