Nev
You are claiming that planetary temperature must be derived from a Stefan-Boltzmann-based radiation-only model while completely ignoring the role of convective adjustments, pressure, and density in setting the lapse rate and surface temperature.
The effective radiative temperature (as seen from space) is not the same as the actual surface temperature—precisely because energy is transported and distributed through convective and collisional processes, not just radiation.
The problem with purely radiative models is that they cannot explain:
- Why the lapse rate follows the pressure-dependent adiabatic profile.
- Why Venus’s surface temperature is set by pressure and collisional energy transfer, not radiative feedback loops.
- Why the troposphere’s temperature is set by convection and latent heat transfer, not just IR radiation.
The flaw in your argument is assuming that radiative equilibrium governs the troposphere. This is not in dispute in mainstream atmospheric physics—even the Manabe and Kiehl papers make it clear: it is NOT radiation that determines the troposphere’s temperature.
So, do you acknowledge that the troposphere is not in radiative equilibrium, or are you claiming that basic meteorology textbooks are wrong?
And mate, stop appealing to authority. It’s not 150 years of settled science—it’s 150 years of science evolving, with many competing views.
