Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[Wuwei]

Alas after all this time, you still can't separate between a resonant radio frequency and infrared radiation....and you think you can school me....what a laugh.

Although you are getting a bit closer to the truth...IR is light and light is a wave...not photons as you claim...but I suppose you will backtrack on that statement at some time and go back to describing light as photons zooming about.

We went through this in a different thread before. You ran away. Now you forgot the whole thing. Sad.

 

[Wuwei]

Future is a function of time...time is irrelevant to an entity traveling at the speed of light.

A non sequitur.
The cosmic background radiation at 2.7K hit Penzias and Wilson's telescope sensor at a temperature of 4K. That was quite observable, measurable, and testable.

Still can't grasp the difference between IR and radio waves...f'ing sad...just f'ing sad.

IR is composed of EM waves. Radio waves are composed of EM waves.

Alas after all this time, you still can't separate between a resonant radio frequency and infrared radiation....and you think you can school me....what a laugh.

Although you are getting a bit closer to the truth...IR is light and light is a wave...not photons as you claim...but I suppose you will backtrack on that statement at some time and go back to describing light as photons zooming about.

That is the best you can do?
The cosmic background radiation at 2.7K hit Penzias and Wilson's telescope sensor at a temperature of 4K. That was quite observable, measurable, and testable. We're talking about thermal EM radiation here.

 

[SSDD]

Oh good...then you won't mind directing me to the paper, or credible web address where the fundamental mechanism of energy exchange is explained in depth...

Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer, Fourth Edition
By Robert Siegel

Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation generated by the thermal motion of charged particles in matter. All matter with a temperature greater than absolute zero emits thermal radiation. When the temperature of a body is greater than absolute zero, inter-atomic collisions cause the kinetic energy of the atoms or molecules to change. This results in charge-acceleration and/or dipole oscillation which produces electromagnetic radiation, and the wide spectrum of radiation reflects the wide spectrum of energies and accelerations that occur even at a single temperature.​

This is very elementary. Physics 101. I'm surprised you don't know that oscillating charges emit EM radiation. The excerpt is a Wiki article that references that book. Look up the book.

Sorry guy, but as I suspected, you don't have any idea even what the term, underlying mechanism means. All you are telling me is that energy transfers....I already knew that...nothing whatsoever there about the underlying mechanism of how or why energy transfers...unsurprising since at this juncture, the how and why remains a mystery to science just as the underlying mechanism of gravity remains a mystery...

 

[SSDD]

Alas after all this time, you still can't separate between a resonant radio frequency and infrared radiation....and you think you can school me....what a laugh.

Although you are getting a bit closer to the truth...IR is light and light is a wave...not photons as you claim...but I suppose you will backtrack on that statement at some time and go back to describing light as photons zooming about.

We went through this in a different thread before. You ran away. Now you forgot the whole thing. Sad.

Sorry guy, but I remember you never even being able to grasp the concept of a resonant radio signal....no surprise that you believe you won...I left the discussion with you out of sheer boredom...

 

[SSDD]

Future is a function of time...time is irrelevant to an entity traveling at the speed of light.

A non sequitur.
The cosmic background radiation at 2.7K hit Penzias and Wilson's telescope sensor at a temperature of 4K. That was quite observable, measurable, and testable.

Still can't grasp the difference between IR and radio waves...f'ing sad...just f'ing sad.

IR is composed of EM waves. Radio waves are composed of EM waves.

Alas after all this time, you still can't separate between a resonant radio frequency and infrared radiation....and you think you can school me....what a laugh.

Although you are getting a bit closer to the truth...IR is light and light is a wave...not photons as you claim...but I suppose you will backtrack on that statement at some time and go back to describing light as photons zooming about.

That is the best you can do?
The cosmic background radiation at 2.7K hit Penzias and Wilson's telescope sensor at a temperature of 4K. That was quite observable, measurable, and testable. We're talking about thermal EM radiation here.

Sorry guy, it was a resonant radio frequency that Wilson's telescope received...not CMB...if you want to actually receive CMB you need an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than 2.5K...like I said, you are so far behind the curve that you can't even grasp the concept of a resonant radio frequency and how that relates other types of energy.

 

[IanC]

As far as I know, SSDD sent out some emails with a garbled question on whether a vacuum was necessary for the S-B equations to work.

