Mike Flynn wrote: “Not at all. I merely point out that a reduction n the cooling rate, or a reduction in the rate of heat loss does equate to warming, that is an increase in temperature.”
I’m pretty sure there is negation word missing here. You’ve consistently argued the exact opposite — that a reduction in the rate of heat loss can’t result in an increase in temperature. Of course, you’ve always been fallaciously trading on the ambiguity between *gross* (loss to space) and *net* (loss to space minus gain from the Sun) reduction in rates of heat loss.
“As an example, the Moon possesses little in the way of atmosphere. The Sun manages to warm the surface to temperatures in excess of anything experienced on Earth, quite in spite of the fact that there is close to zero reduction in the rate of cooling, unlike the Earth.”
The lunar rotation rate is 3.6% the rotation rate of the Earth. In other words, the average lunar day lasts about 336 hours rather than just 12 hours for the average terrestrial day. Same for the lunar night. This difference, together with the lack of atmospheric and oceanic horizontal heat transport, and the lower thermal inertia of the surface, mainly account for the larger diurnal temperature swings.
“In other words, we observe a reduction in the amount of energy from the Sun reaching the Earth’s surface per unit area, compared with the Moon.”
That’s yet something else. There is a difference in the Earth and lunar albedo, and in the amount of solar energy that directly reaches the surfaces owing to the lack of a lunar atmosphere, but your observation about diurnal temperature variations mainly is a consequence of the longer lunar period of rotation and the other effects I mentioned. It also does nothing to correct the flaws in your earlier arguments. It merely changes the subject.
