I will actually caveat this statement, with a few facts;
I have studied chemistry, after work, at a training institute.
I have studied mechanical engineering, full time, for approximately 1 year.
I have been intently interested in thermodynamics for around 20 years. To the point of , after doing the math, spoke with the head engineer of the Powerstation that feeds the Perth grid, when I couldn’t make the economics work. He confirmed that my calculations were indeed correct, and that they had been subsidising electrical power for a very long time.
I have also been very interested in the solar design of buildings, rhe integration of the “lived environment” with nature my entire career. To the point of being in very tense discussions with management about how to preserve the magnificent trees which are quickly disappearing throughout the metro area. So much so that I was “toe to toe” about a development which “required” the destruction of yet another incredible gum tree (a towering white gum).
So while I call myself an amateur, as far as being a rank amateur, I am not.
So, as of now, and to answer Richard’s public challenge, it’s a case of taking each aspect of this on it’s interest value.
It’s not really unlike the patience I have to engage when a Sales Consultant questions my costings and I must, again, (quite willingly mind you) open up the takeoffs, show him the extensively detail costings.
Except in this case, I don’t have any of those “takeoffs and costings”, all I have is the challenge “the world is not black” and a 12 point challenge.
So far, point 1. No, the world is not black. However a black body is valued as “1.0” , whilst the earth is “0.95” .
I, like I do at work everyday for many of the 20 years I have been building "abstract ’ models to cost houses (within half a percent of what they are worth, mind you) , now have to build the model.
I have been asking for a “pre built” model supporting the tl;dr " there is no greenhouse effect, or greenhouse gases " but there isn’t one.
As of now, I have 6 studies to read;
One study by Donlon et al. (2002) estimated the emissivity of the ocean surface using satellite observations of sea surface temperature and radiation. They found that the emissivity of the ocean varied between 0.96 and 0.98 for different wavelengths and wind conditions. Another study by Minnett et al. (2016) used ship-based measurements to estimate the emissivity of the ocean surface and found values ranging from 0.95 to 0.98 depending on the sea surface temperature and the viewing angle.
One study by Gillies and Carlson (1995) measured the emissivity of the Sahara desert using aircraft-based radiometric measurements. They found that the emissivity of the Sahara varied depending on the surface type, with values ranging from 0.91 for sand to 0.96 for rock outcrops.
Another study by Cosh et al. (2004) measured the emissivity of the Mojave desert in the United States using ground-based measurements. They found that the emissivity of the Mojave varied between 0.90 and 0.94 depending on the surface type and moisture content.
One study by Tian et al. (2004) estimated the emissivity of the Amazon rainforest using satellite observations of surface temperature and radiation. They found that the emissivity of the Amazon rainforest varied between 0.95 and 0.98 for different wavelengths and forest types. Another study by Martin et al. (2008) used aircraft-based measurements to estimate the emissivity of forests in the southeastern United States and found values ranging from 0.94 to 0.98 depending on the forest type and moisture content.
.
.
).