Why Junk Climate Experts Prefer Flat Earth Physics

Written by PSI Staff

Man-made global warming “skeptics” Dr. Roy Spencer and Anthony Watts (he of the science blog, WUWT) are both very much on the defensive this week. Each has been exposed as zealous defenders of flat earth physics (literally!).

Spencer and Watts

“Flat earther” is a term of ridicule often used against backwards thinkers. But in this case Spencer and Watts, prominent spokesmen for the skeptic cause, are persisting in regarding earth as flat. They do so in the forlorn hope no one will notice it is the botch of modeling earth as flat that makes the equations for the discredited greenhouse gas effect “work.” Both men are being called out for their anti-intellectualism by Principia Scientific International’s Joe Postma in his The Fraud of the AGHE Part 14: Controlled Opposition.

Postma, a successful astrophysicist by profession, again shows that you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to see that the greenhouse gas effect (GHE), the cornerstone of climate alarmism is bogus.

Mainstream science had long known the GHE was junk. Who says so? None other than the renowned American Meteorological Society. [1] The AMS stated that the idea that CO2 could alter the climate “was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation absorbed by CO2 is absorbed by water vapor.”

The Great Switcharoo came about when governments chose to encourage science ruled by opinion rather than fact. Thanks to no documented game changing discoveries, no great scientific breakthroughs no Nobel science prizes, post-normalism permitted us to disregard the unequivocal empirical fact that carbon dioxide is shown only to operate as a cooling gas. 

Below is an edited version Postma’s latest take on things. The full version can be found on climateofsophistry.com:

 

The last post of this series was a formal disproof of the atmospheric greenhouse theory.  It is an a-priori mathematical truth of reason, not merely a truth of theory or contingency, that a spherical rotating Earth with real-time sunshine can induce the physical responses all by itself that a flat-Earth model with diluted sunshine can only do by adding in a manufactured greenhouse effect.

Hence, the greenhouse effect is false.  QED.  Do you understand?  Did you understand that last post?

There is no more confusion on the logic, it has been perfectly clarified: The greenhouse effect is false.

It is an a-priori mathematical truth of reason based on physics, not merely a truth of theory or contingency, that a spherical rotating Earth with real-time sunshine can induce physical responses on the surface of the Earth all by itself that a flat-Earth model with diluted sunshine can only do by adding in a manufactured greenhouse effect. QED

Well, almost all of my posts have enough to expose the greenhouse effect for the fiction that it is, but the last post was the most concise and easy to understand, and got to the rational heart of the matter clearly.

Now this will be a short post, just pointing something out.

A few weeks ago Roy Spencer, great friend and scientific adviser to the man who doesn’t understand how a light-bulb works, Anthony Watts, and who incidentally doesn’t understand how a greenhouse works, and who incidentally doesn’t understand what a real-time differential equation is even though he somehow got a PhD, spoke to the US Congress from a “skeptical” position waylaying the fears of climate alarm.

Now, this latter seems all well and good.  What great guys Roy Spencer and Anthony Watts that they are such skeptics, right?

However, despite being asked to consider the difference between a flat Earth and a round Earth both of these men have told me in personal correspondence that they simply want to choose to believe that carbon dioxide “has some forcing via the greenhouse effect”, to quote.  They said they WANT this.  

They simply choose to not want to consider the physics, science, and mathematics of the reality of a spherical Earth vs. that of a flat Earth, because if they did, they would no longer get to satisfy their “want” of believing that “CO2 has to have some forcing effect, just smaller than the alarmists say”, to quote!

They’re feigning skepticism while back-handing the entire theoretical apparatus to support climate politics, via the Greenhouse Effect.  

And even with so much atrociously poor science, they still had a large majority of society (read here why such people fell right in to the alarmist religion) believe in it all.

This is how political intrigue and subterfuge works, and it is a wonderful example.  This whole thing also goes by the name of the manufacture of a “simulacra”, as I wrote about here.  You simply pretend to have expertise in a field of concern which you manufactured; you pretend to do science and you manufacture the appearance of doing science, and you manufacture the support from the public by injecting the simulacra with fear and frightening consequences of “not believing”.

Roy Spencer and Anthony Watts both told me that they will not talk about the Earth being spherical.  Do you get it?  They will not acknowledge the factual irrefutable content of the last post of this series.  A spherical Earth is taboo.