You know you are in intellectual trouble when you find that you must lie in an effort to defend yourself or make your opponent look bad. Here is the question I asked: Do point out any "garble" there? the question is as straight forward as it can get. Does this equation describe any radiator radiating anywhere, or does it describe a black body radiating into a vacuum absent any other matter. What exactly do you find "garbled about that question?

Greetings Dr. XXXX

I am terribly sorry to bother you with such a basic question, but I am curious, but unable to find a satisfactory answer on the internet and would like an answer from a scientist of some stature if possible regarding the Stefan-Boltzman law. Does the following equation describe a perfect black body radiating into a vacuum, or just any radiator radiating anywhere?

I was under the impression that if the radiator was not in a vacuum (in the presence of any other matter) that the following form of the Stefan Boltzman law must be applied.

Again, sorry to bother you with such a basic question, but I really would appreciate a short answer if possible.

Thank You,

The first response was oblique to what he wanted so he changed his question. Further responses were also ambiguous to what SSDD wanted to hear so he stopped asking and just claimed victory with no supporting statements.

And just in case the first lie wasn't good enough, may as well toss in another for good measure...right?

The first answer I received to the question was:

" If it were not in a vacuum, some modifications might be needed."

Meaning that it is in fact, an equation describing a radiator in a vacuum...since you would have to modify the equation if it were not in a vacuum.

The second answer I received was:

" Hi,
the second formula applies only when the radiator is immersed in a thermal bath at temperature Tc. The first formula applies in vacuum, but it also applies when the radiator is immersed in a medium that happens to be cold (Tc = 0K).
Cheers!
Eric

Neither answer was ambiguous in the least...how much more straight forward could they be? And by the way, the answers were exactly what I expected to hear. You have a damned nasty habit of lying about your opponent if you feel like it might help your case...it doesn't..it only highlights a fundamental flaw in your character. You try to put on a show of being open minded and honest, but talking the talk and walking the walk are two very different things.

I give him credit for asking but he lost even more credit for abusing the answers, for a negative NET credit. Hahahaha

The only one here who lost credit is you ian..because you lied and claimed that I asked a "garbled" question and then lied again claiming that the answers I received were ambiguous...the question was not garbled and the answers were not ambiguous and there was no need for me to abuse them as they were exactly the answers I expected.

Link up to the original thread. Prove my memory to be faulty, although I will gladly admit that it often is.

No Atmosphere, Atmosphere, Greenhouse Gas Atmosphere

And it isn't just your memory that is faulty...When you return to that thread...take a look at some of the utter bullshit you tried to spew in an attempt to defend your position...the fundamental SB equation describes a two dimensional object...imagine, a two dimensional object...a two dimensional perfect black body no less radiating in all directions...where do you come up with that stuff? Is there anything you won't say in an effort to defend your beliefs?

Thanks for the link.

Is it possible for you to show all of the initial response, rather than just one sentence fragment, without the context? TIA

 

[SSDD]

As far as I know, SSDD sent out some emails with a garbled question on whether a vacuum was necessary for the S-B equations to work.

You know you are in intellectual trouble when you find that you must lie in an effort to defend yourself or make your opponent look bad. Here is the question I asked: Do point out any "garble" there? the question is as straight forward as it can get. Does this equation describe any radiator radiating anywhere, or does it describe a black body radiating into a vacuum absent any other matter. What exactly do you find "garbled about that question?

Greetings Dr. XXXX

I am terribly sorry to bother you with such a basic question, but I am curious, but unable to find a satisfactory answer on the internet and would like an answer from a scientist of some stature if possible regarding the Stefan-Boltzman law. Does the following equation describe a perfect black body radiating into a vacuum, or just any radiator radiating anywhere?

I was under the impression that if the radiator was not in a vacuum (in the presence of any other matter) that the following form of the Stefan Boltzman law must be applied.

Again, sorry to bother you with such a basic question, but I really would appreciate a short answer if possible.

Thank You,

The first response was oblique to what he wanted so he changed his question. Further responses were also ambiguous to what SSDD wanted to hear so he stopped asking and just claimed victory with no supporting statements.

And just in case the first lie wasn't good enough, may as well toss in another for good measure...right?

The first answer I received to the question was:

" If it were not in a vacuum, some modifications might be needed."

Meaning that it is in fact, an equation describing a radiator in a vacuum...since you would have to modify the equation if it were not in a vacuum.

