Hi NevYou’ve presented me with an energy budget model, not physical evidence. I cannot "disprove" a model, because a model is simply a representation of assumptions—not a fundamental law of physics.
However, let’s examine what the energy budget actually represents. It is based on the atmosphere’s average emissions across all layers, not just the surface.
Since you insist on using the atmosphere’s average emissions (240 W/m2) as your foundation, ask yourself:
- At what altitude do we find this radiative equilibrium?
- Where is the average work done on the atmosphere?
The answer: Around 51,000 Pascals, or approximately 5 kilometers high—the point where half of the atmosphere’s mass is above, and half is below.And what is the average temperature at this altitude?
255K (–18'C), which matches the radiative equivalent of 240 W/m2.
Not at the surface.
So, if the energy budget is your cornerstone, then you must acknowledge it reflects equilibrium at the mid-point of atmospheric mass—not at the surface. The surface CLEARLY cannot be assumed to be the average point of the atmosphere.
And what drives energy at this level? Not radiation. Convective energy dominates, which originates from conduction at the surface and drives large-scale atmospheric motion.