And so now, what do we see Roy Spencer doing this week?  This problem that a real greenhouse doesn’t actually function as the atmospheric greenhouse models pretend, even though the math and physics should be directly equivalent to one another, needs to be covered up.  Because if anyone is out there who might comprehend the paradox between a real greenhouse and the pretended Greenhouse Effect, they might start to ask the right questions.

Roy Spencer is the front man on this, so this week he’s initiated an intrigue and line of subterfuge to pretend that a real greenhouse does function like the atmospheric greenhouse effect.  His reasoning?  Because the atmospheric greenhouse effect works like a greenhouse!  It is yet more incestuous tautology…the forte of climate alarm and the greenhouse effect.  In the comments of his article, Roy Spencer literally says that he is “not sure what causes the air to heat up in the greenhouse in the first place”, and therefore tries to imply that it must be the infrared radiation inside the greenhouse causing the heating -the IR which is a result of the heating!  Dr. Roy Stupid, the air inside a real greenhouse is heated by contact conduction with the surfaces inside the greenhouse…surfaces which have been heated by THE SUN.  But of course, the Sunshine is only -18C, right?  The Sun can’t heat anything?

Roy knows full well that PSI already did a physics experiment looking for the type of heating that is postulated from their greenhouse effect models.  We used the atmosphere’s very own theorized greenhouse effect to check for the heating from back-radiation/imbalanced radiation output/heat retention or whatever label they want to obfuscate with to pretend the process.  It doesn’t exist.  Real-world data does not show any hint of any form of the postulated greenhouse effect.

Not only is it experimentally disproven, the entire concept is already disproven on simple theoretical and basic conceptual grounds.  The Earth isn’t flat – and therefore any form of thought or memes which come from mathematically thinking such a thing, are ipso-facto wrong.  All this stuff about IR scattering via CO2 and radiative transfer “proving” that a cold gas heats a warmer surface “via some method”, is subsequent, not antecedent, to the flaw of the flat-Earth cold-sunshine model.  An absorption spectrum, such as that from CO2, is created by a cold gas in front of a warmer background source of radiation.

The cold gas is not the cause of the warmer background.

*****

[1] Brooks, C.E.P. (1951). “Geological and Historical Aspects of Climatic Change.” In Compendium of Meteorology, edited by Thomas F. Malone, pp. 1004-18 (at 1016). Boston: American Meteorological Association. 

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments (38)

  • Avatar

    Joe Postma

    |

    Physicist = Spam from Doug Cotton. Delete.

    • Avatar

      ewiljan

      |

      [quote name=”Joe Postma”]Physicist = Spam from Doug Cotton. Delete.[/quote]

      Do you really think so? Seems to thoughtful to come from Doug!

    • Avatar

      Plchampness

      |

      I see what you mean Turtle!

      However we have to call it Global Warming to attempt to keep the Bastards honest – to paraphase a former Australianm Politician, Don Chip.

  • Avatar

    Turtle

    |

    There are worse problems than Co2 emissions… like all those other toxins (sulphur dioxide,carbon monoxide etc.) , irresponsible land & water management….

    What about the hypocracy in not addressing the (farting!) elephant in the room casuing all this… ie. popn growth

    And finally, The carbon price pushers have done themselves a great disservice by abusing the scientific process.

    imho

    • Avatar

      dp

      |

      [quote name=”Turtle”]There are worse problems than Co2 emissions… like all those other toxins (sulphur dioxide,carbon monoxide etc.) , irresponsible land & water management….

      What about the hypocracy in not addressing the (farting!) elephant in the room casuing all this… ie. popn growth

      And finally, The carbon price pushers have done themselves a great disservice by abusing the scientific process.

      imho[/quote]

      You may need to look towards globalists corporate communitarianism’s hegelian practices more closely.

      • Avatar

        ewiljan

        |

        [b]You may need to look towards globalists corporate communitarianism’s hegelian practices more closely.[/b]

        Huh???

  • Avatar

    andersnordenfelt

    |

    (Disregarding Watts) If you think that persistently using words like “junk”, “flat-earther”, “fraud” will make Roy more willing to engage in a debate, think again.

