Trenberth's Energy Budget

[polarbear]

please explain to me how you think the two bars will equilibrate to the same temperature in Spencer's experiment even though one is heated and the other is not.

Because they are in a vacuum Ian where conduction and convection into the atmosphere are eliminated. Radiation is the only means of bleeding off heat and the bars (plates;same thing) are in close proximity. They will achieve equilibrium or very close to it.

As I have already told you, volumes have been written about the issue of heat within vacuum tubes from the old days when everything used them. In a vacuum, materials heated and passive reach an equilibrium temperature very quickly. Great pains had to be taken in the design of vacuum tube components using materials of widely varied absorptivity and emissivity, and wild heat sink designs were fabricated precisely to keep the internal components of the vacuum tube from reaching thermal equilibrium. It doesn't happen in the open atmosphere because convection and conduction are in operation to carry energy away from the heat sink. Not so in a vacuum.

Face it Ian, math and the laws of physics are stronger than your faith in a mythical greenhouse effect.

The math is correct and is a correct useage of the Stefan-Boltzman law dealing with blackbody radiation. You are accepting your intuition over hard mathematical evidence that has been proven reliable for over a hundred years.

What else need be said?

you have said many foolish things in the past but that is right up there with saying that a blanket make you colder.

Funny you should mention that Ian, and state it with your usual confidence as if it were a statement of fact. Sorry Ian, the second law of thermodynamics defeats you again. The fact is, that a blanket does reduce your surface temeprature. Once again, your intuition, belief, faith, or whatever intermal system your intellect runs on, has lead you off in the wrong direction. The fact is, Ian, that putting a blanket over your body does make you colder just as the second law of thermodynamics predicts.

Your problem Ian, is that you believe you are smarter than the laws of physics and the math that proves those laws. You aren't.

"Human Body Emission

As all matter, the human body radiates some of a person's energy away as infrared light.

The net power radiated is the difference between the power emitted and the power absorbed:

Applying the Stefan Boltzman Law

The total surface area of an adult is about 2 m², and the mid- and far-infrared emissivity of skin and most clothing is near unity, as it is for most nonmetallic surfaces.[ Skin temperature is about 33 °C, but clothing reduces the surface temperature to about 28 °C when the ambient temperature is 20 °C. Hence, the net radiative heat loss is about

"

If you put a 20C blanket (which is colder) on a warmer 33C body, the surface temperature is going to reduce to about 28C. Heat flowed from the warmer body to the cooler blanket just as the 2nd law of thermodynamics predicts.

It is true that the blanket will trap warm air between the body and itself, but that heat will not increase the temperature of the body.

This buisness is a matter of the laws of physics and the mathematics that prove them Ian. Not, as you seem to believe, a matter of faith. You pit yourself against the laws of nature and you will lose every time.

I had to read all these posts to find where this perversion of the Stephan Bolzmann equation came from...the one You asked me about...:

And it turns out it came from Wikipedia...I only use "Wiki" because I don`t have the time to scan in a page of a real physics book and upload it.

Amazing how "climatology" can transmute this into the kind of total crap, like "back radiation"...and then have a second & cooler body "radiate energy" back to the hotter body where it got the energy from and then they go on and claim that this will now raise the TEMPERATURE of the original emitter.

By now everyone is familiar with the dimensions used in the Bolzmann equation, ...?

So now let`s go to the altered Bolzmann equation, the way "climatology" is trying to exploit it and to the question You (wirebender) asked me:

Specifically, the claim that p=sigma (T^4 - T^4) represents the same physical processes as P=(sigma T^4)-(sigma T^4)

Stephan Bolzmann never made this claim..here again somebody felt free to ride Stephan Bolzmann`s coat tails and added this amendment into the Wikipedia pages.

Here is Bolzmann`s original law exactly as You would find it in the textbooks:

This equation expresses the energy flux in watts per square meter at a given temperature...

But in no way is it valid to do this form of this law for such a thing as "BACK-RADIATION":

p=sigma (T1^4 - T2^4)

(I had to change Your "T`s" to T1 and T2)

Why not....?
Because that would also state that if both radiators were at the same temperature no matter how hot that the outcome would be 0....as in zero watts/m^2...and that would apply over the entire system.
And in no way can anybody say that there would be a zero energy flux condition between say 2 suns that are equally hot...



Obviously that paradox does not just happen when T1= T2, but over the entire range as T1 and T2 diverge in magnitude.

I kept saying that no second body, no matter what has the ability to alter the heat radiation energy flux of any other one...


The author of this equation that was published in Wikipedia

Also never even claimed this either, because he is expressing the heat INSULATION effect of a heat INSULATOR and nothing else.

He is not talking in any way shape or form about "back-radiation"

And what he is saying about HEAT INSULATORS is EXACTLY RIGHT...
Also the second temperature the "T0" to the 4.th power anywhere in physics has the meaning 0 degrees Kelvin...and if the author of this equation meant anything else with it, that would be nonsense, since if the T is already expressed in Kelvin, then there is no need to do this subtraction.
That subtraction has to be done only if You are expressing T in degree Celsius

I am sure that who ever posted it @ Wikipedia never even dreamed what "climatologists" would do with it...
They are not even adhering to his equation either, because they don`t
do a subtraction with T1 and T2 they ADD them, and have used the "T0" as a second so called "cooler black body" assigning a Temperature > ) degrees Kelvin for their back radiation lunacy.
So now poor Bolzmann who must be turning over in his grave by now has been ab-used to "T1^4-T0^4 and T0 has been assigned "climatology" values way above zero degrees Kelvin



Like I already told You. IanC...be careful what kind of "physics lessons" You get in "climatology"...or when You start quoting equations that You don`t fully understand.

 

[gslack]

I just recently discovered its actually called Stefan-Boltzmann two names as in two people. A Jozef Stefan and one Ludwig Boltzmann both were credited for it. As it turns out Jozef Stefan deduced it from work Ludwig Boltzmann was doing on some theories from even another guy named Tyndall.. I guess they figured Steffan-Boltzmann-Tyndall would have been too long... LOL, just to clarify I was under the assumption it was a Stephen Boltzmann (one guy) and in my defense I have noticed its written like that a lot on the net.. But its actually two guys work..

