NoClearMind53 wrote:
If you removed the reflective effect of clouds, aerosols, water, and snow/ice, the earths poles would actually receive more solar energy per unit surface area than the equator. The constant daylight during the summer more than makes up for the constant darkness during the winter.
That doesn't make sense.
For that to be true you would have to do a lot more than just "make up for the six months darkness at the poles".
Each of the two poles have six months of darkness, and then six months of uninterrupted sunlight.
The temperate zones get seasonal variation in length of dark and light for each 24 hour day. But over the course of the year it adds up to the same ratio as the poles of half the time dark, and half the time light.
And at the equator you still get some s slight seasonal variation in sunlight hours but its basically half and half, dark and light, each 24 hours all year long. So lets call it that. But it still adds up to the same half and half ratio that the temperate and polar regions get of sunlight and darkness.
So EVERY point on the globe gets the same ratio of darkness to light. Fifty-fifty. Its just parceled out differently.
But during daylight hours the equator gets more DIRECT sunlight because the sun spends more time at the zenith shining directly down. So during that same fifty percent of the time that both the tropics and the poles get sunlight the sunlight in tropics is more fiercely direct than is anywhere else on the planet. So the equator has to be getting more solar energy then my hometown in the termperate zone and more than does the poles.
Same number of hours of sunlight, but more intense sunlight hour per hour. So it HAS to add up to more energy per unit time per unit physical area of the earths surface.
So sumpin doesn't add up in what you're saying.