    Moreover, I don’t understand the statement that CO2 unequivocally acts as a cooling gas. Is this also true on Venus?

    • Avatar

      Joe Postma

      |

      I don’t wish to have a debate with them. We’ve tried, and then they just lied. They’ve challenged us to debate, and then just ignored the answer. I have no care to find common ground or debate them. I merely wish to show the truth and have it acknowledged as fact.
      Venus’ surface temperature seems to be set by the cloud-deck height together with its atmospheric lapse rate. Essentially no solar radiation gets to the surface of Venus in the first place so that kind of rules out a greenhouse effect of trapping radiation as being a cause. It is also a very different situation because on the Earth the majority of heating does occur directly at the surface from sunlight.

      • Avatar

        andersnordenfelt

        |

        I respect that, but I suspect that you might turn off some newcomers to the debate with unrestrained expressions.

        About Venus. You say that it is partly set by the lapse rate. Without entering into a long discussion about that in the commentators field I guess that we can agree that the lapse rate needs an atmosphere to exist in the first place. Since, on Venus, this atmosphere is primarily composed of CO2 I thought it somewhat strange to call CO2 a cooling gas.

        IF instead you say that an atmosphere of EQUAL MASS but composed of O2 and N2 would produce a higher surface temperature I would consider that as a plausible statement. But that distinction is important in my view.

        • Avatar

          Joe Postma

          |

          Thank you for the advice.

          That’s intelligent logic. Indeed, the lapse rate wouldn’t exist without atmosphere – it is intrinsic to it. The question is what causes it. What causes it is the specific thermal capacity of the gas and the strength of the gravity field the gas is in. This is very different from a back-radiating greenhouse effect & etc. And it would exist just with O2 and N2 alone, etc. The only effect CO2 has is via its fractional abundance and its specific capacity – the former is minuscule and the latter is similar to standard air, so, CO2’s effect on the aggregate lapse rate is negligible, or quite small anyway. What is interesting though is adding water vapour and its latent heat release to the situation – this strongest so-called greenhouse gas actually reduces surface temperature, rather than increasing it. There will be a great article from Carl Brehmer out on PSI on this soon…tomorrow maybe.

        • Avatar

          Greg House

          |

          [quote name=”andersnordenfelt”]but I suspect that you might turn off some newcomers to the debate with unrestrained expressions.[/quote]

          This is generally right, but Joe comes over as an honestly concerned person who also has a scientific point. If I was a newcomer, after reading his postings I would decide to look closely at the whole thing.

        • Avatar

          Physicist

          |

          If you have a temperature inside a building which is warmer than that outside, then double glazing with argon (or a vacuum) between the glass will act as a better insulator than would such glazing with carbon dioxide between the panes. That is because carbon dioxide radiates heat from warmer to cooler regions and thus helps heat “leap frog” across the gap, just as it does in the atmosphere. However the heat would escape to space anyway, so carbon dioxide does very little indeed. It reduces the magnitude of the “lapse rate” and this leads to slightly cooler temperatures (like about 0.002 degree cooler as best I can estimate) whereas water vapour does a better job probably causing surface temperatures to be about 8 to 12 degrees cooler than they would if Earth had an atmosphere of only nitrogen and oxygen.

      • Avatar

        Physicist

        |

        As you say, virtually no direct solar radiation gets to the Venus surface. Hence you have no answer as to how sufficient energy does get to the surface in order to maintain the observed temperature. That is where you fail, Joe Postma, in your understanding of non-radiative heat transfer which obviously has to be moving up the temperature gradient as is clearly the case on Venus and all planets. Heat is absorbed from incident solar radiation in the uppermost troposphere of Venus and that energy can move to warmer regions by convective heat transfer and diffusion at the molecular level whenever the lapse rate is lower in magnitude than the expected calculated value. The heat flow is necessary to re-establish thermodynamic equilibrium, as is required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is time so-called “seniors” at Principia Scientific Int’l gained a better understanding of non-radiative thermodynamics.

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      [quote name=”andersnordenfelt”]I don’t understand the statement that CO2 unequivocally acts as a cooling gas.[/quote]

      Whatever Joe meant by that, in my humble opinion with regard to air temperature CO2 in its present concentration makes the air like by 0,0001K warmer due to its well known thermal properties on the one hand, but also prevents some incoming solar IR from reaching the surface. The second property contributes to cooling.