The second answer I received was:

" Hi,
the second formula applies only when the radiator is immersed in a thermal bath at temperature Tc. The first formula applies in vacuum, but it also applies when the radiator is immersed in a medium that happens to be cold (Tc = 0K).
Cheers!
Eric

Neither answer was ambiguous in the least...how much more straight forward could they be? And by the way, the answers were exactly what I expected to hear. You have a damned nasty habit of lying about your opponent if you feel like it might help your case...it doesn't..it only highlights a fundamental flaw in your character. You try to put on a show of being open minded and honest, but talking the talk and walking the walk are two very different things.

I give him credit for asking but he lost even more credit for abusing the answers, for a negative NET credit. Hahahaha

The only one here who lost credit is you ian..because you lied and claimed that I asked a "garbled" question and then lied again claiming that the answers I received were ambiguous...the question was not garbled and the answers were not ambiguous and there was no need for me to abuse them as they were exactly the answers I expected.

Link up to the original thread. Prove my memory to be faulty, although I will gladly admit that it often is.

No Atmosphere, Atmosphere, Greenhouse Gas Atmosphere

And it isn't just your memory that is faulty...When you return to that thread...take a look at some of the utter bullshit you tried to spew in an attempt to defend your position...the fundamental SB equation describes a two dimensional object...imagine, a two dimensional object...a two dimensional perfect black body no less radiating in all directions...where do you come up with that stuff? Is there anything you won't say in an effort to defend your beliefs?

Thanks for the link.

Is it possible for you to show all of the initial response, rather than just one sentence fragment, without the context? TIA

That was the entire response from each of the physicists...I sent out 4 emails and got two responses...I am sure that if you took the time to send out more emails to more physicists you would get the same sort of answers that I got...and if you tease them a bit, you could probably get them to add something in there about net to satisfy you....I am sure that they all believe in net energy transfer even though there is no physical evidence....that wasn't the issue anyway..it was what the equations themselves were stating...that being one describing a radiator radiating to cooler surroundings with no other matter present...and one describing the different amount of energy the radiator emits when it is in the presence of other matter...the difference between T and Tc.

 

[IanC]

Future is a function of time...time is irrelevant to an entity traveling at the speed of light.

A non sequitur.
The cosmic background radiation at 2.7K hit Penzias and Wilson's telescope sensor at a temperature of 4K. That was quite observable, measurable, and testable.

Still can't grasp the difference between IR and radio waves...f'ing sad...just f'ing sad.

IR is composed of EM waves. Radio waves are composed of EM waves.

Alas after all this time, you still can't separate between a resonant radio frequency and infrared radiation....and you think you can school me....what a laugh.

Although you are getting a bit closer to the truth...IR is light and light is a wave...not photons as you claim...but I suppose you will backtrack on that statement at some time and go back to describing light as photons zooming about.

That is the best you can do?
The cosmic background radiation at 2.7K hit Penzias and Wilson's telescope sensor at a temperature of 4K. That was quite observable, measurable, and testable. We're talking about thermal EM radiation here.

Sorry guy, it was a resonant radio frequency that Wilson's telescope received...not CMB...if you want to actually receive CMB you need an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than 2.5K...like I said, you are so far behind the curve that you can't even grasp the concept of a resonant radio frequency and how that relates other types of energy.

I believe I have stayed out of the CMB discussion for the most part. Here is why.

Temperature can be measured by direct contact or inferred by the quality and quantity of radiation being received by the object. There is a further complication when using the inferred method, is the object radiating blackbody radiation or is it being produced by some other process.

The Sun's Corona is an example of some other process, it is not blackbody radiation. We infer high temperature because of the ultra high energy radiation given off but the quantity is wrong for BBR.

The CMB has even more complications. What is the distance, what was the original wavelengths before the expansion of the universe redshifted it, etc.

The CMB is given a 'temperature' of 2.7K but it is not a temperature in the common meaning of the word.

Closer to home, polarbear tried to point out that the solar insolation reaching the surface is equivalent to minus 60C, if you put it into the S-B equation. Ridiculous right? Where is the error? Not taking the distance into account, the inverse square law.

This is where SSDD mocked me for saying the S-B equation deals with two dimensional objects (area) imbedded in a three dimensional space. Radiation from a surface spreads out in three dimensions. The radiation being passed from one object to another is attenuated by the inverse square law, only some of the radiation produced by Area1 arrives at Area2.

 

[IanC]

As far as I know, SSDD sent out some emails with a garbled question on whether a vacuum was necessary for the S-B equations to work.

