Article link Equilibrium Prevents Humans from Heating the Atmosphere by Gary Novak
It's refreshing to see Gary Novak challenging climatology's cherished assumptions (as usual), but I believe that more scrutiny should be cast on that minus 19° temperature in the first place. The premise of this widely-accepted estimate is flawed because, due to the 4th power relationship between irradiance and temperature, the average of one cannot agree with the average of the other. Consider, for instance, merely two spots on earth exposed to two different solar irradiances.
Yet 600 watts per square meter, the average irradiance, corresponds to 48° C on a blackbody, not 44°. This discrepancy emerges with only two spots. It gets much more complicated to determine the average temperature of a half-lit sphere ~ i.e., a planet ~ on which there's a virtual infinity of irradiances. To my knowledge, the mathematics of this problem has never been solved. In short, a sphere is not a simple surface, and assuming that its temperature will conform to an averaged irradiance is a mistake.
Apart from this geometrical difficulty, however, since a minus 19° estimate is derived from the Stefan-Boltzmann equation alone, it doesn't take into account heat retention. A blackbody is a theoretical entity which instantly emits 100% of the radiant energy it's exposed to. By definition, then, it has no provision for storing any heat. In effect, a blackbody is a 2D surface only, possessing no depth. This missing dimension is crucial, for it has even been found that the temperature of our slowly rotating, airless moon exceeds the predicted blackbody average due to heat stored in the regolith. Moreover, no real body emits radiation quite as vigorously as an ideal blackbody, another heat-retaining factor the Stefan-Boltzmann equation ignores.
Lastly, one should observe that the temperatures of all planets with atmospheric pressures above 100 millibars are appreciably higher than predicted, irrespective of their atmospheres' contents (trace gases, etc.).
Joe Olson's recent comment in that regard (Earth is never in equilibrium
) is very pertinent.
To put it mildly, then, something's wrong with that minus 19° estimate.
In today's post on Climate Realists, I referenced lunar disequilibrium (i.e., the moon's average temperature diverges from a blackbody-based prediction). Unfortunately, this reference lacks a link to confirm it because NASA has removed the document. For your own records, then, here is the original, attached. Please feel free to forward it to other interested parties. I consider it vital information: If the absorption/emission behavior of a barren body like the moon is more complex than expected, what does this say about bodies like the earth?
Download PDF to see missing document