### The planet mean surface temperature Tmean is amplified by the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.

March 15, 2022

Opponent:

"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

(1-a)S

but

Φ(1-a)S

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.

### For Venus the D * X/Y is five (5) orders of magnitude higher than that of Earth.

April 24, 2022

Opponent:

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.

Important notice:

The Tmean.venus is calculated with the rate of rotation of Venusian winds velocity, which is 60 times faster than Venus’ planet rate of rotation 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.

### By the reversed Stefan-Boltzmann law what we are referring to is the “absorbing” surface.

May 4, 2022

Opponent:

"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."

“…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.

### Whether Earth departs from the ideal as radically as you claim...

June 17, 2022

Opponent:

"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.

### The solar EM energy INDUCES the planet surface temperature without being accumulated in the inner layers.

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).

Oppponent:

" 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.

### To formally prove Φ -Factor's correctness in the Ein = Eout formula.

August 13, 2022

-

A question to opponent:

"Is the Φ-factor too complex for you too? "

Opponent:

"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.

### Both Earth and Moon rotate very-very slowly to make any claim of uniform surface temperature distribution.

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."

– And

“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.

### The false "RADIATIVE equilibrium" CONCEPT

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!

# Of course it is warmer on a cloudy night, compared to a clear night

December 17, 2022

Opponent:

"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

Opponent:

“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.

# All the energy on Earth surface comes from sun.

March 12, 2023

Opponent:

"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.
-

Opponent:

"If your fudge factor was right, you would not need to appeal to the Earth spin."

Why would not?
-

Opponent:

"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

Opponent:

"There has to be a tested hypothesis. Otherwise its not reliable.

No quality assurance? No replication? No checking? No testing?

Not even peer review?

Its unreliable!"

"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!

## The reflection is always a mirror-like action

March 31, 2023

Opponent:

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

The Stefan-Boltzmann emission law does not apply to the planets.

June 22, 2023

Opponent:

“There is nothing imaginary about the Earth surface being on average 288 K.

And you have no explanation for how its temperature can be so high, which results in its IR emission being much more than its solar energy input.”

***

Yes, the Earth surface is on average 288 K.

The 288 K is Earth’s average surface temperature Tmean =288 K. Earth does not have a single temperature 288 K. Thus Earth, as a whole, in its entirety, does not emit at 288 K.

Earth is a planet, and not a blackbody. Earth is not a grey body either.

The Stefan-Boltzmann emission law does not apply to the planets.

Planets do not convert heat into IR EM energy, planets do not behave as the warmed bodies do.

What planets’ surfaces do is to interact with the not reflected portion of the incident solar flux.
Thus, planets have a different, than warmed bodies, the IR EM energy emission behavior.

And, yes, Earth’s IR emission is almost the same as its not reflected portion of the incident solar flux.

-
We should take in consideration two processes though. Earth, in our few millennia, is in a slow orbital forced warming trend.
Also, Earth’s still molten interior, is in continuous cooling process.

Why to reject an equation which is capable to theoretically calculate the solar system temperatures?

November 2, 2023

Opponent:

“He makes up an equation with strange unphysical values so he can force it to agree with measured temps. It is basically the normal equation used to determine planetary temperatures but he adds made up variables to make it give him the answer he wants.”

*****

Thank you, for demonstrating how strange the equation still appears to look, in spite of my efforts to explain every term and every variable it consists of.

LINK to my site, where I have the equation developed:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com

Let’s, approach the whole issue of the equation with a NEW, with a very different way.
Let’s forget everything we knew, and have a simple and a practical look at the proposed equation.

Every planet and moon in solar system has (inevitably) an average (mean) surface temperature.

Inevitably there should be an equation, which equation is capable theoretically calculate (based on the every planet’s and moon’s the surface major charachteristic parameters), which equation is capable theoretically calculate those average (mean) surface temperatures…

The fact, that those theoretically calculated average (mean) surface temperatures, they match so very much close to those measured by satellites, the fact they match so very much…

Why to reject an equation which is capable to theoretically calculate the solar system planets’ and moons’ without atmosphere, or with a thin atmosphere (Earth included) the average (mean) surface temperatures?

The SW 444 W/m² is not averageble

November 22, 2023

Opponent:

-

“Incoming TOA irradiance is ~1362 W/m². In the absence of an atmosphere, albedo = 30%, equilibrium temperature, and geometrical factor pi*r^2 (area of illuminated disk) vs 4*pi^2 (surface of emitting sphere):

1362*.7/4 = 238.5 W/m²

that must be emitted, on average, to maintain equilibrium

This is where the 255 K comes from. Admittedly an approximation.”

