### 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 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.

### 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!

# Our Moon doesn’t rotate about its own axis

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
365,25 days

Lunar diurnal cycle period is
29,53 days

Lunar sidereal period in reference to the stars is
27,32 days

Lunar orbital period around Earth is
27,32 days

*****
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.

# 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.

-