On Earth, as it is on Other Planets
On Earth, we can definitely say that there is a significant, and important, direct solar heating of the planetary surface to high temperature by the action of sunlight. This fact alone allows for a phase of physics to be entered that would not be allowed under the climate science supposition of a sunlight that can only warm the surface by itself to -18 °C (i.e., the ability for sunlight to generate liquid and vaporous water, or not), and this is sufficient to reject the foundation of climate science and its alarmism, and its radiative greenhouse effect, which erroneously dilutes solar power to such a low temperature value.
It must however be simultaneously included that despite whatever temperature-driving force the direct action of sunlight presents on the surface, an atmosphere above that surface has a natural temperature gradient with the bottom of the atmosphere being the warmest region, and the top the coolest. This fact necessarily results in that any expected average temperature state of the atmosphere thus can not be found at either of its extremities, i.e. the bottom or top of the atmosphere, since the temperature gradient is constant in its direction. That is, any expected average of a sequential series of values can not be found at either end of the sequence, but must be found within the sequence.
(Please see the last post if you don’t know anything about how the temperature gradient of the atmosphere originates.)
And so if the atmosphere is expected to have a net average temperature state, then we can not expect that the value of that average temperature state can be found at the bottom of the atmosphere; this is mathematically impossible, by the definition of what an average is and how it is calculated.
It is mathematically impossible that any expected average temperature state of the atmosphere can be found at the atmosphere’s bottom.
The expected average temperature state of the atmosphere can only be found within the atmosphere’s middle regions.
Climate science, and climate alarm, and the formulation of its radiative greenhouse effect, however, characterize the atmosphere’s average temperature as that temperature measured at the bottom of the atmosphere.
This is a fundamental mistake of basic mathematics.
Climate science, and its alarmism, attempts to characterize the average temperature of the atmosphere by measuring the temperature of the bottom of the atmosphere. Not realizing that the bottom of the atmosphere will be warmer than any expected net average of the whole atmosphere by simple mathematical necessity caused by the existence of gravity, climate science concludes that the bottom of the atmosphere is “warmer than it should be”, and thus invents the radiative greenhouse effect in order to explain the difference.
However, the difference was already supposed to be there, it should be there, and is already explained due to the natural temperature gradient in the atmosphere caused by gravity. The bottom of the atmosphere has to be, is supposed to be, warmer than the expected net average temperature state of the whole atmosphere or whole Earth surface.
It is erroneous to leave the whole atmosphere out of the accounting, and to measure for average temperature only its state at the bottom, its warmest region. It is erroneous to attribute the higher temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere, as compared to its expected net average temperature, to another new effect called a greenhouse effect, when the higher temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere is already supposed to be there and is already explained by existing physics and mathematics.
Climate science, it’s radiative greenhouse effect, and its alarmism, is entirely based on a very simple but extremely effective mistake.