BTW, if you guys haven't played around a new LaTEX or similar equation editor yet, its a blast. And I highly recommend trying one out.. It allows to write out equations that will look on type as it would if written out by hand (albeit neater).. So basically you can show actual 10 to the 4th in much like you would writing it on a black board using a simple code and the program will write a graphic in real time for it. Really nice.. It makes me even look a bit smarter LOL.

 

[IanC]

As to the math I did earlier regarding EM fields, again, you were in the conversation and had no comment whatsoever on the math other than the sort of hit and run snide remarks that rocks makes about things he doesn't begin to understand. If you are interested, I suppose you could find it but since you are apparently so brilliant it involved the subtraction of EM fields. If you could do the math and understand what it means, you wouldn't be claiming that CO2 radiates an EM field back to the surface of the earth. In fact, you would reject the notion of backradiation entirely. You don't, so you accept backradiation and even tried to defend back convection and back conduction.

I couldnt care less whether you are unwilling to present your 'masterpiece'. just stop daring people to find the fault in your math, when you are unwilling to produce it.

where to start...hmmm....

a CO2 molecule absorbs an IR photon, vibrates for a while, then usually emits the same energy IR photon in a random direction, sometimes back towards earth. four events, emmission and absorption of two photons. radiation and backradiation. this is where you hold your breath until your face goes red and then blurt out 2nd Law!!! and gslack calls me an idiot for describing a perpetual motion machine.

but as I told you before, the system has changed. everytime a photon is emitted or absorbed a minute amount of momentum is transferred. these crumbs are the stuff of entrope. there is no prohibition for even the same two molecules to pass the photon back and forth, other than the fantastically long odds of it happening.

your conception of EM fields is distorted. you can measure the amount of radiation coming from one object and compare it to the radiation from a second object, then calculate the net flow of energy but you are crazy to think that photons that make up the fields fight each other to the death in open space. both fields radiate, all photons reach their target, the net energy exchanged matches the subtraction of the fields.

to reiterate- excited CO2 molecules dont give a flying fuck about EM field, they only care about shedding the extra energy. and some of that energy goes back towards earth. you can argue defintion of terms but most people just call that backradiation because it imparts more information about where the energy originated and where it went.

 

[IanC]

please explain to me how you think the two bars will equilibrate to the same temperature in Spencer's experiment even though one is heated and the other is not.

Because they are in a vacuum Ian where conduction and convection into the atmosphere are eliminated. Radiation is the only means of bleeding off heat and the bars (plates;same thing) are in close proximity. They will achieve equilibrium or very close to it.

As I have already told you, volumes have been written about the issue of heat within vacuum tubes from the old days when everything used them. In a vacuum, materials heated and passive reach an equilibrium temperature very quickly. Great pains had to be taken in the design of vacuum tube components using materials of widely varied absorptivity and emissivity, and wild heat sink designs were fabricated precisely to keep the internal components of the vacuum tube from reaching thermal equilibrium. It doesn't happen in the open atmosphere because convection and conduction are in operation to carry energy away from the heat sink. Not so in a vacuum.

Face it Ian, math and the laws of physics are stronger than your faith in a mythical greenhouse effect.

The math is correct and is a correct useage of the Stefan-Boltzman law dealing with blackbody radiation. You are accepting your intuition over hard mathematical evidence that has been proven reliable for over a hundred years.

What else need be said?



Funny you should mention that Ian, and state it with your usual confidence as if it were a statement of fact. Sorry Ian, the second law of thermodynamics defeats you again. The fact is, that a blanket does reduce your surface temeprature. Once again, your intuition, belief, faith, or whatever intermal system your intellect runs on, has lead you off in the wrong direction. The fact is, Ian, that putting a blanket over your body does make you colder just as the second law of thermodynamics predicts.

Your problem Ian, is that you believe you are smarter than the laws of physics and the math that proves those laws. You aren't.

"Human Body Emission

As all matter, the human body radiates some of a person's energy away as infrared light.

The net power radiated is the difference between the power emitted and the power absorbed:

Applying the Stefan Boltzman Law

The total surface area of an adult is about 2 m², and the mid- and far-infrared emissivity of skin and most clothing is near unity, as it is for most nonmetallic surfaces.[ Skin temperature is about 33 °C, but clothing reduces the surface temperature to about 28 °C when the ambient temperature is 20 °C. Hence, the net radiative heat loss is about

"

If you put a 20C blanket (which is colder) on a warmer 33C body, the surface temperature is going to reduce to about 28C. Heat flowed from the warmer body to the cooler blanket just as the 2nd law of thermodynamics predicts.

It is true that the blanket will trap warm air between the body and itself, but that heat will not increase the temperature of the body.

This buisness is a matter of the laws of physics and the mathematics that prove them Ian. Not, as you seem to believe, a matter of faith. You pit yourself against the laws of nature and you will lose every time.

I had to read all these posts to find where this perversion of the Stephan Bolzmann equation came from...the one You asked me about...:

And it turns out it came from Wikipedia...I only use "Wiki" because I don`t have the time to scan in a page of a real physics book and upload it.

Amazing how "climatology" can transmute this into the kind of total crap, like "back radiation"...and then have a second & cooler body "radiate energy" back to the hotter body where it got the energy from and then they go on and claim that this will now raise the TEMPERATURE of the original emitter.

By now everyone is familiar with the dimensions used in the Bolzmann equation, ...?

So now let`s go to the altered Bolzmann equation, the way "climatology" is trying to exploit it and to the question You (wirebender) asked me:

Specifically, the claim that p=sigma (T^4 - T^4) represents the same physical processes as P=(sigma T^4)-(sigma T^4)

Stephan Bolzmann never made this claim..here again somebody felt free to ride Stephan Bolzmann`s coat tails and added this amendment into the Wikipedia pages.

Here is Bolzmann`s original law exactly as You would find it in the textbooks:

This equation expresses the energy flux in watts per square meter at a given temperature...

But in no way is it valid to do this form of this law for such a thing as "BACK-RADIATION":

p=sigma (T1^4 - T2^4)

(I had to change Your "T`s" to T1 and T2)

Why not....?
Because that would also state that if both radiators were at the same temperature no matter how hot that the outcome would be 0....as in zero watts/m^2...and that would apply over the entire system.
And in no way can anybody say that there would be a zero energy flux condition between say 2 suns that are equally hot...



Obviously that paradox does not just happen when T1= T2, but over the entire range as T1 and T2 diverge in magnitude.

I kept saying that no second body, no matter what has the ability to alter the heat radiation energy flux of any other one...