      Our dear lying warmists including fake skeptics usually keep silent on the solar IR heating the surface, they choose to mention only solar short wave radiation, probably to avoid unpleasant questions from any not completely stupid person.

    • Avatar

      josullivan

      |

      Anders, CO2 has long been used in industry as a refrigerant gas. Applied scientist prefer its exemplary cooling qualities.
      http://www.achrnews.com/articles/co2-as-refrigerant-the-transcritical-cycle

      Also, check out Dr. Darko Butina’s ’20 Facts about CO2′
      http://mail.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/supportnews/latest-news/201-twenty-facts-about-carbon-dioxide.html

      Moreover, there is not a shred of evidence that CO2 acts in any way to warm Venus. More likely Venus is substantially heated internally via volcanism.

      • Avatar

        andersnordenfelt

        |

        Of course, if you cool down for example N2 or CO2 below its boiling point and then pour it on some object it will act as a cooler. On the other hand, if you provide a planet warmed by the sun with a gaseous envelope I believe it will act as a thermal insulator. That holds for CO2 just as for any gas. But judging from the comments we might have reached some kind on consensus about that on this thread.

        • Avatar

          Greg House

          |

          [quote name=”andersnordenfelt”]On the other hand, if you provide a planet warmed by the sun with a gaseous envelope I believe it will act as a thermal insulator.[/quote]

          What is the effect of this insulator work in your understanding, preventing the surface from getting warmer or colder and why?

          • Avatar

            andersnordenfelt

            |

            My current understanding is something like the following. The gas acts as a blanket or wall trapping heat and making the surface warmer, just like the walls in a house makes it warmer at constant heating from radiators. The heat is transported to an effective boundary layer (probably close to the tropopause) where the heat meets little resistance due to the reduction in air density. Increasing the mass of the atmosphere makes it thicker thus slowing down the transport to the boundary layer. This is what the planetary data seems to tell me.

            What is your view?

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            I am afraid your understanding of how insulation works is wrong. Insulation does not “trap heat”, this is an ambiguous term warmists like so much, because it helps fool people.

            Just think of a hot summer day like 40C outside your house and pleasant 20C inside your house thanks to the air conditioner. Is heat “trapped” inside your house? So, insulation is only a barrier between colder and warmer air and it keeps warmer or colder depending on temperatures.

            As for insulating from radiation, it works only one way. Radiation “trapped” inside an enclosure can not have any influence on the temperature inside. The insulation in this case can only prevent this trapped radiation from warming something outside the enclosure.

            Coming back to the CO2, if it blocks some portion of solar IR from reaching the surface, then it cools. If it blocks some outgoing IR, then this has no effect on the temperature of the surface.

          • Avatar

            Joe Postma

            |

            “As for insulating from radiation, it works only one way. Radiation “trapped” inside an enclosure can not have any influence on the temperature inside. The insulation in this case can only prevent this trapped radiation from warming something outside the enclosure.

            Coming back to the CO2, if it blocks some portion of solar IR from reaching the surface, then it cools. If it blocks some outgoing IR, then this has no effect on the temperature of the surface.”

            Great stuff.

          • Avatar

            andersnordenfelt

            |

            You didn’t consider my analogy, with a house heated during winter, instead you started talking about air conditioning during summer. In my view, heating is a more simple process than cooling by a refrigerator or an AC, but of course, in your case the walls act so as to lower the temperature in the house, albeit with the help of some rather advanced equipment.

            I get the impression that you are grasping for an “anti-greenhouse” whereas I try to put the various processes of heat transfer on an equal ground.

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            [quote name=”andersnordenfelt”]You didn’t consider my analogy … I get the impression that you are grasping for an “anti-greenhouse”[/quote]

            Well, I get the impression that you are hear to fool people with false analogies.

            I think I did explained that your analogy was false. [b]There is no heating insulation[/b]. Insulation does not supply anything with energy. To heat something or to make it cool slower you need to supply it with additional energy. This is not what insulation does. Insulation is only a barrier. It keeps something colder or warmer depending on temperatures inside and outside.

            My second point was about radiation shield/insulation. It works only one way: it does not keep anything warm, it only prevents the radiation from warming something on the other side of the shield. No warming by “trapped radiation” is possible. Back radiation from a shield has no effect on the temperature of the source.