-
1362*.7/4 = 238.5 W/m²

I have proposed (the Φ =0,47 because Earth is a smooth surface planet, and thus, Earth has SW very strong specular reflection}

Φ(1 -0,306)So = 0,47*0,694*1362 = 444 W/m²

It is the 444 W/m² SW incident on surface which interacts with matter

and it is the 444 W/m² wich must be IR emitted in TOTAL, to maintain equilibrium

and there is a very important reason I do not average the
444 W/m²
as
444/4 =111 W/m²

I do not average the 444 W/m² over the entire planet surface dividing it by factor 4
geometrical factor pi*r^2 (area of illuminated disk) vs 4*pi^2 (surface of emitting sphere),

I do not average because some (significant?) amount of the
444 W/m² is IR emitted out at the instance of the SW 444 W/m² incidence and interaction with surface.

The SW 444 W/m² is not averageble

A question which beggs an answer is:

What part of the 444 W/m² is instantly emitted, and what part is absorbed in inner layers then?

It is the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon which determines the instant emission/absorption rate.

The higher is the planet surface the (N*cp) product, the more solar energy is absorbed at the point of incidence and IR emitted later on, for the entire planet to maintain equilibrium

and
The higher is the planet surface the (N*cp) product, the higher is the planet average surface temperature.

"That’s a very strange theory Christos."

January 7, 2024

Opponent

************

"That’s a very strange theory Christos. Wait until the magic mushrooms wear off and read back what you wrote. You’ll never go back to that rainy dairy pasture on the wet side of Maui again."

-

************

But...

What do you mean? What : “read back what you wrote.”?
What I wrote upset you so much?

-

************

"You didn’t upset me at all, but to say the rotation of the earth causes it to warm is nuttier than a fat mongoose under a macadamia tree.

Are you comparing it to a person warming himself in front of the fireplace, first he warms his chest, then he warms his back, I can understand.

Or turning a steak on a rotisserie.

But it sounds like you’re saying the faster rotation warms the earth. And then all that business about the albedo, which can’t possibly relate to the earth rotating.

Like I said, strange theory."

-

***********

Yes, exactly. Thank you again.

-

************

Rotisserie

"Generally speaking, when a whole animal is being spit roasted, it is best rotated faster in the early part of the roasting, to help interior temperature rise without burning the exterior."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotisserie

" it is best rotated faster"

Well, it is a long ago known from the million years old experimentation.
When using the fire for cooking meat, they used a spit turning it and cooking the animal.

When rotating slowly, the meat's exterior was burnt, while the interior remained a raw meat.
-
The faster rotation had miraculous results. The meat was perfectly cooked the entire through.
There was not a burnt exterior and a raw interior anymore!
-
And they lived happily ever after...
-
************

January 14, 2024

if the Earth had no atmosphere or oceans

Thank you for the good question

"christos…if the Earth had no atmosphere or oceans, but rotated at the same speed, would it be the same temperature as the Moon?"

For Earth without atmosphere the (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ = 3,5

For Earth without atmosphere and ocean

the  (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ = 2,26

like Mars', because Mars rotates almost the same as Earth.
-
Earth's Tmean =288K

Let's calculate:

(288K)^4 = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )

[( 6.879.707.136 ) /3,5 ] * 2,26 = 4.442.325.179

Earth's without ocean Tmean = (4.442.325.179)^1/4 = 258K

Moon's Tmean =220K
-
Thank you again.

-

*****************

January 14, 2024

Why the faster rotation makes the Earth warmer?

Why the faster rotation makes the Earth warmer?

Because the faster rotating planet absorbs more solar energy.

Opponent:

“faster rotation makes the Earth warmer because faster rotation evens out the temperature. it has to do with T^4 dependence of thermal radiation.”

That is exactly what I thought about the Tmean =288K, when I first realized the CO2 trace gas content in Earth’s atmosphere was too small to affect the greenhouse effect.

Yes, faster rotation makes planet’s surface temperature (for Earth and other planets), faster rotation makes the surface temperature less differentiated.
Yes, the faster rotation “evens out the temperature”.

The faster rotation makes the surface to absorb more solar energy, because there are many more absorption cycles (many more diurnal cycles) so less IR energy is re-emitted during the each solar lit daytime.

-

Also, what I have shown in the present research, is that a solar EM energy doesn't get absorbed in the inner layers. The incident SW solar energy interacts with planet surface matter; only a small portion of the incident solar energy gets absorbed.

**************

*********

******

Opponent:

"The absorbed solar energy is (solar constant)*(cross-sectional area)*(1-albedo).

Neither the rotation rate nor the emitted IR impacts this calculation."

“Neither the rotation rate nor the emitted IR impacts this calculation.”

It is a mathematical calculation.

“The absorbed solar energy is (solar constant)*(cross-sectional area)*(1-albedo).”

