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

Opponent: You: “Total En absorbed = Φ π r² ( 1 – a ) S W – where Φ = 0,47 for smooth surface planets and moons, and Φ = 1 for rough surface planets and moons.” That “either/or” choice does not conform to common sense nor reality – at bare minimum, it should be a continuous function. Answer: ” it should be a continuous function” – Of course the "Φ" is a continuous function. This function is not linear.. It is a function depending on the spherical shape, and also depending on surface’s roughness. The Solar Irradiation Accepting Factor (SIAF), the "Φ" is an average surface value, which differs for every planet and moon. Every planet and moon has its own surface the distinguished smoothness or roughness properties. The factor "Φ" is a two arguments function: 1). the spherical shape's, 2). and the level's of smoothnes or roughness. Thus, From some smoothness level on, it is the spherical shape the dominant, the decisive factor. The more smoothness doesn’t change that. And, From some roughne

Two initial major mistakes creating the average surface temperatures mistaken estimations 1). The first mistake is that It is asserted that planet or moon absorbs the incident solar flux ( lessened by Albedo ). And that the total solar energy absorbed is referenced to the planetary cross-sectional disk of the same radius. En absorbed = ( 1 - a ) S W/m² - on 1 m² of the cross-sectional disk. Total En absorbed = π r² ( 1 - a ) S W - on the entire cross-sectional disk of radius r. The first mistake is that a smooth surface planet or moon has a strong specular reflection constituent, which is not included in the diffuse reflection ( Albedo ) measurements, thus it is still ignored in planets' and moons' average surface temperatures estimation ! Thus for the smooth surface planets and moons ( Mercury, Moon, Earth, Mars, Europa and Ganymede ) the Total absorbed En is overestimated when the planetary radiative energy balance estimation. For smooth surface planets and moons the Total En absorbe

"The previous year was the first in which the average global air temperature was more than 1.5C above that in the late 1800s." - It is interesting to read about, because we have not developed yet a method of measuring the outdoor's air temperature. What is being measured in the standartized Stevenson's screens is not the actual air temperature.

Opponent: “that Earth is 33°C warmer than it would be if the atmosphere were completely transparent ” – Answer: Earth’s entire atmosphere doesn’t warm surface more than ~ 0,4°C. There is not any 33°C greenhouse warming effect on Earth’s surface. Earth’s atmosphere is very much transparent. And it is both ways transparent. And Earth’s atmosphere is very thin to influence surface temperature. – The doubling of the trace gas CO2 content in Earth's thin atmosphere is not a climate sensitivity issue.

Here it is an article in the "Nature" "The case for Mars terraforming research" https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-025-02548-0 It is a mistaken assertion Mars could be ever terraformed. The assertion tries convincing that by net-zero CO2 goal we could reverse the natural orbitally forced warming trend here on Earth. By discussing Mars' terraforming we fall in the mistaken way of thinking, that we actually influencing our Earth's global temperature. - Earth's conditions happened, Earth as it is, is not a result of some kind of terraforming.

The planet effective temperature (Te) is a mathematical abstraction. One cannot average the incident solar flux (minus average albedo) over the globe and calculate an average surface temperature. Also the arithmetic divission of the (Tmax + Tmin) /2 = Tmean also is a mathematical abstraction. One cannot calculate the planet average temperature by simply dividing the sum of the extremes. The gases planets Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune at 1 bar level temperatures cannot be considered a planetary surface temperatures, because at 1 bar level there is not any solid surface to reffer to. Thus it is also an abstraction. Suggesting that gases planets have some significant inner sources of energy is a mistaken assertion. This assertion is not supported by evidence.