You know you are in intellectual trouble when you find that you must lie in an effort to defend yourself or make your opponent look bad. Here is the question I asked: Do point out any "garble" there? the question is as straight forward as it can get. Does this equation describe any radiator radiating anywhere, or does it describe a black body radiating into a vacuum absent any other matter. What exactly do you find "garbled about that question?

Greetings Dr. XXXX

I am terribly sorry to bother you with such a basic question, but I am curious, but unable to find a satisfactory answer on the internet and would like an answer from a scientist of some stature if possible regarding the Stefan-Boltzman law. Does the following equation describe a perfect black body radiating into a vacuum, or just any radiator radiating anywhere?

I was under the impression that if the radiator was not in a vacuum (in the presence of any other matter) that the following form of the Stefan Boltzman law must be applied.

Again, sorry to bother you with such a basic question, but I really would appreciate a short answer if possible.

Thank You,

The first response was oblique to what he wanted so he changed his question. Further responses were also ambiguous to what SSDD wanted to hear so he stopped asking and just claimed victory with no supporting statements.

And just in case the first lie wasn't good enough, may as well toss in another for good measure...right?

The first answer I received to the question was:

" If it were not in a vacuum, some modifications might be needed."

Meaning that it is in fact, an equation describing a radiator in a vacuum...since you would have to modify the equation if it were not in a vacuum.

The second answer I received was:

" Hi,
the second formula applies only when the radiator is immersed in a thermal bath at temperature Tc. The first formula applies in vacuum, but it also applies when the radiator is immersed in a medium that happens to be cold (Tc = 0K).
Cheers!
Eric

Neither answer was ambiguous in the least...how much more straight forward could they be? And by the way, the answers were exactly what I expected to hear. You have a damned nasty habit of lying about your opponent if you feel like it might help your case...it doesn't..it only highlights a fundamental flaw in your character. You try to put on a show of being open minded and honest, but talking the talk and walking the walk are two very different things.

I give him credit for asking but he lost even more credit for abusing the answers, for a negative NET credit. Hahahaha

The only one here who lost credit is you ian..because you lied and claimed that I asked a "garbled" question and then lied again claiming that the answers I received were ambiguous...the question was not garbled and the answers were not ambiguous and there was no need for me to abuse them as they were exactly the answers I expected.

Link up to the original thread. Prove my memory to be faulty, although I will gladly admit that it often is.

No Atmosphere, Atmosphere, Greenhouse Gas Atmosphere

And it isn't just your memory that is faulty...When you return to that thread...take a look at some of the utter bullshit you tried to spew in an attempt to defend your position...the fundamental SB equation describes a two dimensional object...imagine, a two dimensional object...a two dimensional perfect black body no less radiating in all directions...where do you come up with that stuff? Is there anything you won't say in an effort to defend your beliefs?

Thanks for the link.

Is it possible for you to show all of the initial response, rather than just one sentence fragment, without the context? TIA

That was the entire response from each of the physicists...I sent out 4 emails and got two responses...I am sure that if you took the time to send out more emails to more physicists you would get the same sort of answers that I got...and if you tease them a bit, you could probably get them to add something in there about net to satisfy you....I am sure that they all believe in net energy transfer even though there is no physical evidence....that wasn't the issue anyway..it was what the equations themselves were stating...that being one describing a radiator radiating to cooler surroundings with no other matter present...and one describing the different amount of energy the radiator emits when it is in the presence of other matter...the difference between T and Tc.

So you are saying his entire response was-

.
" If it were not in a vacuum, some modifications might be needed."

I find that somewhat hard to believe. If he was just going to blow you off why would he respond at all.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Alas after all this time, you still can't separate between a resonant radio frequency and infrared radiation....and you think you can school me....what a laugh.

Although you are getting a bit closer to the truth...IR is light and light is a wave...not photons as you claim...but I suppose you will backtrack on that statement at some time and go back to describing light as photons zooming about.

We went through this in a different thread before. You ran away. Now you forgot the whole thing. Sad.

Sorry guy, but I remember you never even being able to grasp the concept of a resonant radio signal....no surprise that you believe you won...I left the discussion with you out of sheer boredom...

I remember you never even being able to grasp the concept of a resonant radio signal

DERP!

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry guy, but as I suspected, you don't have any idea even what the term, underlying mechanism means. All you are telling me is that energy transfers....I already knew that...nothing whatsoever there about the underlying mechanism of how or why energy transfers...unsurprising since at this juncture, the how and why remains a mystery to science just as the underlying mechanism of gravity remains a mystery...