The incident solar flux doesn’t interact with a cycle =(cross-sectional area), solar flux interacts with a hemisphere.
When the sphere is smooth (like Earth is) there is also a strong specular reflection.

Solar flux is EM energy. EM energy doesn’t get in the matter. EM energy interacts with matter.

-

March 29, 2024

Opponent:

Theoretically, a planet with zero Albedo (a = 0) … reflects nothing. Period. That is the definition of Bond albedo.

From Wikipedia

Sample albedos

Surface..........Typical albedo
Fresh asphalt...... 0.04[6]
Open ocean......... 0.06[7]
Worn asphalt...... 0.12[6]
Conifer forest,
summer......... 0.08,[8] 0.09 to 0.15[9]
Deciduous forest... 0.15 to 0.18[9]
Bare soil........... 0.17[10]
Green grass...... 0.25[10]
Desert sand...... 0.40[11]
New concrete.... 0.55[10]
Ocean ice......... 0.50 to 0.70[10]
Fresh snow....... 0.80[10]
Aluminum......... 0.85[12][13]

Fresh asphalt a =0,04 it is almost a zero albedo.

Do you claim fresh asphalt … reflects nothing?

********************
From Wikipedia

Two common optical albedos that are used in astronomy are the (V-band) geometric albedo (measuring brightness when illumination comes from directly behind the observer) and the Bond albedo (measuring total proportion of electromagnetic energy reflected). Their values can differ significantly, which is a common source of confusion.

Planet.........Geometric........Bond

Mercury...... 0.142 [73]... 0.088 [74] or 0.068
Venus........ 0.689 [73].... 0.76 [75] or 0.77
Earth..........0.434 [73].... 0.306 [76]
Mars...........0.170 [73].... 0.250 [77]
Jupiter....... 0.538 [73]..... 0.5030.012 [78]
Saturn....... 0.499 [73]..... 0.342 [79]
Uranus....... 0.488 [73]..... 0.300 [80]
Neptune......0.442 [73]..... 0.290 [81] ”

“the Bond albedo (measuring total proportion of electromagnetic energy reflected).”

Is it possible planet Mercury a =0.088 [74] or 0.068 reflects only ~ 9% or ~ 7% of the incident solar energy?

March 30, 2024

Opponent:

“Christos

This may be evidence against your hypothesis that a faster rotating planet is a warmer planet.

If this simulation is correct the Earths day has increased from 5 hours to 24 hours over 4 billion years while, apart from an occasional Snowball Earth, temperature has stayed fairly constant.”

For the N = 24/5 rot/day and the same solar flux ~ 1360 W/m² the equation calculates

Tmean = 319K, which is 46 oC.

But 4,5 bn years ago sun was much “colder”.

Also Earth was not covered with water then.

For the N = 24/5 rot/day and the same solar flux ~ 1360 W/m², but instead of oceanic water cp =1 cal/gr*oC substitute with basalt’s
cp =0,18 cal/gr*oC, and the equation calculates:

Tmean = 285K, which is 13 oC.

Was there water ocean on Earth 4,5 bn years ago? No.

So, Equation proves itself right on every possible occasion…

April 8, 2024

Opponent:

"Just how rapidly do you expect the accumulation of solar enegy by rotating bodies to increase ?"

When a planet or moon rotates faster, its surface's temperature is less differentiated. This results in rising the surface average temperature.

Because for a sphere (it is a well known and explained phenomenon), for the same IR energy emission, the less differentiated the sphere's surface temperature - the higher the average surface temperature.

But it is about a phenomenon, when sphere has been previously warmed, or, when sphere has its own inner source/sources of energy.

Planet or moon gets its surface energy from the interaction processes with the incident solar EM energy.

When interacting, part of the solar energy gets reflected as SW EM energy.

The rest is the not reflected portion of the incident solar SW EM energy.
Most of it gets transformed into IR outgoing EM energy, without being absorbed.
Only a small part gets absorbed in form of heat in inner layers.
-
When planet or moon faster rotation, less gets transformed into IR outgoing EM energy, and more is accumulated in inner layers.

For planets and moons, it is different then.

For the same IR emission, the faster rotating planet or moon accumulates more solar energy - thus the faster rotating planets and moons are warmer. Their surface temperatures are less differentiated, and, also, their surfaces accumulate more solar energy.

April 17, 2024

That Te =255K is the alleged temperature of something

Te =255K is purely theoretical, because it is not the temperature of Earth, but the alleged temperature of something, that would emit the same total flux of electromagnetic energy as Earth.

That Te =255K the alleged temperature of something, is calculated by reversing the S-B emission law formula, by assuming the not reflected part of the incident solar energy is entirely absorbed and evenly distributed on the planet surface, and then it is isotropically IR emitted.
-
Also, we have already demonstrated, the S-B emission law doesn't apply on the surface's lower temperatures, the Law doesn't apply at the terrestrial temperatures.