            Trenberth diagram, Spencer’s recent picture of a “greenhouse” and your warming insulation are crap of equal quality, please excuse my Latin.

          • Avatar

            andersnordenfelt

            |

            “Insulation is only a barrier. It keeps something colder or warmer depending on temperatures inside and outside. “

            Well you said it yourself. If we say that the outside temperature is that of outer space, approximately 2K, then the barrier which is the atmosphere ought to keep the surface warmer.

            House = Surface
            Radiator = Sun
            Outside = Space

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            Again, talking about air temperature, the insulating barrier keeps the inside, including inside air (warmed by some heating device, whatever) warm by preventing the colder outside air from getting inside (provided the outside air is colder).

            The atmosphere does not prevent colder air from the outer space from reaching the surface, because [b]there is no colder air in the outer space around the atmosphere[/b]. There is nothing in the outer space that would cool the surface once the atmosphere is gone.

            Therefore the atmosphere does not insulate the surface from anything cold at all.

            The second point, vacuum is neither cold nor warm, it has no temperature at all. If we put you naked in vacuum, you would feel warm because of absence of convective cooling . It would be like staying in a room where the air temperature is 37C.

            But no problem, keep fooling us with “cold space”, I like it.

          • Avatar

            andersnordenfelt

            |

            I guess you will find this silly but let us then divide the atmosphere into two parts, one colder upper part and a warmer lower part. Doesn’t the warmer lower part then act as an insulation from the cold upper part. But if you prefer, I’d be more interested in your answer to the other question I asked below.

          • Avatar

            Physicist

            |

            The direction in which heat flows by non-radiative processes in a gravitational field depends on whether the greater source of new energy driving that heat flow is above or below the relevant layer. When the temperature gradient (lapse rate) is “right” for the amount of water vapour present, then there is a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. Early in the morning there may be more new energy being absorbed in the higher regions, especially on Venus, for example. So then the net non-radiative heat flow is downwards from cooler to warmer layers, whilst radiative heat flow is always from warmer to cooler – usually upwards in the troposphere. You need to think outside the Clausius square. In the case of non-radiative heat transfer in a gravitational field, the Clausius statement of the Second Law is strictly only correct in a horizontal plane.

          • Avatar

            andersnordenfelt

            |

            Some marginal additional remarks.

            The thickness and the quality of the barrier is also important, a window prevents convection just as well as a massive wall, but it lets more heat escape.

            Whether space is cold or has an “undefined” temperature is a somewhat philosophical question which I do not mind discussing. In the present context I think that it makes sense to consider space as cold since if you put a body without internal energy source far out in space and let it “equilibrate” to its surrounding, after a while it will have reached a temperature close to 0K.

          • Avatar

            ewiljan

            |

            [quote name=”andersnordenfelt”]Some marginal additional remarks.

            The thickness and the quality of the barrier is also important, a window prevents convection just as well as a massive wall, but it lets more heat escape.

            Whether space is cold or has an “undefined” temperature is a somewhat philosophical question which I do not mind discussing. In the present context I think that it makes sense to consider space as cold since if you put a body without internal energy source far out in space and let it “equilibrate” to its surrounding, after a while it will have reached a temperature close to 0K.[/quote]

            Wrong! The Earth is just such a body and does not equbrilate to close to Zero Kelvin. If such a body had 100% reflectivity, It would equilibrate to any temperature except Zero Kelvin.

          • Avatar

            andersnordenfelt

            |

            What I meant was to put a body so far out that it hardly receives any light from stars at all. Then it will radiate away its heat energy and obtain a very low temperature.

          • Avatar

            Physicist

            |

            It is quite true that planetary surface temperatures do depend on the height of their atmospheres, as well as the mean specific heat of the gases and the acceleration due to gravity. Solar radiation plays a part too. However, as is easily recognisable for Venus, it is not a case of the Sun heating the surface with direct radiation and then the atmosphere slowing surface cooling. What really happens, and what PSI senior members still don’t realise, is that the upper atmosphere of Venus absorbs Solar energy and, each Venus morning, some of that energy makes its way towards the surface by non-radiative processes, helping to support the very hot 730K temperature, even at the poles. This downward non-radiative energy flow into the surface is balanced by the outward radiative energy flow of about 16,000W/m^2. So we are talking about a lot of energy passing from cooler to warmer regions by convective heat transfer, as it can and does do in a gravitational field. In fact, it must be doing so. This can be shown to be a necessary outcome of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

          • Avatar

            andersnordenfelt

            |

            You make good observations but I doubt your explanation for the process. The blanket explanation is the only one that has yet been put into a feasible physical model.