Alas, you still don't understand science. Gravity has very little to do with thermal EM radiation.

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry guy, but I remember you never even being able to grasp the concept of a resonant radio signal....no surprise that you believe you won...I left the discussion with you out of sheer boredom...

You lost bad. Resonant radio signal is something you made up that has nothing to do with thermodynamics. Sheer boredom. That is so funny.

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry guy, it was a resonant radio frequency that Wilson's telescope received...not CMB...if you want to actually receive CMB you need an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than 2.5K...like I said, you are so far behind the curve that you can't even grasp the concept of a resonant radio frequency and how that relates other types of energy.

You can't argue your way out of the fact that cosmic background radiation at 2.7K hit Penzias and Wilson's telescope sensor at a temperature of 4K. That was quite observable, measurable, and testable. We're talking about thermal EM radiation here. The CMB didn't transmit "resonant radio frequencies".

 

[IanC]

Future is a function of time...time is irrelevant to an entity traveling at the speed of light.

A non sequitur.
The cosmic background radiation at 2.7K hit Penzias and Wilson's telescope sensor at a temperature of 4K. That was quite observable, measurable, and testable.

Still can't grasp the difference between IR and radio waves...f'ing sad...just f'ing sad.

IR is composed of EM waves. Radio waves are composed of EM waves.

Alas after all this time, you still can't separate between a resonant radio frequency and infrared radiation....and you think you can school me....what a laugh.

Although you are getting a bit closer to the truth...IR is light and light is a wave...not photons as you claim...but I suppose you will backtrack on that statement at some time and go back to describing light as photons zooming about.

That is the best you can do?
The cosmic background radiation at 2.7K hit Penzias and Wilson's telescope sensor at a temperature of 4K. That was quite observable, measurable, and testable. We're talking about thermal EM radiation here.

Sorry guy, it was a resonant radio frequency that Wilson's telescope received...not CMB...if you want to actually receive CMB you need an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than 2.5K...like I said, you are so far behind the curve that you can't even grasp the concept of a resonant radio frequency and how that relates other types of energy.

Pull out your big gun. The CMB photons reaching us didn't start off as 2.7K, they came from a source much, much warmer.

 

[IanC]

Sorry guy, but as I suspected, you don't have any idea even what the term, underlying mechanism means. All you are telling me is that energy transfers....I already knew that...nothing whatsoever there about the underlying mechanism of how or why energy transfers...unsurprising since at this juncture, the how and why remains a mystery to science just as the underlying mechanism of gravity remains a mystery...

Alas, you still don't understand science. Gravity has very little to do with thermal EM radiation.

Don't take that from him SSDD.

Go on, tell him how gravity is intrinsically linked to thermal radiation in the atmosphere by enclosing the air towards the surface and storing energy in the field that can be converted to radiation at any time.

You the Man!

 

[Wuwei]

Temperature can be measured by direct contact or inferred by the quality and quantity of radiation being received by the object. There is a further complication when using the inferred method, is the object radiating blackbody radiation or is it being produced by some other process.

Go to bing.com and click “Images” and search cmb graph cobe

You will see that the CMB impressively follows the black body curve. One graph is logarithmic and shows it is BB over 3 orders of magnitude of frequency.

The CMB has even more complications. What is the distance, what was the original wavelengths before the expansion of the universe redshifted it, etc.

The distance is not important since there is little absorption through space. It is the fit to a BB curve that is important. Distance won't change it. All frequencies are red-shifted the same so the BB curve is likewise shifted from a very high temperature.

The CMB is given a 'temperature' of 2.7K but it is not a temperature in the common meaning of the word.

It actually is a temperature in the common meaning of temperature. The following is from the site
Brief History of the Universe

0.0001 seconds after the Big Bang the temperature of the universe was about T=1013 K.

One month after the Big Bang the processes that convert the radiation field to a blackbody spectrum become slower than the expansion of the Universe, so the spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) preserves information back to this time. Temperature is T=3000 K, time is 380,000 years after the Big Bang.

The red-shift brings it down to 2.7 K.

Closer to home, polarbear tried to point out that the solar insolation reaching the surface is equivalent to minus 60C, if you put it into the S-B equation. Ridiculous right? Where is the error? Not taking the distance into account, the inverse square law.

I don't know exactly what he was referring to, but I think you are right. Not only do you have to consider distance, but you also have to consider sun size. See below.

