Introduction
We’ve been told that the earth's surface is quite a bit warmer than calculations predict. Theory has it that heat-trapping “greenhouse gases” account for a 33° Celsius disparity. But it turns out that our airless moon is also quite a bit warmer than predicted. Might something be wrong with the prediction method itself, then? It's a natural question to ask, so let's look into it.
The Theory
Climate science's method of deriving a surface temperature from incoming radiant energy (whose intensity is measured in watts per square meter) is based on the Stefan-Boltzmann formula [1], which in turn refers to a theoretical surface known as a blackbody – something that absorbs and emits all of the radiance it's exposed to. Since by definition a blackbody cannot emit less than 100% of what it absorbs, this fictional entity has no option of drawing heat into itself, for that would compromise its temperature response and thus its thermal emission. Its 100% thermal emission effectively means that a blackbody is a twodimensional surface with no depth.
Article continues below this advert:
The pictures above illustrate how strange an actual blackbody would be. The purple balloon has been converted to a blackbody, which is just as smooth as the real balloon yet reflects no light from its surroundings — which is impossible because it's nearly as smooth as glass. Logically, then, this absolutely non-reflective balloon must be infinitely rough — but once again it can't be, because it is so smooth! In point of fact, a real-life blackbody can only be approximated by a hole, a dark cavity [2] that you can't see into, which is not something we normally regard as a “surface” to begin with.
Click source to read FULL report from Alan Siddons, Martin Hertzberg & Hans Schreuder
Tweet Article
Post to Facebook
Print Article
You report that NASA found (and chose to conceal) that the moon was considerably cooler by day, and warmer by night, than predicted. Yet current anthropogenic climate theory turns on essentially the same mathematical model! Have I got that right?
Overall, the real moon was about 40 degC warmer than it was on paper. Therefore, its mean temperature would have been higher than predicted. Intuitively, this means that current models underestimate future global mean temperatures. Or is the implication rather that global temperature is more a function of heat absorbed by the solid subsurface of the planet (as your study demonstrates) rather than it is to the much touted greenhouse effect? If so, that would mean it's back to the drawing board to identify causes of warming!
Thanks again