Quote:

“If there is something very slightly wrong in our definition of the theories, then the full mathematical rigor may convert these errors into ridiculous conclusions.”

Richard Feynman
-

May 14, 2024

The CO2 is a trace gas in the Earth’s actually thin atmosphere
(1 bar at sea level).
One should use the spectroscopy methods to accurately measure the existence of ~ 400 ppm CO2, or 1 molecule CO2 in 2500 molecules of air.

It is by itself a scientific achievement the CO2 was ever detected, and its content measured in the Earth’s thin air.

Why Io is warmer than Europa?
Io vs Europa (Tsat 110K vs Tsat 102 K) comparison

“It takes Io about 42.5 hours (1.77 days) to complete one orbit around Jupiter (fast enough for its motion to be observed over a single night of observation).

Io is in a 2:1 mean-motion orbital resonance with Europa ”

Io is in a 2:1 mean-motion orbital resonance with Europa,
also Io average surface specific heat is cp = 0,145 cal/gr*oC, whereas Europa is cp = 1 cal/gr*oC.

Thus, Io rotates twice as fast, but Io has 1/0,145 = 6,89 smaller average surface cp.

Both Io and Europa have the same Albedo a = 0,63
Io has warming factor =(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ = 1,8647

Io has average surface temperature measured by satellite
Tsat.io = 110K

Europa has Tsat.europa = 102K
And Europa has warming factor =(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ = 2,5494

But also Europa is characterized as the smoothest object in entire solar system.
So, Φeuropa = 0,47 vs Φio = 1.

Let’s compare:

[(1,8647 /2,5494) /0,47 ]¹∕ ⁴ = 1,116

110K /102K = 1,07

the 1,116 and 1,07 are very close ~ 3% difference.
which means the comparison is performed correctly.

Opponent :

Spectroscopic methods are used precisely because CO2’s 15 um band absorbs strongly in the IR water window.

Absorption:

A = -log(Iₜ/I₀) = εcℓ

if ε (molar extinction coefficient) and ℓ (path length) are large – they are – then the concentration (c) can be small and still have absorbance A>2 (99% absorption).

A visible analog for those that must “see to believe”:

Consider a liter bottle of water, then add a drop of food coloring to it (concentration = 0.005%) – can you see the color? This is nearly 10 times lower than the concentration of CO2 in air.

Then one must ask, how much does retaining an excess ~3% of surface thermal emissions change earth’s temperature.

Next consider that molecular collision times are about 0.1 nanosecond at STP, while the CO2 bending vibration has a radiative decay lifetime of ~1 microsecond, 10,000 times slower than the collisions.

Thus, single CO2 molecules can cycle, absorbing a photon and then collisionally deactivating, millions of times a second; converting the absorbed surface emission photons to atmospheric molecular motional (VRT) heat.

That’s right.

Also they visualise the CO2 interaction with upgoing IR EM energy as some tiny billiard balls (photons) striking some other tiny billiard balls (the CO2 molecules).

By doing so, by visualising, they inevitably conclude, that surely, at their path through the atmosphere, all the 15μ photons should met with and collide with some CO2 molecule, which molecule happens somewhere along the path blocking the passage to the 15μ photon.

It is a mistaken thing to do – visualising the EM energy /matter interaction process.
Molecules are not balls, and photons are not balls either.

The EM energy is a wave. Molecules is the matter. What they do is to interact – they do not collide as some billiard balls do.

Opponent :

Light is both photons and electromagnetic waves. When a molecule “extracts” energy from the field, it absorbs a quantized photon. No, they are not billiard balls, but they do have measurable cross-sections, from which opacity and molecule-molecule collision time distributions can be calculated.

Opponent :

“The EM energy is a wave” – no, it is many, many waves; each photon has its own wave (more formally, wave packet). The electromagnetic field is not “a” wave unless it comes from a laser.

Proponent :

“The electromagnetic field is not “a” wave unless it comes from a laser.” Isn’t laser light composed of photons?

It is far more helpful to visualize the interaction of the electrons and protons.

Photons cannot collide with molecules because photon have no mass.

Christos, the proper term would be “interact”, and photons and matter interact all the time. And both change because of it.

“they do have measurable cross-sections…”

How could that be?

Molecules have cross-sections, photons have wavelengths (energies).

How do you measure a molecule’s cros-section? BTW, are the molecules of spherical shape?

And, do molecules swell or shrink?

Christos,

“How do you measure a molecule’s cros-section? BTW, are the molecules of spherical shape?
And, do molecules swell or shrink?”

For photons, cross-section can be determined from absorption by a sample of known concentration and length. If you’re from Missouri, you can use electron microscopy.

Molecules are not spherical – see the TEM “photos” of pentacene in the above paper.

