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

Christos Vournas @CVournas44116 · 5m The role of the immediate IR emission. https://cristos-vournas.com/blog/the-role-of-the-immediate-ir-emission… Thought for 39s Thinking about the user's request Examining X post The provided link points to an X post by user CVournas44116 with ID 1990545108413116418. Fetched thread To analyze this post, fetching its content and thread context seems like the right first step. Browsed cristos-vournas.com This post comes from Christos Vournas, a mechanical engineer posting as @CVournas44116 . The post discusses the role of immediate IR emission and links to a blog post on the topic. Searched for ""The role of the immediate IR emission" site:cristos-vournas.com" cristos-vournas.com cristos-vournas.com Browsed cristos-vournas.com Searched for "Christos Vournas "Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon"" cristos-vournas.com cristos-vournas.com Investigating blog content A search confirms the blog page exists but it's still under construction, with a t

When an object is irradiated, there is the reflection, there is the immediate IR emission, and there is the heat absorption. We continue with an important observation: When a planetary surface is Solar Irradiated, there is - from the surface - an immediate IR emission, and, its intensity depends not only on the solar flux, but also on the planetary (N*cp) product. When on summer on the beach, we cannot step barefooted on the dry sand - because the dry sand under the sun becomes unbearably hot. Next to the water the wet sand is plesantly cool. The hot dry sand exhibits an immediate intensive IR emission, whereas the cooler wet sand's the immediate IR emission is much less intense. So, we conclude that the cooler wet sand is capable of retaining more solar energy as heat, than the hot dry sand. ******************* Like-wise, on the faster rotating Earth, the dry sand under the sun is not as much hot as the dry lunar regolith on the much slower rotating Moon. So, we conclude, that the no

The satellites measure the actual surface temperatures What I would like to add is that satellite from above doesn't measure (doesn't indicate) the same temperature the thermometer in the Standartized Stevenson's screen measures (displays) on the exact same point, and at the exact same instant on the Earth's surface. So, those two are different temperatures, because they measure different items. Satellite measures the IR emission intensity the ground at the point emits, and translates it to temperature according to its calibration. Thermometer displays the temperature of itself (the body of thermometer). The thermometer's temperature is depemdent on the surrounding environment's temperature and it is not the instant temperature, but with a time-lag. Also the thermometer's temperature is dependent on the air temperature, which enters into the Stevenson's screen by natural convection - and, therefore the temperature measured is also dependent on the velocity of winds. Those are differen

Let's see how AI comments the issue The Three Main Components Milankovitch cycles comprise three primary orbital parameters: eccentricity, obliquity, and precession. Each has a distinct periodicity and affects insolation differently. Their combined influence modulates climate, with obliquity often considered the most significant for ice sheet dynamics, though the interplay among all three is crucial. – Role in Ice Ages and Climate Change Milankovitch cycles explain the periodicity of Pleistocene ice ages. Between 1–3 million years ago, glacial cycles matched obliquity’s 41,000-year rhythm. Around 800,000 years ago, they shifted to ~100,000-year intervals, aligning with eccentricity—though the exact cause of this “Mid-Pleistocene Transition” remains debated. Small insolation changes from these cycles trigger feedbacks like ice-albedo effects, greenhouse gas variations (e.g., CO2 from ocean outgassing), and ocean circulation shifts, amplifying global temperature swings. Evidence from se

"Your millennial-thinking does not accord with Western academia’s decadal will-o’-the-wisp fixation on the imminent danger all humanity now faces because of the ppm increase of CO2 that is released into the atmosphere by American businesses." Thank you, for your response. Of course it is not a decadal issue… The planet, in its orbiting path around the sun, is never in a perfect radiative equilibrium state. For long-long millennias there may be a negative the heat absorption process ( some more energy emitted than absorbed), And, for long-long millennias, there may be a positive heat absorption process ( some less energy emitted than absorbed). We wittness in our times the ( some less energy emitted than absorbed) a year after year the continuous an excess heat accumulation by the surface of the Earth. Let’s consider the millennias long process of the year after year the continuous an excess heat accumulation by the surface of the Earth as an analogue to the yearly seasonal changes. Th

Global warming happens rapidly because in our times the Winter Solstices occur very close to the time of the Earth’s Perihelion. The Rotational Warming Phenomenon (RWPh) doesn't cause the Global Warming. What (RWPh) does is to explain the temperatures differencies, when planets are subjected to the same solar flux. The Rotational Warming Phenomenon (RWPh) is about the planets' ability to retain more heat when their (N*cp) product is higher - example Earth 288K and Moon 220K. Earth’s surface has a huge thermal inertia. And, the S-B formula is not applicable backwards either. It is about the emission (the heat into EM energy spontaneous transformation) and not about the EM energy absorption. The solar EM energy incident on the planet only a small portion is transformed into heat and absorbed as heat in inner layers. Also, at low (terrestrial) temperatures the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law is not applicable (doesn’t work). The planetary surface emits IR EM energy at much lower intensitie