The author of this equation that was published in Wikipedia

Also never even claimed this either, because he is expressing the heat INSULATION effect of a heat INSULATOR and nothing else.

He is not talking in any way shape or form about "back-radiation"

And what he is saying about HEAT INSULATORS is EXACTLY RIGHT...
Also the second temperature the "T0" to the 4.th power anywhere in physics has the meaning 0 degrees Kelvin...and if the author of this equation meant anything else with it, that would be nonsense, since if the T is already expressed in Kelvin, then there is no need to do this subtraction.
That subtraction has to be done only if You are expressing T in degree Celsius

I am sure that who ever posted it @ Wikipedia never even dreamed what "climatologists" would do with it...
They are not even adhering to his equation either, because they don`t
do a subtraction with T1 and T2 they ADD them, and have used the "T0" as a second so called "cooler black body" assigning a Temperature > ) degrees Kelvin for their back radiation lunacy.
So now poor Bolzmann who must be turning over in his grave by now has been ab-used to "T1^4-T0^4 and T0 has been assigned "climatology" values way above zero degrees Kelvin



Like I already told You. IanC...be careful what kind of "physics lessons" You get in "climatology"...or when You start quoting equations that You don`t fully understand.

it was wirebender's link and I was more than happy to use it because it shows he calculated incorrectly.

previously you muddied the waters by bringing up reflection. wirebender defined the emissivity as 1, no reflection. I dont particularly want to get into discussions of planetary systems of energy transport until this simple thought experiment of Spencer's has run it course.

are you just arguing the definition of 'backradiation'? are you saying that there is no difference in the amount of net energy transferred per metre squared when the hot object is radiating into zero Kelvin space or into a close object at many hundreds Kelvin? if there is a difference, where does that difference escape from? 750w is being pumped in, it needs to get out somehow. my though was that the temperature of the heater had to increase to force the energy out past the blockage and to increase flow in areas that were left unblocked. you seem to disagree so perhaps you can clear up my confusion as to how and where the energy escapes.

Im not trying to be combatitive, I would just like to know where my thinking is incorrect.

 

[wirebender]

it was wirebender's link and I was more than happy to use it because it shows he calculated incorrectly.

Why do you lie so ian? Do you think that people aren't bright enough to catch you at it? The link to wiki was regarding your claim that putting clothing over your skin would cause your skin to warm and for that purpose, the math was dead on correct. The wiki article was not in response to spencer's failed experiment. Regarding spencers experiment, I didn't calculate incorrectly. Spencer made a typo and I corrected for it. He said his model was based on the earth sitting in cold space. If the vacuum chamber was above 0K, then the chamber itself was radiating and was therefore another energy source. He made no mention of a second energy source. Congratulations on finding yet another error in spencers failed experiment.

are you just arguing the definition of 'backradiation'? are you saying that there is no difference in the amount of net energy transferred per metre squared when the hot object is radiating into zero Kelvin space or into a close object at many hundreds Kelvin?

Apply the laws of physics ian, geez guy. Do you not understand the relationship between absorptivity and emissivity? It doesn't matter what the temperature of the background is so long as it is cooler than the emitting object. If the background is hotter than the object, then the object is not radiating anything as that would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is absorbing from the wamer emitter.

if there is a difference, where does that difference escape from? 750w is being pumped in, it needs to get out somehow.

Where do you get the idea that 750 is being pumped in? The experiment doesn't say anything like that. The heated bar is emitting 750 to be at the temperature that spencer specified. That doesn't say anything about how much electricity is flowing in. The only parameter regarding how much electricity was flowing through the electrical cord was that it didn't change. We don't know how much electricity was flowing in, we only know the amount of wattage the bar was emitting in order to be at the specified temperature.

The more you talk ian, the more clear it becomes that you don't really get any of this.

my though was that the temperature of the heater had to increase to force the energy out past the blockage and to increase flow in areas that were left unblocked. you seem to disagree so perhaps you can clear up my confusion as to how and where the energy escapes.

What "blockage" The heater simply absorbs and emits. It doesn't decide to warm up or cool down based on the surroundings. It is receiving an unknown quantity of electricity and simply emits. It can't warm up unless A) the amount of electricity coming in increases, or B) the temperature of the background increased to a temperature higher than itself. If the powered bar increases its temperature without one of those two things happening, then you have created energy which is a violation of the law of conservation of energy.

Im not trying to be combatitive, I would just like to know where my thinking is incorrect.

Start at the very beginning. That is where you went off the rails. Rather than do the math and accept what it tells you, you tried to reason your way around the applicable physical laws in order to preserve what you believe regarding CO2's non existent ability to radiate energy back to the surface of the earth where it is then absorbed.

 

[gslack]

Ian you are full of it.. Do you really think you are fooling anyone now? Grow up man, you aren't physicist, you aren't a chemist, dude you aren't even a good student...

Wire was right, you tried to imply (weakly because you are that type of a weasel) that there was such a thing as back conduction and back convection... You didn't do it outright, what you did was your weasel act where give little snigger or make some comment that implies it. One that you can pretend you didn't mean like it read later if it turns out you are wrong.. Again showing how little you actually know...

Keep on going ego boy, EVERYONE must be wrong because you are right because.... Yeah...

 

[gslack]

Ian can you explain how it is you cannot define in your own words a single concept I have asked you regarding even the most basic principles in physical science? You didn't recognize any of the standard beginning experiments, you didn't recognize Fermat's last Theorem, and you have likened the role of Quantum mechanics in this as an esoteric theory and likened it to "magic".

Where in the hell did you study physics? Melmack university? Is there some other form of physical science that avoids actual math somewhere we aren't aware of?

 

[polarbear]

I dont particularly want to get into discussions of planetary systems of energy transport until this simple thought experiment of Spencer's has run it course.

are you just arguing the definition of 'backradiation'? are you saying that there is no difference in the amount of net energy transferred per metre squared when the hot object is radiating into zero Kelvin space or into a close object at many hundreds Kelvin? if there is a difference, where does that difference escape from? 750w is being pumped in, it needs to get out somehow. my though was that the temperature of the heater had to increase to force the energy out past the blockage and to increase flow in areas that were left unblocked. you seem to disagree so perhaps you can clear up my confusion as to how and where the energy escapes.

Im not trying to be combatitive, I would just like to know where my thinking is incorrect.

Being combative against another person has no place in a physics discussion anyway.
Some people, mostly climatologists resort to that when someone points out the flaws in their theory.

