The very POWERFUL the Solar Irradiated planet surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon: ( N*cp )^1/16

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… Christos Vournas challenges the traditional greenhouse effect model, arguing that Earth's higher average surface temperature (288K) compared to the Moon's (220K) is primarily due to Earth's faster rotation (29.5 times faster) and higher surface specific heat (water at 1 cal/gr°C vs. lunar regolith at 0.19 cal/gr°C), not atmospheric insulation. Vournas introduces the "Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon," proposing that a planet's mean surface temperature scales with the sixteenth root of the product of its rotation rate (N) and specific heat capacity (cp), demonstrating this with a 1.63% difference between calculated and observed Earth-Moon temperature ratios. The post critiques mainstream radiative energy balance models by incorporating a Solar Irradiation Accepting Factor (Φ), which adjusts for

The NEW Planetary Surface Radiative Energy Balance CONCEPT. The EM energy/ surface matter interaction process - instead of the simplified reflection + heat absorption - the EM energy interaction process leads to a New, a completely different the Planetary Surface Radiative Energy Balance CONCEPT. - Let's proceed with it systematically. Let's do it scientifically. Let's begin with the most helpful comparison - Let's begin with Earth's and Moon's average surface temperatures comparison. Earth's average surface temperature is much higher than Moon's average surface temperature. Planets and moons are celestial bodies which rotate under the sun. All planets and moons are inevitably subjected to the same Physical Laws. What we consider happening to the Earth's and to the Moon's temperatures should be necessarily confirmed by the rest planets' and moons' temperatures same behavior. Earth's average surface temperature is much higher than Moon's average surface temperature. Why? What it is the

Quote Christos Vournas @CVournas44116 · 15m December solstice /June solstice = the yearly ... https://cristos-vournas.com/blog/december-solstice-june-solstice-the-yearly-solar-e… Christos Vournas’ post links to a website discussing the December and June solstices, focusing on their role in Earth’s orbital cycles and climate impacts, particularly how the Tropic of Cancer and Tropic of Capricorn define the Sun’s overhead position at these times, influencing seasonal temperature variations. The website content challenges the conventional Milankovitch Cycle interpretation, arguing that Earth’s current perihelion (closest solar approach) in January, coinciding with the Southern Hemisphere’s summer, leads to a 7% higher solar irradiance, which oceans absorb, driving a millennial-scale warming trend and polar amplification. Vournas’ analysis suggests that in 10,000 years, when the perihelion shifts to the Northern Hemisphere’s summer, increased insolation on continents (less heat-absorbent t

Tropic of Cancer - Wikipedia The Tropic of Cancer, also known as the Northern Tropic, is the Earth's northernmost circle of latitude where the Sun can be seen directly overhead. This occurs on the June solstice, when the Northern Hemisphere is tilted toward the Sun to its maximum extent.[1] It also reaches 90 degrees below the horizon at solar midnight on the December Solstice. Using a continuously updated formula, the circle is currently 23°26′09.6″ (or 23.43599°) north of the Equator. Relationship of Earth's axial tilt (ε) to the tropical and polar circles Tropic of Capricorn - Wikipedia The Tropic of Capricorn (or the Southern Tropic) is the circle of latitude that contains the subsolar point at the December (or southern) solstice. It is thus the southernmost latitude where the Sun can be seen directly overhead. It also reaches 90 degrees below the horizon at solar midnight on the June Solstice. Its northern equivalent is the Tropic of Cancer. The Tropic of Capricorn is one of the f

We pay more now, than we paid without renewables. Shouldn’t we pay now – when renewables produce cheaper electricity – shouldn’t we pay now less? – It looks like that renewables are the least expensive generation source for electiricity. But also there should be considered the cost of reliability and stability in the computation. We should take into account the overproduction of electricity due to the redundancy required to solve the intermetticy problem. So it looks like more renewables implementation will only rise the cost of electricity, not lower it. The renewables should be implemented very cautiously, in a slow pace. They role is a supplementary to the basic load electricity production, if we want to see the energy prices lowering. Because there is not any reason for the coal-fired electric plants closure, because there is not any relation between the CO2 content in air and the Global Warming.

Sensible Heat /Latent Heat ratio Opponent: "Christos Vournas's claims in his X post are not aligned with mainstream climate science. His interpretation of CO2 in ice cores as indicating colder periods is incorrect, as CO2 is trapped as gas and correlates with warmer periods. His view on current warming being due to orbital forcing, not human activity, is unsupported, given the rapid pace and magnitude of modern warming driven by greenhouse gases. These findings highlight the importance of aligning interpretations with established scientific data and consensus." Answer: "given the rapid pace and magnitude of modern warming" Yes, in last 100 years we observe a rapid pace of modern warming. Let's explain: Earth's surface is covered about ~ 70% with oceanic waters. Also vast areas on land have water in soils and in plants... Water is mostly present in liquid phase, but also water exists on Earth's surface in solid phase (snow and ice). We have the seasonal changes in temperatures, because