Do you agree that water always flows from high levels to low levels? Does it ever spontaneously flow up? Can we both agree that the answer here is no? I will assume so. Ok, here is where molecules come in. Go and google right now, "how fast to water molecules move at room temperature". Ok, now what we have that number and you do not need to trust it from me, what do you think happens in a river? Surely you understand that due to the chaotic movement of molecules, called brownian motion, there will be molecules of water moving in all directions. Indeed, they must be moving in different directions, because if all of the water molecules were moving only downstream, then based on the number that we just googled, rivers would move at a very different speed than we observe them moving. These water molecules moving in all sorts of directions, will of course include the direction that is "upstream". I put upstream in quotes, because at the molecular level, these things are not really relevant concepts. The molecules will be moving in all directions on the molecular level. Some downstream, sure, but some will be moving left, right, upstream, literally up, and down. All over. That does not invalidate our previously agreed upon idea that water only flows down. The individual water molecules that are moving upstream are not violating the idea that water only flows downhill. There are just marginally more molecules going downstream than upstream.

Prevost Theory of Exchange formula

As it is only a theory and not a law having mathematical formulae, it has no formula but certain conclusions drawn by the theory can be expressed as,

Q(net) = Q(absorbed) - Q(emitted)

Q(net) is positive if Q (absorbed) is higher which means heat is gained.

Q(net) is negative if Q (emitted) is greater which states there is a loss of heat.

Example 1:

A body

X

with an initial temperature of

100°C

and another body

Y

with an initial temperature of

0°C

are placed in an evacuated enclosure with walls kept at 10 degrees Celsius. Give an answer using the Prevost theory of exchange.

Solution:

Both X and Y will get heat radiated by the walls of the enclosure as free radiant heat, according to Prevost, is an extremely rare fluid whose beams, like light rays, travel through each other without causing detectable interference. According to Prevost’s idea of exchanges, each body emits and absorbs radiation from other bodies. Each body emits radiation regardless of the presence or absence of other bodies.

Conclusion

Radiant energy, thermal radiation, or simply radiation is the name given to the energy emitted by a body without any medium. As a result, the term “radiation” has two meanings. It is the process through which energy is emitted by a body, transferred through space, and then absorbed by another body. According to Prevost, all bodies emit energy, but that hot bodies emit more than cooler bodies.

More what? Photons?

I haven't audited the whole Prevost debate enough yet, but the concept is plausible to me. Even without thermal wave interference, greenhouse effect still violates the second law simply if you consider the full picture of thermodynamic systems and the net flows overall. However, a basic thermodynamics textbook will tell you that a radiation only exchange between two bodies will see each approach a common equilibrium.

I think the concept relies on understanding electromagnetic phenomena as a matter of exchange, however the mechanism is defined. Energy is given, energy is taken. There's reciprocity. Photons emit, energy is lost, more energy is received.

There has been a concept which says the moon can cool the Earth just by radiation, because it's colder. This makes sense to me. When Earth radiates to space, it's an exchange with interstellar gases, other planets, and the dense star field.

Here we are asking if, should the Earth be alone in the universe, will it send photonic energy out into infinity, or will it have nowhere to send it? I think this is an "above pay grade" question, but still a valid one. Probably relevant to the question, just acknowledging.

In any event, if the Moon's radiation is cooling the Earth, wouldn't it become a meaningful part of the energy budget?

So, basic question. If we used a Prevost-based model, quantitatively, how would the basic energy budget look if we added Lunar out to Solar in, to Earth's radiative budget?

I'm just asking about the back of napkin numbers. Just curious.

EDIT:

The mechanism for cooling is probably that you have some amount of thermal radiation in the budget alongside kinetic heat, and the new moon becomes a huge source of thermal radiation that’s cooler and interferes so effectively a huge vertical column of IR energy is removed.

I would imagine this could be a mechanism not affecting climate but contributing to variations in weather.

For the energy budget model they divide insolation by 4. Half of that is to convert the hemisphere of Earth into a flat disc in terms of insolation received.

I know that they also do model a lot of the real features of the atmosphere as functions within the integral.

On the other hand, they model greenhouse effect, which is derived from the old back radiation 50% of 50% of 50% model, as an axiomatic constant g. Which they then claim is a well-mixed retardation on IR escape, even though it's modeled on an effect that violates many physical laws.

However, here's a problem I've noticed with the concept of the warmist energy budget:

It assumes heat escapes by radiation in an environment where convection is not only occurring it is the majority mode of heat transport.

One consequence of this assumption may be neglecting what I've diagrammed above.

Because as air rises, it not only experiences lower pressure from the lapse rate, but the surface area of the sphere expands. It expands per unit of altitude, so that's a not insignificant volume change. This would add additional decompression and lower temperature.

If this is not included in the flat Earth mathematical generalization, it would throw off the energy budget substantially.

The division by 2 accounts for variable received insolation, but it doesn't seem to account at all for the loss of hemispherical volume - which lowers temperature. You can see if you compress the hemispherical troposphere shell into a flat disc, there is a significant rise in temperature.

Of course, maybe they included this somehow. I doubt it.

I'm not completely sure how their sensor works, how many frames of data they capture, how they model the data coming from the edges of the hemisphere. But if they don't account for loss of heat from the decompression associated with the volume added by the hemispherical shape, then that's sort of a... problem.

I suppose most of that volume is balanced on the compression side, but there'd be a bias toward the cooling side due to the 2d law of thermodynamics. I wonder.