Perhaps the best place to start clearing up the confusion is for You to consider asking yourself the same questions as
any physisist would ask...

1.) Where is the EXTRA energy supposed to be coming from, that is supposed to increase the temperature of this heater?
It does take EXTRA energy to raise the temperature of a Mass M1 (using Your words, "the heater") from T1 to T2...

2.) Using Your words, "the blockage" as the second mass M2 which has to be heated in this example from a portion
of the radiation it has received from M1.

3.) Using Your 750 watts that M1 has absorbed and is re-emitting a portion of the 750 watts is now absorbed by M2
How large this portion is depends on the mass, the spacial arrangement and the optical properties of M2 at the part of the involved infrared spectrum...but since You are free to choose anything You want for the mass and also for the spacial arrangement You are also free to assign any portion You want for 750/n .th Watts M2 is absorbing.


Your final question was:
"so perhaps you can clear up my confusion as to how and where the energy escapes."

Let`s start by answering first by how much "escape" energy ...as You call it we do have in total.

Your example starts out with 750 Watts, which by the way is not energy, but is a power unit. (energy per time)
You keep using the word "energy" instead of the word "power" so then , by all means we`ll discuss this subject using energy instead of power

So the 1 number priority is to change that to the proper dimension and use Watt-seconds and stop mixing up apples and oranges...!!

Now we can begin.
After the time interval Tsec1 the mass M1 has been heated with 750 Watts X Tsec1----> to Watt-seconds Energy...
That is all the ENERGY M1 contains and has to dissipate or that has to "escape" as You put it.

Of these 750 Watt-secs ENERGY the mass M2 or the 'blockage" as You call it , depending on the properties I mentioned before is going to
absorb a portion of these 750 Watt secs....You are free to choose a simple number for reasons of clarity...and
so am I...so if You don`t object, I choose 1/10 th.

So then, after the time interval Tsec1 Your "heater" the mass M2 has already allowed 75 Watt seconds to "escape" over to
the "blockage" which now contains these 75 Watt seconds.

But in no way will that now raise the TOTAL ENERGY of this system to more than 750 Watt seconds which have to "escape"


Regardless if You use POWER as in Watts instead of ENERGY as in Watt seconds that applies.


No matter which number You want to choose as a time interval if You meant to ask :
"so perhaps you can clear up my confusion as to how and where the POWER escapes."

The conversion to POWER Units as in Watts that have to "escape" involves nothing more than a simple division of the above Numbers that represented ENERGY by whatever You want to choose as a time interval for Tsec1....

It also won`t matter if You use calories as energy, or calories per second as power or whichever You prefer, the outcome is the same
Surely You are not of the opinion, that M2, ...Your so called "blockage" will add POWER to Your original 750 Watt heater ....and do so with some of the 75 Watts it scavenged from from the heater in the first place.


So which part of my "opinion" as You called it confuses You...?
If You have scientific evidence You would like to present, that my "opinion" is wrong then I encourage You...don`t just to talk about it, go ahead and use it, because such scientific evidence could revolutionize all prior technology known to man...and You could get filthy rich.

But in real science & technology You would have to build a working model, even one as simple "Spencer...Yes Virginia" example would suffice as long as You demonstrate that it really does as advertized.

Nobody ever got a patent just on his say so and no matter how many titles he included in his name... or perhaps because "Vriginia" the realtor daughter agreed.
But "climatologists" like Spencer (Al Gore, M.Mann etc.) get to side step this pesty burden of proof altogether and still get filthy rich,...
Because there are all these dummies who believe quacks like that and support the politics that funds the $$$ that flow into these pockets.

A cynic basing people who do not agree with the likes of Spencer might reply, that this revolutionary technology already exists...
we call it "insulation" and use it in building construction.

Then again these cynics have forgotten, that in this example as with all the other ones they do use, not a single one has ever managed to prove that CO2 is an "insulator".
..having failed to do so ..."climatology" has been using the same method over and over again...
and that is to present "back-radiation" HYPOTHESIS` (in plural...such as Spencer`s) as "proof" for their original CO2 caused heat increase "HYPOTHESIS".

Tell me now, how exactly has Spencer`s example demonstrated the validity of "back-radiation"...

No, aside from the utter math & physics blunders...it`s not just the definition I do not accept.
I also do not accept the claim that he has proven anything with his "Yes Virginia" example...which exists only on paper.

Also any "computer modelling" as a substitute for the failure to demonstrate experimentally is not far above from anything else, that is just on paper either..!!!

....and neither would anyone who is involved in R&D and has to prove the validity of statements with a working experiment, that actually demonstrates that the hypothesis was correct with observable results.

 

[polarbear]

"Climatology" is using " radiative forcing of 1.66 W/m2, " for this so called "back radiation" energy budget
to make the case for man made global warming.

Then they go on and use "models" like Spencer`s "example" to "explain" how this back-radiation allegedly adds heat energy to the overall system...the energy that they claim would have "escaped", if the CO2 were not there

I can also use an "energy budget" which involves CO2 and it is one that "climatology" chooses to ignore with their "earth=black body energy budget simulation".

It goes like this:
The Mauna Lua Observatory tells us, that at any time during the plant growth season the average molar ppm CO2 is 5 ppm lower....

and Wikipedia will also tell You that this is due to seasonal plant growth & bio synthesis.
By that they refer to this equation, but do not a single "climatologist" wants to specify the energy which is required for this bio chemical reaction...well then I shall specify it:

Bond Energy


C6H12O6 + 6O2 -> 6CO2 + 6 H2O, Δ G = -686 kcal.