Molecules rotate and vibrate and are “fuzzy” in that sense, but also quantum mechanically. The equilibrium positions of the nuclei and electron probability distributions change with the particular quantum state of the molecule. So yes, they can swell and shrink. In fact, some vibrations are called “breathing” modes.

Thank you.

When solar irradiated, the larger atoms get warmed at higher temperatures.

.

When solar irradiated, a plate of gold gets warmer than a plate of polished coper.

May 15, 2024

A planet does not emit at a SINGLE temperature.
— And,
two planets with the same mean surface temperature (Tmean) may emit dramatically different amounts of INFRARED radiative energy.

Two planets with the same mean surface temperature may emit, on the average surface area, may emit dramatically different amounts of IR outgoing EM 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, on the average surface area, are dramatically higher than the emitted amounts of energy from Mars.

Opponent:

There is a simple explanation for the discrepancy: Mars has an atmosphere that is 95% CO2 and has 15 times the absolute concentration found on Earth (optically thick for CO2 and enough pressure that collision times allow thermal redistribution). Also (1-a) = fraction absorbed, is the relevant absorption coefficient, not ‘a’ (the reflected part). (1-a) = 0.75 is not so different from 0.89.

Also, the 210 C temperature on Mars, moves the BBR spectral peak close to the saturated CO2 14.9 um absorption band.

Now, if Moon had Earth’s Albedo, Moon’s average surface temperature would have been 206,7 K.

So, 288K – 206,7K = 81,4C difference.

And here we have the opposite example:

Two planets emitting the same amounts of IR outgoing EM energy, may have dramatically different average surface temperatures.

Let’s continue with the Venus/Earth comparison :

Atmosphere of Venus

Height Temp. Atmospheric pressure
(km) (°C)……….(atm)

0 ….. 462 … 92.10
5 ….. 424 … 66.65
10 …. 385 … 47.39
15 …. 348 … 33.04
20 …. 306 … 22.52
25 …. 264 … 14.93
30 …. 222 … 9.851
35 …. 180 … 5.917
40 …. 143 … 3.501
45 …. 110 … 1.979

50 …. 75 … 1.066
55 …. 27 … 0.531 4
60 .. −10 … 0.235 7

65 …. −30 … 0.097 65
70 …. −43 … 0.036 90
80 …. −76 … 0.004 760
90 …. −104 .. 0.000 373 6
100 … −112 .. 0.000 026 60

Venus has a runaway atmospheric greenhouse effect.
Albedo a = 0,76 (Bond), S= 2.601 W/m²
(1 – 0,76)*2.601 W/m² = 624 W/m²

Earth Albedo a = 0,306 (Bond), So = 1.361 W/m²
(1 – 0,306)*1.361 W/m² = 945 W/m²

Let’s compare:
Earth 945 W/m² 1 atm., CO2 0,04%, 14 (°C)
Venus 624 W/m² 0,235 atm., CO2 96,5%, -10 (°C)

Venus
624/945 = 0,66
0,235*96,5 = 22,68
0,66*22,68 = 14,97

Earth
945/945 = 1
1*0,04 = 0,04
1*0,04 = 0,04

Let’s continue the Venus/Earth comparison :

14,97/0,04 = 374 times more CO2 but the temperature is -10(°C)

The specular reflection of Moon’s surface is ignored

May 21, 2024

Opponent:

Moon absorbs from averaged solar flux 1.370 W/ minus albedo the 303 W/, but, because of its temperature at 220 K, Moon ought to be transferring only around

5.67e-8*220^4 = 133 W/.

How the slow rotation and lack of ocean to retain heat disappear the rest of

303 W/ - 133 W/m^2 = 170 W/ ?

Moon is a smooth surface celestial body.

Thus for Moon the Φ = 0,47

Let’s calculate:

Φ*(1 – a)*So = 0,47(1 – 0,11)*1.370 W/

=
= 0,47*0,89*1370 W/ = 573,071 W/

When “averaging” by dividing by “4” we shall obtain:

573,071 W/ /4 = 143,27 W/

this result (143,27 W/) is very close to the “Moon at 220 K ought to be transferring only around

5.67e-8*220^4 =133 W/.”

Conclusion:

Moon’s surface has a strong specular reflection. The specular reflection of Moon’s surface is ignored in Moon’s

Energy in = Energy out

May 21, 2024

Opponent:

The fact that CO2 emits to space does not mean it cannot be insulating.

Earth surface emits at 288 K. CO2 at the TOA emits at 220 K.

Thus the emissions in the CO2 wavelength bands to space are LESS that the emissions in the same wavelength bands at the Earths surface.

In addition, the Earth surface emits heat by convection. No heat is emitted at the TOA to space by convection.