            Just think about it. You have one radiator in the room and one heat source in the wall. Of course both of these will contribute to the end result but still we are dealing with a conventional heat transfer process. Heat still goes from hot to cold.

          • Avatar

            Physicist

            |

            @andersnordenfelt

            Your “one radiator in the room” analogy cannot be applied to planetary atmospheres and surfaces. On Venus, for example, the main source of heat comes from incident solar energy absorbed in the upper atmosphere, not from solar radiation heating the surface. So on Venus the energy comes in mostly from a far colder region of the atmosphere and actually travels up the temperature gradient – hardly a “blanket” effect. That gradient is held in place by gravity and it represents a state of thermodynamic equilibrium, which is quite different from isothermal conditions when there is a gravitational field.

            You cannot explain how sufficient energy gets down to the surface of Venus by any other mechanism.

          • Avatar

            ewiljan

            |

            [b]This can be shown to be a necessary outcome of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.[/b]

            It cannot!! Not unless the Clausius Second Law of Thermodynamics is modified to include all energy potentials not just the thermal potential. The Gravitational potential directly opposes both the thermal and presure potential of any atmosphere. This sets thermostatic conditionss of the thermal, pressure, and gravitational gradients, that are “required” in any planetary environment that has a gassious envelope. with gravitational potential the “only” constraint on the degree of freedom at the outside of that envalope. These gradiants are often upset or inverted by severe thermal mass transport, powered by the Sun and the rotational inertia of the planet, both on Earth and on Venus. The amount of knowledge
            Earthlings have on such matters is as close to absolute zero, as one can possibly get.
            Stupidity like entropy, always increases.

          • Avatar

            Physicist

            |

            The mid-nineteenth century Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is no longer used by physicists because it is not applicable in all situations, notably for heat transfer in a vertical plane in a gravitational field. The law now reads as [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics]here[/url].

            (1) When there is thermodynamic equilibrium then there is a temperature gradient in a vertical plane in a gravitational field.

            (2) Then, when new energy is added at higher altitudes it disturbs that equilibrium.

            (3) Then the Second Law tells us there will be a propensity to restore the thermodynamic equilibrium.

            (4) To restore the equilibrium, some of the new energy absorbed at higher altitudes must move downwards by diffusion and convective heat transfer, even though it is moving to warmer regions.

            Thus the Venus surface is very hot. QED

          • Avatar

            andersnordenfelt

            |

            Maybe your position would become clearer if you explain the following:

            “in my humble opinion with regard to air temperature CO2 in its present concentration makes the air like by 0,0001K warmer due to its well known thermal properties”

            which process do you refer to here?

      • Avatar

        Physicist

        |

        @josullivan

        (1) The process by which a gas is used in a refrigerator has nothing to do with the radiating properties of that gas. Rather, it is all to do with phase change properties. Carbon dioxide cools to a very small extent in the atmosphere because of its radiating properties. Your comment is thus misleading readers.

        (2) Venus is not “substantially heated internally” to anywhere near the temperature which would supply sufficient outward energy flow to maintain the observed temperatures. If it were, there would be a very easily measured and very significant energy imbalance if such quantities of energy were being created internally and thus causing an outward flow of about 16,000W/m^2 at the surface. Compare such a figure with Earth’s terrestrial flow. You do PSI no credit by propagating such incorrect guesswork. When you dabble in physics, John, you are out of your depth. Please read my other comments on this thread if you want a better understanding of atmospheric physics.

        • Avatar

          ewiljan

          |

          The surface (rock) of Venus need not, and does not radiate any thermal radiative energy to cold space. The atmosphere of Vewnus has the temperature, emissivity, and sufficfient solid angle to radiate all received Solar energy to cold space. Venus seem to have no need for a surface or surface temperature at all.

Comments are closed