Before You go on a "left spin" here, be aware that each and every proper chemical reaction is using "<-->" and not just "->"...
which of course also applies for the delta Energy requirement when the reaction goes from CO2 to C6H12O6 + 6O2 in the opposite reaction, as
in the bio-synthesis of Carbohydrates from CO2, while generating Oxygen
so the 686 k-cals per 6 Moles CO2 converted to a carbohydrate monomer DOES APPLY Exactly as above...You can look that up in any half decent chemistry book...!!!
And again, NO, that is not just my personal opinion, as You so often classify my statements

So now with that cleared up...(I hope) we can proceed:

The Molar Volume at "Standard Atm"= 22 414 cm^3.
so 1 m^3 containing 5 molar ppm CO2 corresponds to 44.6 * 5 * 10^(-6) Moles per cubic meter

Each and every second we add CO2 and for the seasonal level when bio-synthesis applies the molar ppm is by 5 ppm lower than without the bio-synthesis
when generating Carbohydrates + Oxygen from CO2
as shown in the equation above

The energy budget per cubic meter for this reaction is:
(44.6 * 5 * 10^(-6) * 686 )/ 6 = 25.5 calories

which converts to 106 watt seconds required by bio-synthesis to lower the CO2 level in each 1 cubic meter with this bio-chemical reaction.
......and each cubic meter of course has a base area of 1 square meter....
...and as You surely know 106 watt seconds per 1 second = then a power consumption of 106 watts per square meter

"Climatology" does pay some qualitative homage to the CO2 which is consumed by bio synthesis,...but nothing more beyond,...and God forbid to how many watts per square meter this amounts to

Not a single "Climatologist" wants to show you the math for the energy this bio synthesis requires in terms of Watts per square meters, allowing a comparison with the alleged 1.66 W/m2 "back radiative forcing"
which is supposed to eventually drown us all by melting the polar ice caps.


I would also like to draw Your attention to the popular terminology CO2 = "Greenhouse Gas".
Well CO2 is in fact used in Greenhouses,....but it is used to accelerate this very bio-synthesis equation we have been using...and certainly not for the purpose of raising the temperature.

Thus it is also valid to make the claim, that outside a "Greenhouse" CO2 will also accelerate plant growth ....Yet there is not a single "computer simulation" that incorporates not just the present 106 Watt/m^2 requirement, but also how this number would increase,...as it must in an actual Greenhouse when You increase CO2 content and therefore the rate of plant growth.


So IanC, You have confronted me with this so called "Spencer Model" and "Trenberth`s Energy budget".
And now I am confronting You with a bio-synthesis energy budget.

I am waiting for Your (non-combative) rebuttal...
Before You say again, something like C6H12O6 + 6O2 -> 6CO2 + 6 H2O, &#916; G = -686 kcal. is my "personal opinion", go & Google,...and then do the rest of the math yourself

 

[IanC]

it was wirebender's link and I was more than happy to use it because it shows he calculated incorrectly.

Why do you lie so ian? Do you think that people aren't bright enough to catch you at it? The link to wiki was regarding your claim that putting clothing over your skin would cause your skin to warm and for that purpose, the math was dead on correct. The wiki article was not in response to spencer's failed experiment. Regarding spencers experiment, I didn't calculate incorrectly. Spencer made a typo and I corrected for it. He said his model was based on the earth sitting in cold space. If the vacuum chamber was above 0K, then the chamber itself was radiating and was therefore another energy source. He made no mention of a second energy source. Congratulations on finding yet another error in spencers failed experiment.

you provided the link. I used it to show your math was wrong. how is that a lie? why did you post the link if you dont agree with it?

Spencer made no typo. he defined the container temperature as zero degrees farenheit and acknowledged that it radiates as this diagram from his article clearly states

that said, I disagree with the size of some of the arrows in the diagram.

 

[IanC]

are you just arguing the definition of 'backradiation'? are you saying that there is no difference in the amount of net energy transferred per metre squared when the hot object is radiating into zero Kelvin space or into a close object at many hundreds Kelvin?

Apply the laws of physics ian, geez guy. Do you not understand the relationship between absorptivity and emissivity? It doesn't matter what the temperature of the background is so long as it is cooler than the emitting object. If the background is hotter than the object, then the object is not radiating anything as that would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is absorbing from the wamer emitter.

I wish you would apply the laws of physics. just because there can only be heat flow in one direction that does not mean there is radiation in only one direction.

when you plug higher numbers into the equation for Tnaught, then the power is obviously being reduced.


because the board was down last night I browsed around for a while. I came across the writings of Claes Johnson and immediately recognized all of your talking points, and even your arguing style. you, wirebender, are nothing but a poser. stealing someone else's ideas and promoting them as your own without giving credit to the source. plagarism.

I dont have any major problems with Johnson's work on radiation because it doesnt actually change any of the previous work, it only reframes the descriptions in a way that makes no difference to calculating the forces. even he admits there is radiation impacting on the warmer surface which is absorbed and reradiated immediately, 'resonated reemission' or something like that. akin to reflection. but he doesnt make the erroneous statement that radiation from the cooler source isnt part of the total radiation from the warmer source.

an analogy....a payphone (remember them?) requires 50cents a minute to call someone. you put two quarters in, but one quarter drops into the coin return every time even though it was counted as paid. every minute afterwards you have to put another two quarters in, one from your pocket and one from the coin return. the net cash flow is going into the phone, some is coming back, thus diminishing the actual cost of the phone call. you guys are arguing that there is no back radiation in the same way as you could argue that the pay phone wasnt giving back any money because no quarters went back into your pocket. but you are paying less for the same effect.

 

[IanC]

Where do you get the idea that 750 is being pumped in? The experiment doesn't say anything like that. The heated bar is emitting 750 to be at the temperature that spencer specified. That doesn't say anything about how much electricity is flowing in. The only parameter regarding how much electricity was flowing through the electrical cord was that it didn't change. We don't know how much electricity was flowing in, we only know the amount of wattage the bar was emitting in order to be at the specified temperature.

The more you talk ian, the more clear it becomes that you don't really get any of this.

I am so happy that polar bear jumped into this thread. now you are actually saying things I can argue rather than just reading through streams of ad homs that add nothing to the debate.

I dont care how much electricity is going into the heater. as long as it stays the same. it takes roughly 750w of power to make the heated bar radiate at 150F when it is by itself so let that be the input. the input will always be 750w, therefore the outside container will always be receiving 750w once equilibrium has taken place. are you OK with that? input equals output.

for the sake of simplicity we assume that all the surfaces of the heater are radiating equally, at least until the second bar is introduced. are you OK with that?

let us define the area of the face radiating into the second bar as 0.2m2 out of a total area of 1.0m2. that means 150w out of 750w will radiate into the second bar, given that emissivity =1 and the bars are very close to each other (but not touching so there is no conduction). are you OK with these simplifications of conditions for ease and clarity of sorting out where the power goes?

once the second bar is placed into the chamber it will absorb the 150w of power and warm up until equilibrium is reached. the face absorbing the radiation from the heater will be warmer than the opposite face which is emitting radiation into the cool container. are you OK with this? do you have some real world explanation of how there would not be a temperature differential between these two opposite sides, and to a lesser extent across the other faces as well.

