Recent content by Geoffw

No, without the ability to radiate, it is often accepted that the vertical profile would be isothermal. Under those circumstances the atmosphere would be isotropic within its volume. I find this an unacceptable asssumption in a gravity field. What do you think?

Thanks for the reply, Sorry, but to clarify, do you agree with the diagram in vacuo potentials shown as massive opposing fluxes, when the surface total radiative losses are much smaller?

Many credited physicists have entertained the notion of a non radiative atmosphere being isothermal as a function of height. But is this a physical reality? Many physicists accept the macroscopic conclusions of kinetic theory, the gas laws. Statistical mechanics. Experimentally verifiable...

Interesting post. The 33K difference for Earth is attributed to greenhouse gases and the measured area weighted mean temperature for Earth's surface being warmer than its effective mean radiative temperature. Apply 'exactly' the same rules to the much simpler moon and the area weighted mean...

Is this thread still active? I believe the Trenberth diagram mentioned here is misleading. The massive opposing long wave fluxes are in vacuo radiative potentials and do not represent surface losses or atmospheric gains by radiation. Any comments?