This is where SSDD mocked me for saying the S-B equation deals with two dimensional objects (area) imbedded in a three dimensional space. Radiation from a surface spreads out in three dimensions. The radiation being passed from one object to another is attenuated by the inverse square law, only some of the radiation produced by Area1 arrives at Area2.

The SB equation works well when an object at one temperature is completely surrounded by another object at another uniform temperature. If the background is a smaller object the distance and subtended solid angle must be considered. In a 3-D configuration with several objects at various distances and temperatures the SB equation is very difficult to apply and would have to be done with numerical integration.

 

[Wuwei]

Don't take that from him SSDD.

Go on, tell him how gravity is intrinsically linked to thermal radiation in the atmosphere by enclosing the air towards the surface and storing energy in the field that can be converted to radiation at any time.

You the Man!

If you want to shift the discussion from the underlying physics of thermal radiation to the complexities of the atmosphere, you are right.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry guy, but as I suspected, you don't have any idea even what the term, underlying mechanism means. All you are telling me is that energy transfers....I already knew that...nothing whatsoever there about the underlying mechanism of how or why energy transfers...unsurprising since at this juncture, the how and why remains a mystery to science just as the underlying mechanism of gravity remains a mystery...

Alas, you still don't understand science. Gravity has very little to do with thermal EM radiation.

To bad I can't write to you with crayons...the point was that there are lots of things to which we recognize but are still a long way from learning the underlying mechanism...given your intellectual limitiations, I thought the example of gravity would be easy for you to grasp...guess I was wrong.

 

[IanC]

0.0001 seconds after the Big Bang the temperature of the universe was about T=1013 K.

One month after the Big Bang the processes that convert the radiation field to a blackbody spectrum become slower than the expansion of the Universe, so the spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) preserves information back to this time. Temperature is T=3000 K, time is 380,000 years after the Big Bang.

The red-shift brings it down to 2.7 K.

Hahahaha. I'm playing by SSDD rules here. It doesn't matter if T = 1000 or 3000K. Either one is warmer than the 4K detector. In fact it is warmer than an ambient temperature detector as well, so there is no problem with the SLoT because the photon knows the temperature of both the emitter and receiver 'cause it don't care nuttin' about time or distance. So there!

 

[IanC]

Temperature can be measured by direct contact or inferred by the quality and quantity of radiation being received by the object. There is a further complication when using the inferred method, is the object radiating blackbody radiation or is it being produced by some other process.

Go to bing.com and click “Images” and search cmb graph cobe

You will see that the CMB impressively follows the black body curve. One graph is logarithmic and shows it is BB over 3 orders of magnitude of frequency.

The CMB has even more complications. What is the distance, what was the original wavelengths before the expansion of the universe redshifted it, etc.

The distance is not important since there is little absorption through space. It is the fit to a BB curve that is important. Distance won't change it. All frequencies are red-shifted the same so the BB curve is likewise shifted from a very high temperature.

The CMB is given a 'temperature' of 2.7K but it is not a temperature in the common meaning of the word.

It actually is a temperature in the common meaning of temperature. The following is from the site
Brief History of the Universe

0.0001 seconds after the Big Bang the temperature of the universe was about T=1013 K.

One month after the Big Bang the processes that convert the radiation field to a blackbody spectrum become slower than the expansion of the Universe, so the spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) preserves information back to this time. Temperature is T=3000 K, time is 380,000 years after the Big Bang.

The red-shift brings it down to 2.7 K.

Closer to home, polarbear tried to point out that the solar insolation reaching the surface is equivalent to minus 60C, if you put it into the S-B equation. Ridiculous right? Where is the error? Not taking the distance into account, the inverse square law.

I don't know exactly what he was referring to, but I think you are right. Not only do you have to consider distance, but you also have to consider sun size. See below.

This is where SSDD mocked me for saying the S-B equation deals with two dimensional objects (area) imbedded in a three dimensional space. Radiation from a surface spreads out in three dimensions. The radiation being passed from one object to another is attenuated by the inverse square law, only some of the radiation produced by Area1 arrives at Area2.

The SB equation works well when an object at one temperature is completely surrounded by another object at another uniform temperature. If the background is a smaller object the distance and subtended solid angle must be considered. In a 3-D configuration with several objects at various distances and temperatures the SB equation is very difficult to apply and would have to be done with numerical integration.

Don't forget about the vacuum. The vacuum is very very important!

Hahahaha