Spencer stated that the second bar was 100F at equilibrium. I do not believe this to be true for the average temperature but it could be true for the one face that is receiving radiation from the heated bar. the other faces would be less.

according to

the power of the 100F face would be roughly 75w. I am ignoring the radiation from the container because we ignored it when defining the power of the heated bar as well. the precise numbers are not overly important here because we are just getting an idea of the relative strengths of radiation.

now let us look at the net radiation between the heated face radiating into the closest unheated face. I prefer to use

150w -75w =75w I find it easier to keep track that way.

but you demand that it be done as

= 75w it doesnt matter mathematically. the final answer is the same.

the inside face of the heated bar is now only radiating 75w by your bookkeeping. the inside of the unheated bar is now radiating 0w by your bookkeeping. but the rest of the unheated bar was only radiating 75w before so when you add it up 75w input equals 75 w output. (remember the original 150w input was divided into 75w backradiation and 75w left over for the rest of the bar. wirebender wants us to use 75w from the heated inside face and no backradiation from the unheated inside face. much more confusing, I know, but it still adds up correctly)

the net power of the heated inside face has been reduced from 150w to just 75w. but the heater is still inserting 750w into the first bar! where does the extra 75w go? it must go somewhere! we cant just ignore the discrepancy. there are only two options.

option one- the heater is thermostatically controlled to only draw enough power to warm the first bar to 150F, which is now 750w -75w = 675w. this is plausible. but what are the implications? you have cooled the container by 75w! it is no longer getting 750w it is only getting 675w! cooling the container while keeping the bar the same temperature is still increasing the the temperature differential!

option two- the heater still produces 750w of power and the 75w radiation shortfall must be made up by dividing the extra 75 watts amongst the total area of the heated bar. by definition, raising the radiation of the surface is raising the temperature.

Spencer is correct.

 

[IanC]

Then again these cynics have forgotten, that in this example as with all the other ones they do use, not a single one has ever managed to prove that CO2 is an "insulator".
..having failed to do so ..."climatology" has been using the same method over and over again...

please excuse my use of power and energy incorrectly. I have always tried to impress upon my sons the need for using units when solving physics problems as a good way of avoiding simple mistakes. unfortunately I no longer solve physics problems and I tend to try using different words when describing things. no excuse, simply imprecise terminology for the sake of readability which in fact had the reverse effect.

as to the quote....I find it hard to believe that you think CO2 has no potential to slow the escape of energy from the earth's surface.

the earth emits 15 micron radiation that can interact with CO2. there are 3 scenarios that are important to this discussion-

1. the photon simply escapes into space at the speed of light carrying the energy with it.
2. the photon is absorbed by a CO2 molecule, which then reemits a similar photon which escapes into space. the energy is still gone but it has taken much longer to escape.
3. the photon is absorbed by a CO2 molecule, which then reemits a similar photon back towards earth. the energy does not escape and the time has been used up that could have been spent losing the radiation. a decrease in the intensity of energy shedding.

by what standard of 'insulation' do #2 and #3 not meet the criteria?

 

[wirebender]

you provided the link. I used it to show your math was wrong. how is that a lie? why did you post the link if you dont agree with it?

I provided the link in response to your claim that putting a blanket over your skin caused your skin to warm ian, not in response to spencers failed experiment.

Spencer made no typo. he defined the container temperature as zero degrees farenheit and acknowledged that it radiates as this diagram from his article clearly states

Of course he did. He said that he was modelling his experiment after earth sitting in cold space. Is earth sitting in space at 0F?

 

[IanC]

you provided the link. I used it to show your math was wrong. how is that a lie? why did you post the link if you dont agree with it?

I provided the link in response to your claim that putting a blanket over your skin caused your skin to warm ian, not in response to spencers failed experiment.

Spencer made no typo. he defined the container temperature as zero degrees farenheit and acknowledged that it radiates as this diagram from his article clearly states

Of course he did. He said that he was modelling his experiment after earth sitting in cold space. Is earth sitting in space at 0F?

Spencer specifically stated the temperature, he showed the radiation, and explained the real world type of equipment where you could actually run the experiment. although he did not. if he had run the experiment would you have complained because the cosmic background radiation means the temperature of space around here is 3 degrees K? grow up, you got caught again making a false statement, live with it.

as to you complaining about me using your own link to show that you are wrong....either something is true or it isnt. you dont like those formulae, so does that mean you are retracting your claim about blankets making a body colder?

 

[wirebender]

I wish you would apply the laws of physics. just because there can only be heat flow in one direction that does not mean there is radiation in only one direction.

The warmer object does not absorb radation from the cooler object ian. If it did, it would become warmer and then radiate more which the cooler object would then backradiate and you would get an endless feedback loop in which both would end up emitting infinite radiation. Perpetual motion, ian, it isn't happening.

when you plug higher numbers into the equation for Tnaught, then the power is obviously being reduced.

And you still don't get it. If you raise the temperature of the background, it takes less power for the blackbody to radiate at the same temperature, but if you raise the background temperature and keep the power coming in through the electric cord constant, you will increase the temperature of the bar. I have told you before ian, the only way to raise the temperature of that bar is to either increase the amount of energy coming in through that electric cord, or raise the temperature of the background.

Funny that you don't grasp even that basic concept and still have the nerve to call me a poser.

because the board was down last night I browsed around for a while. I came across the writings of Claes Johnson and immediately recognized all of your talking points, and even your arguing style. you, wirebender, are nothing but a poser. stealing someone else's ideas and promoting them as your own without giving credit to the source. plagarism.

I read Claes Johnson, and Joseph Postma, and Hans Schreuder, and Will Alexander, and Joeseph Reyden, and Harry Huffman, and numerous others who apply the actual laws of physics and show their math to reach their conclusions. I have stolen nothing from anyone although I have gained a great deal of knowledge through reading people who actually do the math to prove their conclusions. I never claimed to be a mathematics professor, or a scientist. I am an orthodontist who happens to grasp the math. I don't feel constrained to give credit to everyone who has ever shaped my thinking for my entire life and clearly you don't either. By the way, the only math I have used in this discussion has been the Stefan Boltzman equations and I believe I have given them credit.