-

You correlate the blackbody theoretical emission curves at some temperatures with greenhouse gases emission bands and conclude it has something to do with Earth's surface emission behavior.

May 30, 2024

Opponent:

"Once again, where are the measurements?

It is easy to invent a hypothetical solar insolation accepting factor. It is equally easy to invent formulae.

To show that your hypothesis has any relation to reality you need to test it by experiment."
-

The measurements are the planets and moons satellite measured temperatures.

The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon has been discovered by comparing the satellite measured temperatures.

It is not "a hypothetical solar insolation accepting factor."

By "accepting" means how much energy a spherical shape body may "stop".

A spherical shape body may stop a flow of energy. Because of spherical shape a sphere

may stop Φ(1-a)S of total incident energy.

Φ varies from 0,47 to 1.

The smoother the surface is the closer to 0,47 the Φ is.

Thus, a smooth surface sphere with Albedo a = 0
should "absorb" 0,47*S.

A sphere with rough surface (Φ = 1) and a = 0 should "absorb" a 100% S.

And a sphere with Albedo a = 1 should not "absorb" EM energy, regardless the values of Φ.
-

It is impossible to reconstract the global temperatures for tens thousands years back.

June 6, 2024

Thesis:

Earth’s “recent” global warming is a millenials long slow orbitally forced process.

It happens so, Earth on its orbitally forced process, the global warming is in its culmination “moments”.

Please compare with the yearly seasonal periods of the colder and warmer phases. The highest solar insolation occurs at June 22, but the warmest phase is in mid-July.

Our planet Earth, in its orbitally forced warming is, by analog around the July 7.

Thus, it is going to become warmer during the millenial and half to come, and only then the orbital path will change into the global cooling trend.

Opponent:

"Starting 22,000 years ago temperatures began to rise.

They stabilised around 10,000 years ago and remained around 14.3C until 5000 years ago. That is the sweet spot, the Holocene Optimium.

Temperatures then began to cool. Over the next 5000 years to 1880 the temperature dropped naturally from 14.3C to 13.8C.

Since 1880 artificial warming has raised the temperature by 1.1C to 14.9C."

-

"They stabilised around 10,000 years ago and remained around 14.3C until 5000 years ago. That is the sweet spot, the Holocene Optimium."

It is not possible, it is not possible to remain at the same temperature (around 14.3C) for a so long period (5000 years).

"Temperatures then began to cool. Over the next 5000 years to 1880 the temperature dropped naturally from 14.3C to 13.8C."

Why temperature began to cool?

Opponent:

“Earths recent global warming is a millenials long slow orbitally forced process.”

That turns out not to be the case.

http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg

The cooling trend due to slipping away from the Holocene “sweet spot” started 5000 years ago.

Without our artificial warming the natural trend would be continued cooling. Instead we are now warmer than at any time in this interglacial.

” Instead we are now warmer than at any time in this interglacial.”

We are warmer, than at any time in this interglacial.
Yes, because we are in the middle of this interglacial.

When in the middle of glacial – it is the most cold.
When in the middle of interglacial – it is the most warm.

Opponent:

” The cooling trend due to slipping away from the Holocene sweet spot started 5000 years ago.

Without our artificial warming the natural trend would be continued cooling.“

"The graph shows the natural Holocene peak, the Holocene Optimum, between 10,000 and 5000 years ago. Even before the Industrial Revolution we were well into the natural end-of-interglacial cooling trend."

What “sweet spot” 5000 years ago?

“Even before the Industrial Revolution we were well into the natural end-of-interglacial cooling trend.”

LIA was an episode of the land glaciers growing, not the global temperature cooling.

Opponent:

Look again at the graph. Starting 22,000 years ago temperatures began to rise.

They stabilised around 10,000 years ago and remained around 14.3C until 5000 years ago.

That is the sweet spot, the Holocene Optimium.

Temperatures then began to cool. Over the next 5000 years to 1880 the temperature dropped naturally from 14.3C to 13.8C.

Since 1880 artificial warming has raised the temperature by 1.1C to 14.9C.

All these values have confidence limits of +/- 0.1C and are real values. Why they changed is a valid topic of debate, but denying them is not a reasonable option.

“They stabilised around 10,000 years ago and remained around 14.3C until 5000 years ago.

That is the sweet spot, the Holocene Optimium.”

It is not possible, it is not possible to remain at the same temperature (around 14.3C) for a so long period (5000 years).

“Temperatures then began to cool. Over the next 5000 years to 1880 the temperature dropped naturally from 14.3C to 13.8C.”

Why temperature began to cool?

Opponent:

"Whether or not it’s impossible, that’s what the data shows;stable 14.3C, plus or minus the confidence limits.

Mind you, the proxies used are not sensitive enough to detect year on year variations. They are more like decadal averages."

