Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ???

[Derek]

Later edit - Having thought this over several times today I have decided to post this because as Joe Postma says in the pdf,

" In the best traditions of free intellectual inquiry and academic pursuit,
freedom of expression and exploration of ideas, and respect for person and private property,
polite critical review is always welcomed and encouraged.

Debate is fun and enjoyable, it’s what we’re here to do, and the clash of ideas is what we’re all here to develop and explore,
in the best traditions of our Natural Philosophy going back thousands and thousands of years. "

A great big THANK YOU to Hans for sending me the following stunning link.
http://people.ucalgary.ca/~jpostma/Solar_Flux.pdf

h-j-m, AND ALL,
I think "we" are asking the wrong questions here.
Or rather phrased to answer h-j-m's post 84 and question,
" or I have misunderstood what I read about it.
I would like to know what I have gotten wrong. "
"WE" have all missed this h-j-m.

ie, What "we" should be asking is,
When viewed from space, what is the radiative surface of earth,
which is the temperature we would observe the planet to have, as an average.
The answer is -18 degrees celcius,
so where's earth's radiative surface. ?

Yes, we live on the earth's surface, but when viewed from space, is that earth's radiative surface. - NO.
Comparing -18C and 15C is simply getting things back to front, and ignoring the ideal gas law and gravity,
as I have been somewhat banging on about in this thread of late..

http://people.ucalgary.ca/~jpostma/Solar_Flux.pdf

In short, take the earth's radiative surface temp, (-18C), factor in the ideal gas law and gravity and earth's surface temp is 22 degrees.
Oh.....

Derek goes out on a limb - please check / comment on my logic / line of thought, I ain't sure I am correct either..
1) Hold on, in part two of the pdf a single figure average is used (-18), so the answer is presumably a "disc world" figure.
The -18 is calculated using 5778K, so that implies the lit side of the planet only, and
as far as I can see the result is a "disc world" average, which means it is also a sphere maximum figure.
I am suggesting that the -18 figure varies on a sphere, so although the ideal gas law and gravity effect does not change
the temp the effect is calculated from does vary on a sphere. So the "disc world" / sphere conversion using the square root of two is required.

Convert the "disc world" average and max answer of 22 to a sphere average answer by dividing by the square root of two,
so, 22 divided by the square root of two = 15.556 celcius actual planet average surface temp (on the lit side only presumably)......

I hope astronomers do not habitually talk in the above maximum sphere, and "disc world" average (and maximum) temp figures (ie, 22 when it should be an average of 15.556 for a sphere),
but I suspect that they do. If the above is the case, then that could be quite a few figures to correct for planets, not stars though. "Disc world" I think should work for stars.

2) Does the ideal gas law and gravity dictate that the minimum possible temperature on the dark side of a planet with an atmosphere will be above that of space. ?
I think it must, therefore there is an anomaly to explain on the dark side of the planet, that is probably way in excess of the anomaly to explain on the light side of the planet.
Such an anomaly (on the dark side of the planet) I would of thought would be way in excess of anything "greenhouse" could possibly "explain".

NB - Richard111, in no way at all cynically, I genuinely mean this, and I do not mean to be patronising in the slightest,
Post 85, well done and said.