I dont have any major problems with Johnson's work on radiation because it doesnt actually change any of the previous work, it only reframes the descriptions in a way that makes no difference to calculating the forces. even he admits there is radiation impacting on the warmer surface which is absorbed and reradiated immediately, 'resonated reemission' or something like that. akin to reflection. but he doesnt make the erroneous statement that radiation from the cooler source isnt part of the total radiation from the warmer source.

And you fail to understand his work as well. If you grasped it, you would know that he makes no consession to mythical backradiation.

an analogy....a payphone (remember them?) requires 50cents a minute to call someone. you put two quarters in, but one quarter drops into the coin return every time even though it was counted as paid. every minute afterwards you have to put another two quarters in, one from your pocket and one from the coin return. the net cash flow is going into the phone, some is coming back, thus diminishing the actual cost of the phone call. you guys are arguing that there is no back radiation in the same way as you could argue that the pay phone wasnt giving back any money because no quarters went back into your pocket. but you are paying less for the same effect.

There is no backradiation ian. Feel free to do the math and prove it if you believe it exists.

 

[wirebender]

Where do you get the idea that 750 is being pumped in? The experiment doesn't say anything like that. The heated bar is emitting 750 to be at the temperature that spencer specified. That doesn't say anything about how much electricity is flowing in. The only parameter regarding how much electricity was flowing through the electrical cord was that it didn't change. We don't know how much electricity was flowing in, we only know the amount of wattage the bar was emitting in order to be at the specified temperature.

The more you talk ian, the more clear it becomes that you don't really get any of this.

I am so happy that polar bear jumped into this thread. now you are actually saying things I can argue rather than just reading through streams of ad homs that add nothing to the debate.

I dont care how much electricity is going into the heater. as long as it stays the same. it takes roughly 750w of power to make the heated bar radiate at 150F when it is by itself so let that be the input. the input will always be 750w, therefore the outside container will always be receiving 750w once equilibrium has taken place. are you OK with that? input equals output.

for the sake of simplicity we assume that all the surfaces of the heater are radiating equally, at least until the second bar is introduced. are you OK with that?

let us define the area of the face radiating into the second bar as 0.2m2 out of a total area of 1.0m2. that means 150w out of 750w will radiate into the second bar, given that emissivity =1 and the bars are very close to each other (but not touching so there is no conduction). are you OK with these simplifications of conditions for ease and clarity of sorting out where the power goes?

once the second bar is placed into the chamber it will absorb the 150w of power and warm up until equilibrium is reached. the face absorbing the radiation from the heater will be warmer than the opposite face which is emitting radiation into the cool container. are you OK with this? do you have some real world explanation of how there would not be a temperature differential between these two opposite sides, and to a lesser extent across the other faces as well.

Spencer stated that the second bar was 100F at equilibrium. I do not believe this to be true for the average temperature but it could be true for the one face that is receiving radiation from the heated bar. the other faces would be less.

according to

the power of the 100F face would be roughly 75w. I am ignoring the radiation from the container because we ignored it when defining the power of the heated bar as well. the precise numbers are not overly important here because we are just getting an idea of the relative strengths of radiation.

now let us look at the net radiation between the heated face radiating into the closest unheated face. I prefer to use

150w -75w =75w I find it easier to keep track that way.

but you demand that it be done as

= 75w it doesnt matter mathematically. the final answer is the same.

the inside face of the heated bar is now only radiating 75w by your bookkeeping. the inside of the unheated bar is now radiating 0w by your bookkeeping. but the rest of the unheated bar was only radiating 75w before so when you add it up 75w input equals 75 w output. (remember the original 150w input was divided into 75w backradiation and 75w left over for the rest of the bar. wirebender wants us to use 75w from the heated inside face and no backradiation from the unheated inside face. much more confusing, I know, but it still adds up correctly)

the net power of the heated inside face has been reduced from 150w to just 75w. but the heater is still inserting 750w into the first bar! where does the extra 75w go? it must go somewhere! we cant just ignore the discrepancy. there are only two options.

option one- the heater is thermostatically controlled to only draw enough power to warm the first bar to 150F, which is now 750w -75w = 675w. this is plausible. but what are the implications? you have cooled the container by 75w! it is no longer getting 750w it is only getting 675w! cooling the container while keeping the bar the same temperature is still increasing the the temperature differential!

option two- the heater still produces 750w of power and the 75w radiation shortfall must be made up by dividing the extra 75 watts amongst the total area of the heated bar. by definition, raising the radiation of the surface is raising the temperature.

Spencer is correct.

And you still don't get it and I doubt that you ever will. You can't get around the laws of physics ian. If you think you can, by all means build the prototypes, get yourself a patent and become a bazillionaire. Here is a hint for you though, don't invest your life savings unless you believe you can develop a taste for cat food in your old age.

 

[IanC]

where exactly do you think I am gaining or losing energy?

you are the one who is saying that physical objects that must be radiating by existing at a temperature greater than 0K, are not radiating if an object near by is warmer by any fraction of a degree. and I am not sure because you dont explain yourself but I think that you might perhaps think that that secondary warmer object still radiates at full strength for its temperature.

please give a description of two blocks close to each other, with a temperature difference of say, 10 degrees Kelvin. describe what amount of radiation +/or heat is exchanged. assume a vacuum for simplicity.

 

[polarbear]

Then again these cynics have forgotten, that in this example as with all the other ones they do use, not a single one has ever managed to prove that CO2 is an "insulator".
..having failed to do so ..."climatology" has been using the same method over and over again...

please excuse my use of power and energy incorrectly. I have always tried to impress upon my sons the need for using units when solving physics problems as a good way of avoiding simple mistakes. unfortunately I no longer solve physics problems and I tend to try using different words when describing things. no excuse, simply imprecise terminology for the sake of readability which in fact had the reverse effect.

as to the quote....I find it hard to believe that you think CO2 has no potential to slow the escape of energy from the earth's surface.

the earth emits 15 micron radiation that can interact with CO2. there are 3 scenarios that are important to this discussion-

1. the photon simply escapes into space at the speed of light carrying the energy with it.
2. the photon is absorbed by a CO2 molecule, which then reemits a similar photon which escapes into space. the energy is still gone but it has taken much longer to escape.
3. the photon is absorbed by a CO2 molecule, which then reemits a similar photon back towards earth. the energy does not escape and the time has been used up that could have been spent losing the radiation. a decrease in the intensity of energy shedding.

by what standard of 'insulation' do #2 and #3 not meet the criteria?