What I can do is to reconstruct a trend (either it is a warming trend, or it is a cooling trend) for some period of time.
It is the warming trend for the last ~ 11000 years.

First it was a slower warming, then as it proceeded, the rate of warming accelerated.
What we witness now are the culmination times of the warming trend.

Now, how it is possible to reconstruct the global temperatures for tens thousands years back – I think it is impossible.

June 8, 2024

Opponent:

“Your theory also says that the Earths absorbed solar is 112 W/m².

Not exactly. The theory is not averaging solar flux over the entire global surface.
What theory says is “the Earth’s not reflected portion of the incident solar flux IN TOTAL Globally is:

π*r^2*448 W

where“r”is the Earth’s radius in meters.

When discussing with opponents, for the comparison reasons I averaged the “Earth’s not reflected portion of the incident solar flux” and that is how the number

112 W/m² came up.

But I have shown, that the “Earth’s not reflected portion of the incident solar flux” cannot be averaged over the entire global surface.

The global average surface temperature is a result of the incident solar EM energy interaction with planet surface.

A planet responds to the incident solar energy with all its surface features, a planet responds as a whole.

And a planet’s response to solar EM energy interaction process results to the average surface temperature Tsat or Tmean.

“More specifically, the greenhouse effect may be defined quantitatively as the amount of longwave radiation emitted by the surface that does not reach space.

On Earth as of 2015, about 398 W/m2 of longwave radiation was emitted by the surface, while OLR, the amount reaching space, was 239 W/m².

Thus, the greenhouse effect was 398−239 = 159 W/m², or 159/398 = 40% of surface emissions, not reaching space.

“…about 398 W/m² of longwave radiation was emitted by the surface, while OLR, the amount reaching space, was

239 W/m².”

Earth’s average surface temperature is Tmean = 288K

If Earth’s surface had uniform temperature Tunif =288K, then Earth’s surface blackbody emission temperature would have been
~398 W/m²

We have a scientific paradox here.

There is a widely known MATHEMATICAL CONSTRAINT

For identical spheres emitting the same exactly amount of IR EM energy, for those with higher differentiated surface temperatures, the average surface temperature (Tmean) will be lower.

Thus, the higher the spheres’ differentiated surface temperatures, the lower their average surface temperature.

So, consequently, the spheres with UNIFORM (not differentiated) surface temperatures will have the highest (the maximum) AVERAGE surface temperature.

Since Earth’s surface temperature is not at all uniform, Earth’s surface emitting ~398 W/m² should have a much lower average surface temperature (Tmean),
than the actual Tmean = 288K.

June 15, 2024

The Precession of Equinoxes Cycle.

Opponent:

“You claimed Earth's warming was only due to natural orbital forcing.
But then you offer NO science explanation for the warming of the last half century.

Why do you ignore contradictory facts?
While AGW does offer an explanation in terms of an increasing GHE.”

The science explanation for the warming of the last half century:

The orbitally forced global warming process is a slow millenials long phenomenon.

The our last 50 years observed

(because the last 50 years we are in the satellite measurements era),

what we observe is the acceleration of the Polar Temperatures Amplification Phenomenon.

You rely on Stockwell/Milankovitch, which claims we are in orbitally forced cooling trend, and it is very much wrong.

It is wrong, because the current obliquity variation cycle is very small, it is ~1 degree, which affects global temperatures very little.

The warming is orbitally forced, but it is not the ” 2,5 degrees the obliquity variation theory”,

what causes the current millenials long warming is the “precession of eqinoxes cycle“.

July 21, 2024

The earth’s greenhouse effect is very much insignificant.

Opponent:

“You cannot have it both ways.”

What I say – the earth’s greenhouse effect is very much insignificant. The earth’s atmosphere is a thin atmosphere.
CO2 is a trace gas in earth’s thin atmosphere, thus CO2 does not warm earth’s surface.

The small rise in CO2 content in earth’s thin atmosphere does nothing, because it is insignificant.

You may say, how CO2 does nothing, Vournas said it is insignificant, so it must warm earth surface at some extend.

No, insignificant means it is so small, it cannot be measured, and since it cannot be measured/detected it is like it is not exist.

Only in somebody's theoretical thinking there is a CO2 warming effect on earth’s surface.

That is why, in order to save all us from the overheating, the alarming comments are so much misleading.

It is a naturally accelerating warming phenomenon!

Well, a planet has a spherical shape, right?

Earth is a planet, so Earth has a spherical shape.

The more solar energy Earth accumulates, the warmer the higher latitudes become.

Also, the higher is the latitude on sphere, the smaller is the area.
Which means that for the same additional portion of absorbed solar energy the Global Warming will be a more and more accelerated orbitally forced phenomenon…

Some centuries ago the Gulf Stream was bringing its warm waters up to the 65 degrees.

