May be of interest, check out Chapter 5 of Slaying the Sky Dragon: Slaying the Sky Dragon - Timothy F. Ball, Alan Siddons, John O'Sullivan, Hans Shreuder - Google Livros .
This will be the 5th time I link to it in this thread btw 
.
Also this article (linked from the footnotes in the Chapter): “A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon?” .
Cheers,
Claudiu
That’s fascinating. I found the 2nd link far more helpful. I think the first link explained basically why a blackbody turned sphere doesn’t make sense. But there was a lot I had to take for granted. To much info I had to bracket and go back to. The 2nd link is very concise though.
In other words, the components of a planet’s mass itself, rather than an atmosphere, bring about an appreciable difference between its calculated temperature and its actual temperature
I also didn’t know they tried using stefan-boltzmann to predict a range of temperatures for a single spot. If this is possible then it seems like a real way to falsify the theory. Using napkin math, it seems the range of discrepancy between prediction and actual measurements is more than the difference between the assumed 291 and the measured 258 here on Earth.
I assume you have looked but not found any literature to debunk these claims.
Cross-posting the experiment fun
Very well done Claudiu. You must have been a science fair kid. I couldn’t have done that experiment even if I wanted to. That really shows a lot of talent and intelligence.
I’ve been on percolation now for the last 3 days maybe, in my head, meandering through AGW with the limited scientific affinity I have. I had a question for you. Reply if your interested.
The second article regarding the moon is exactly where my mind went with the starting point.
Actual data from materials, rotating as the way the earth does, on the tilted axis.
The first part of the article very much is the crux of the extreme delusions needed to take the Stefan Boltzmann equation as gospel.
Which are of course, Richard’s exact points. The earth is none of these things at all.
Which was my response regarding “a very long pole”. Basically, there is so much that is wrong with the use of the equation, I may as well be guessing house prices based on the area of the ink left by a pen writing “I want a house” on a napkin. There is no co-relation at all.
EL PAIS climate change
I got the same conclusion (AGW is junk) but from the other direction. It seems to me the values used to gauge any climate models predictive capacity are themselves derived from stacked assumptions. Values like the average temperature of the mesosphere at nighttime is derived from very high level math that hasn’t been properly tested in the lab. So we have variables derived from stacked assumptions run through a model to see how well they predict values that are themselves derived from stacked assumptions.
Cool, that’s a very succinct way of saying it.
“Stacked assumptions”