"please excuse my use of power and energy incorrectly."....no apology necessary and I have no intention to harp on it,...other than reiterating that
in this case, the difference is crucial. It was an oversight, than can happen to the best of us, so don`t worry too much about it...Okay...!!!
But I do have to bring it up again, not for the purpose of rubbing Your face into it , but because I have to in order to respond to the
3 points You raised here

Power is energy per time( as in divided by) and energy is power multiplied by the time frame in question.
and I know that You don`t need a lecture using numerical examples to show the difference between a division and a multiplication .

Let me expand the meaning of this last sentence in 2 directions.
1.) I am not trying to lecture You nor do I view this as a contest who is smarter on the grounds who defends what.
But more importantly it is 2.) the vastly different conclusions that can be drawn if this un-intentional oversight
is allowed to run the course through the statements 1,2,3

So now let me clear up this uncertainty You have, where I stand (or any other Phys/Chem professional)..:
"I find it hard to believe that you think CO2 has no potential to slow the escape of energy from the earth's surface."

CO2 can and does absorb ENERGY on several bands in the IR spectrum...nobody disputes that.
The entire field of Spectroscopy in analytical Chemistry & Physics relies on the fact that the presence of a specific substance can be detected by the ENERGY absorption at very specific wavelengths.

However we never had and to the best of my knowledge still don`t have any such analytical spectroscopic instrument
which would be able to measure what You (& all of "climatology") keeps claiming....this mysterious "POWER" increase...

If this "POWER" increase is enough to warm the globe we (anybody who ever did IR spectro-analysis) should have noticed that a long time ago.

This is seriously SENSITIVE INSTRUMENTATION,...in case You did not know that...and if there would indeed be a POWER increase with an increase of ppm CO2, there is no way, that would have gone un-noticed

Nobody (You included) is entitled to run through Your 1.,2,3 statements without specifying the time frame in statement
number 2: " the energy does not escape and the time has been used up..."

So exactly how much EXTRA time are we talking about here....?

In so many words You and all of "climatology" is stating that if You spread out an original ENERGY amount of A watt seconds
over a longer time, that You can somehow wind up with an ENERGY INCREASE of A ..+X Watts (as in POWER) using an increase of TIME

So that rules out ENERGY all together, because You know how wrong that is..right.?..it`s even going in the opposite direction of these claims.
Same ENERGY divided by MORE TIME = a DECREASE in POWER, not an INCREASE...and You did say, that You knew that and simply overlooked it

Yet You and "climatologists" begin this argument :
"the energy is still gone but it has taken much longer to escape.
And in the end wind up with the EXTRA POWER this "longer time" generates in a universe, ....where "climatology", not nature rules

And then "climatology" makes the pseudo-logic leap from energy to power without ever even bothering to quantify the time other by simply stating that it would take "much longer" .


You and all the others are in effect claiming that the CO2 in the path of an infrared beam is reducing the speed of light of using Your words " the photon simply escapes into space at the speed of light"


Really...? So by how much does CO2 then reduce this speed of light as it must if , using Your words again " similar photon which escapes into space. the energy is still gone but it has taken much longer to escape."

And lastly:
"by what standard of 'insulation' do #2 and #3 not meet the criteria?"

well if You can`t quantify the time or any detectable difference in the speed of light then You have not shown anything at all.

And as far as the leap back to the 'insulation' escape hatch when the "back-radiation" theory "logic" starts to collapse....even I am growing tired of re-explaining the difference between insulation and this "back-radiation"

There are tables upon tables of insulation properties for just about any substance that has insulation properties.
It`s quite easy to measure and engineers call it the "R-" factor.
What has been the problem preventing the heavily $$$$ funded "climatologists" to present the rest of science with a table that shows an
actually measured increase in the "R" factor for CO2, specifically how much that is per ppm increase of CO2 in the air...????????????

That will never happen...and You know that deep down as well...

What will happen and always has happened (You just now, did it again )... is the usual 2 way use of the escape hatch , in this case from the "insulation" argument back to the "back-radiation" ....the alter universe of "climatology" in which the dimension TIME does not exist.

In this alter universe "climatologists" can generate more power from less energy and do so simply by extending the time dimension,...or letting this dimension dis-appear altogether ...but as You said that was a simple error and an oversight...

That leaves now (again) the original problem, to explain how the "slowing down photons" with CO2 can GENERATE any extra POWER...You know, the POWER in Watts per square meter that CO2 is supposed to add in all these "climatology" computer models that are supposed to melt all these cubic miles of ice at the poles within a certain TIME..

 

[wirebender]

where exactly do you think I am gaining or losing energy?

you are the one who is saying that physical objects that must be radiating by existing at a temperature greater than 0K, are not radiating if an object near by is warmer by any fraction of a degree. and I am not sure because you dont explain yourself but I think that you might perhaps think that that secondary warmer object still radiates at full strength for its temperature.

please give a description of two blocks close to each other, with a temperature difference of say, 10 degrees Kelvin. describe what amount of radiation +/or heat is exchanged. assume a vacuum for simplicity.

ian, you can formulate a million pertubations of that experiment but you will never raise the temperature of the heated bar unless you either reduce the dimensions of the heated bar, increase the power going into the heated bar from the electrical cord, or raise the temperature of the background. I used 0K for my calculations because spencer said that he wanted to simulate the earth in cold space. If you begin with 0F, instead of 0K then the heated bar is radiating 340.3 wm2 in order to be 150 degrees F. Initially, you will get different numbers but you still won't get the second bar to raise the temperature of the heated bar by even the tineist fraction of a watt per square meter unless you reduce the size of the heated bar, increase the amount of electricity coming into the heated bar from the wall socket, or raise the temperature of the background. Spencer's chamber is cooled to 0 so its temperature isn't rising as the heater radiates. To do so would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics which states:

It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

I don't know what it is about the phrases not possible and will not flow spontaneously that is so difficult for you to understand but it is what the second law of thermodynamics states and you simply can't get around it. You can play word games and build thought experiments till the cows come home but the fact remains that you can not build a machine that does what you claim and not even the tiniest shred of observable, repeatable evidence exists for the existence of backradiation.

You can point a parabolic reflector into open sky (away from the sun) on a clear sunny day and the temperature in that reflector will decrease. If backradiation existed as you claim, the temperature in that reflector would not decrease. Or perhaps you might like to explain how some mysterious "cold" backradiation might heat the earth.