As the Polish Meteorologist Ireneusz Palmowski explains:

“warming will continue in the northern hemisphere for several thousand more years until perihelion shifts to May.

Then the extent and thickness of ice in the north will increase because less solar energy will reach the northern hemisphere in winter.”

https://judithcurry.com/2024/07/10/implications-of-the-linear-carbon-sink-model/#comment-1008324

Now the Gulf Stream is flooding with its warm waters the Arctic area up to 80 degrees.

It will take some millenials this orbitally forced natural phenomenon to be reversed.

Opponent:

“The Gulf Stream is weakening.”

Of course the Gulf Stream is weakening. Because it is reaching the end of its jorney!

The Gulf Stream what it did was to get more and more northern.

It is almost nowhere to move up the Globe any more. So the Stream is flooding the Arctic areas with its warm waters.

It is a naturally accelerating warming phenomenon!

July 22, 2024

“CHRISTOS WRITES: why do you deny the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon?

No one denies that rotation rate matters. Higher rotation rate causes a higher average temperature by making the surface temperature more uniform. You also correct conclude that higher specific heat causes a higher average temperature again by making the surface temperature more uniform.

That is not the problem with your theory. The three main problems with your theory (as I see it) are:

1) You ignore the greenhouse effect, which is firmly rooted in science.

3) there is no physical reason or theoretical derivation of your (N*cp)^1/16 factor. It is purely an empirical fit (after you fudge the Φ factor).”

“Higher rotation rate causes a higher average temperature by making the surface temperature more uniform. You also correct conclude that higher specific heat causes a higher average temperature again by making the surface temperature more uniform.”

Not only more uniform surface temperatures, but also at higher rates a planet or moon absorbs more solar EM energy in form of heat.

Now,

“1) You ignore the greenhouse effect, which is firmly rooted in science.”

I do not ignore the greenhouse effect, there is some very small greenhouse effect on earth’s surface.

The satellite measured albedo is the very precisely measured the average planet surface the diffuse reflection.

The measured albedo is not the Bond albedo, that is why the theoretical planet effective temperatures, which are based on the measured albedo values are so much overestimated.

“3) there is no physical reason or theoretical derivation of your (N*cp)^1/16 factor. It is purely an empirical fit (after you fudge the Φ factor).”

The (N*cp)^1/16 is the result of planets and moons the satellite measured average surface temperatures comparison. It is an observation.

I think, in time, it is possible the mathematical theoretical derivation.

The (N*cp)^1/16 doesn’t have anything with the Φ factor. It writes the average surface temperatures (everything else equals) comparison:

T1 /T2 = [(N1*cp1) /(N2*cp2)]^1/16

Thank you again.

September 3, 2024

Opponent:

"Your theory postulates that only 0.47, 47% of the solar insolation is absorbed. "
-

No, my theory doesn't postulate that only 0.47, 47% of the solar insolation is absorbed.

It is not correct, because Φ =0,47 is the solar irradiation accepting factor.

The not reflected portion is:

Φ(1 -a)So = 0,47(1 - 0,306)So = 0,47*0,694*So = 0,326*So

0,326*So = 0,326*1362W/m² = 444W/m² related to the planet cros-section cycle.

The number 444W/m² cannot be averaged over the entire planetary surface, because the 444W/m² is not absorbed, the 444W/m² interacts with surface, and only a fraction of the 444W/m² gets absorbed in inner layers.

What my theory postulates, in the case of Earth, because Earth is a planet with a smooth surface, is that only 444W/m² related to the planet cros-section cycle of the solar insolation is not reflected.

That quantity - the 444W/m² of the solar insolation is not absorbed in the Earth's inner layers.

What is not reflected interacts with planetary surface, and only a fraction of that quantity - only a fraction of the 444W/m² of the solar insolation, only a fraction of it gets absorbed in Earth's inner layers.

So, it is actually a completely different approach, it is a completely different mechanism when describing the planet radiative energy balance, the

Energy in = Energy out

which (in radiative equilibrium) should be necessarily met.
-
The above naturally begs for the question:

Where to goes the not absorbed solar energy then?

The not absorbed SW solar energy, when interacting with planetary surface's matter, the surface's skin layer gets warmed, and instantly transforms the SW solar energy into the LW (IR) outgoing radiative EM energy.

The temperature (at every spot) developed by the surface's skin layer is measured by satellite sensors and that skin layer's temperature is considered as the spot's surface temperature.

The spot's skin layer's temperature is a superficial temperature. That temperature doesn't represent the temperature the surface's inner layers are at.

Because the not reflected SW solar energy is not entirely absorbed in surface's inner layers.

September 10, 2024

The outdoors thermometers do not measure air temperature.

Opponent:

Definitely nothing more than the air temperature in the specific location where the thermometer is located, assuming it’s in the shade…