Nikolov:
"While the average outgoing LW flux of a planet is an observable physical parameter, Te derived from it using Eq. (3) is a mathematical abstraction with no physical analogue at, below or above the surface. Thus, planetary effective emission temperatures are not compatible with measured ph
ysical temperatures regardless of the albedo they are based on. In other words, Te is a non-physical quantity with respect to a sphere. Consequently, comparing Earth’s observed global mean surface air temperature (287.6 K) to any Te is bound to produce numerically and theoretically misleading results. The conceptual distinction between Te on one hand and Tna or Ts on the other arises from the mathematical understanding that mean planetary temperatures cannot in principle be inferred from globally averaged radiative fluxes. In this regard, our analysis demonstrates that evaluating the strength of a planet’s ATE strictly requires the use of physical surface temperatures."
Link: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723
Grok commets:
"Christos Vournas shares a link to his blog post titled "Nikolov," which presents his mechanical engineering-based model of planetary temperatures.
- The article claims Earth's atmosphere does not warm the surface, instead attributing the +68°C difference from the Moon to rotational warming via (N*cp)^1/16, a Φ-factor for solar absorption (0.47 for smooth surfaces), and immediate IR emission.
- Vournas argues standard effective emission temperature (Te) calculations are non-physical abstractions, challenges the Stefan-Boltzmann law's application to terrestrial bodies, and proposes alternative factors like specular reflection and axial precession over conventional greenhouse or Milankovitch explanations."
Link: