More Evidence Contradicting the Climate Change

[palerider]

As far as Trenberth's cartoon, you seem have a typo. I assume you are referring to 396 and 333. But I don't see where the 33C hotter temperature comes from. I'm guessing you mean hotter than the earth would be without any greenhouse effect.

Can you show any observed experimental results that prove the greenhouse effect? Can you explain why the greenhouse effect formulae only work on planet earth and only with a fudge factor? Can you show any actual measurement of the greenhouse effect? Can you describe the color of the emperor's waistcoat?

Yes, that is the standard definition for the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

And yet, this massive amount of back radiation....greater by far that the amount of energy coming in from the sun can't be measured without an instrument cooled to a temperature far lower than that of the atmosphere...

The big difference is that the cellar is at equilibrium and has no incoming energy that has to be dissipated, whereas in the outside atmosphere, the sun is pouring 161 W/m2 continually. If you add a lot of room temperature CO2 to the cellar, every square inch of cellar wall and every cubic inch of cellar air is radiating and receiving the same amount of energy to it's neighbors so the net energy flow for anyplace in the cellar air or wall is still zero.

But climate science says that the earth was at...or damned near at equilibrium till we started adding CO2 to the atmosphere....add CO2 to your cellar and you don't get the same effect...is the cellar magic...or is it the atmosphere that is magic...or is it just CO2 that is magic and won't do its tricks except when and where it chooses?

Yes, that seemed counter-intuitive at first. But it makes sense if the earth is getting warmer. A hotter earth would be radiating more energy.

Flattening temperature?....no temperature increase for 2 decades now except that caused by data manipulation while CO2 has been on a steady increase...face it...CO2 does not do what you believe so fervently that it does....there is no back radiation as evidenced by the fact that you can't measure it unless you cool the instrument to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere which by definition would not be back radiation but simply energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument.. You believe in a hoax...what color was the emperor's waist coat again?

 

[Lagboltz]

Can you describe the color of the emperor's waistcoat?

Yes. Green. It's good to see that you are back to your old cantankerous self. There would be no fun otherwise.

And yet, this massive amount of back radiation....greater by far that the amount of energy coming in from the sun can't be measured without an instrument cooled to a temperature far lower than that of the atmosphere...

So what? That's good. Thermal detectors are cooled to prevent the detector housing from interfering with the measurement.

But climate science says that the earth was at...or damned near at equilibrium till we started adding CO2 to the atmosphere....add CO2 to your cellar and you don't get the same effect...is the cellar magic...or is it the atmosphere that is magic...or is it just CO2 that is magic and won't do its tricks except when and where it chooses?

You forgot already? C'mon think think think! I will repeat it here:

The big difference is that the cellar is at equilibrium and has no incoming energy that has to be dissipated, whereas in the outside atmosphere, the sun is pouring 161 W/m2 continually.

When it comes to the atmosphere there are three major differences, the sun energy input, the atmosphere "ceiling" is outer space, the density of air thins with height.​

To understand it better look up the thermodynamic difference between "equilibrium" and "dynamic equilibrium."

Hey, you never answered my question some time ago, how can the earth be absorbing only 161 W/m2 while it is emitting 396 W/m2? You simply left this forum. I'm so glad you are back because now you can answer the question.

Flattening temperature?....no temperature increase for 2 decades now except that caused by data manipulation while CO2 has been on a steady increase...face it...CO2 does not do what you believe so fervently that it does....there is no back radiation as evidenced by the fact that you can't measure it unless you cool the instrument to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere which by definition would not be back radiation but simply energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument.. You believe in a hoax...what color was the emperor's waist coat again?

The emperor's waist coat again. That's getting a bit stale. Don't you have another metaphor that you could use? How about, "do you believe the earth is flat?" That would be a change.

There has to be back radiation because all things at all temperatures radiate to all things at any temperature.

If you can answer this question you will see that your magic disappears.
How can the earth be absorbing only 161 W/m2 while it is emitting 396 W/m2?

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Don't know where you have been but equivocating over the definition of is will not win you any points...the fact is that climate wackos and their pseudoscientists regularly claim that 97% of all scientists agree that climate change is man made.

Richard Muller: Skeptical Scientist Converts, Says Climate Change Is Man-Made
Read more at http://www.redorbit.com/news/scienc...-change-skeptic-converts/#zMKor0Vk7QmbfGdC.99

International Science Panel: Global Warming Very Real, ‘Extremely Likely’ Man-Made
http://www.alan.com/2013/09/27/inte...e-change-very-real-extremely-likely-man-made/

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Not what I asked is it? Evidently you cannot prove your own *********, so you have to fabricate something to defend your own ignooance. Nothing new there.

So even though you believe...and apparently 97% of all scientists (according to climate wackos) agree that man is causing or is at least the primary cause of climate change/global warming/ climate disruption or whatever other wacko name you care to call it, you can't provide even one bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that man is actually responsible?

Ahhh, but I have from rising temperatures, to melting glaciers, to the acidification of the oceans, the melting of the permsfrosts, etc., all of which can be laid in part at the feet of man, and they began with the beginning of the industrial age.

Not surprising...as I said...there is none. And what do you suppose observed, measured, quantified evidence that man is not altering the global climate might look like?....perhaps the absence of any observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that man is altering the global climate after the expenditure of hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars on the topic?

So, the absence of evidence is proof there is no connection? And yet the presence of evidence proving that such is the case is also not proof that such is happening.

Sounds like PR "logic".

Since I breathe out about 40,000ppm and the CO2 concentration in the average home is in excess of 1000ppm I am not worried....the pertinent fact is that adding CO2 will not cause the temperature to change.....

No, the pertinent fact is you did not read the article I posted.

The next is that excessive CO2 can kill you:

https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/chemical/carbondioxide.htm

 

[palerider]

So what? That's good. Thermal detectors are cooled to prevent the detector housing from interfering with the measurement.

No...the detectors are cooled so energy will move to the detector at all...were it not colder than the atmosphere, no energy would move to it.

Hey, you never answered my question some time ago, how can the earth be absorbing only 161 W/m2 while it is emitting 396 W/m2? You simply left this forum. I'm so glad you are back because now you can answer the question.

I never answered because, truthfully, I didn't think you were serious....I guess you really don't know what a joke that trenberth cartoon is. Here, let me help you out. Here is trenberth's cartoon.....the basis upon which the AGW wacko movement, and all of climate pseudoscience is built.

Get out your trusty calculator....79 reflected by clouds and atmosphere + 23 reflected by the surface = 161 which is absorbed by the surface then radiated out + 17 in the form of convective and conductive thermals + 80 in the form of convective and conductive evapotranspiration - the .09 "net" absorbed = 359.1

The rest is just sleight of hand...unmeasurable....an ad hoc construct...the output of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...climate science calls it thermal flux....it is non existent...it is the imaginary forcing which causes climate models to run consistently hot even with constant readjustment. If you put actual energy values...that is actual measurables in trenberths cartoon, it would look like this.

The emperor's waist coat again. That's getting a bit stale.

Perhaps...but perfectly apt so I will stick with it.

There has to be back radiation because all things at all temperatures radiate to all things at any temperature.

So you say...but all the kings horses and all the kings men and hundreds of billions flushed down the drain on climate science have not resulted in a single measurement of energy moving from cool to warm.

How can the earth be absorbing only 161 W/m2 while it is emitting 396 W/m2?

See above....and admit that you believe in magic, unmeasurable, unobservable energy flux forcings caused by the great and all powerful CO2.

And that is only if you believe the greenhouse hypothesis to be accurate...I don't since it can't accurately predict the temperature here without a fudge factor...much less the temperature on any other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere.....the atmospheric gravitothermal effect, on the other hand, accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere and the make up of the atmosphere is irrelevant beyond its contribution to the total mass of that atmosphere....the greenhouse effect as described by climate science is balogna...

 

[palerider]

Not what I asked is it? Evidently you cannot prove your own *********, so you have to fabricate something to defend your own ignooance. Nothing new there.

Is it, or is it not true that most scientific bodies, academies, and organizations claim that anthropogenic global warming is real and the primary source of global warming 1s man's activities?

Ahhh, but I have from rising temperatures, to melting glaciers, to the acidification of the oceans, the melting of the permsfrosts, etc., all of which can be laid in part at the feet of man, and they began with the beginning of the industrial age.

SO are you claiming that rising temperatures, melting glaciers, acidification of the oceans, and melting of the permafrost are something new?...something that have never happened before?....and isn't it more likely that the improving climate led to the industrial age rather than the other way around?....nothing happening in the climate today is even approaching the boundaries of natural variability....and there is not the first shred of actual evidence that man is having any effect at all on the global climate...I am not arguing that the climate is not changing...it has always been changing and will continue to change...what I am arguing is the claim that man is responsible for the change we are seeing now which is well within the realm of natural variability.

So, the absence of evidence is proof there is no connection? And yet the presence of evidence proving that such is the case is also not proof that such is happening.

There is plenty of evidence that the climate is changing...and has always changed...what there is no evidence of is that man is responsible for changes in the global climate.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Is it, or is it not true that most scientific bodies, academies, and organizations claim that anthropogenic global warming is real and the primary source of global warming 1s man's activities?

"Anthorpogenic" by definition means "human caused". I am not sure every scientist, or even a majority of them, agree that man is the primary source. Most ceertainly they agree that man is a contributing factor.

SO are you claiming that rising temperatures, melting glaciers, acidification of the oceans, and melting of the permafrost are something new?...something that have never happened before?....and isn't it more likely that the improving climate led to the industrial age rather than the other way around?....nothing happening in the climate today is even approaching the boundaries of natural variability....and there is not the first shred of actual evidence that man is having any effect at all on the global climate...I am not arguing that the climate is not changing...it has always been changing and will continue to change...what I am arguing is the claim that man is responsible for the change we are seeing now which is well within the realm of natural variability.

Aain you have to fabricate what I said into something you want to believe. No where have I said, or any article I have posted has claimed, that climate change has never occurred in the past. The difference is past changes have been caused by natural events such as volcanic eruptions, meteor crashes into the earth, etc. The changes now have been aggravated since the beginning of the industrial age, and that is not "nature".

There is plenty of evidence that the climate is changing...and has always changed...what there is no evidence of is that man is responsible for changes in the global climate.

And you have yet to post even one scintilla of evidence that man is NOT influencing the change.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

No...the detectors are cooled so energy will move to the detector at all...were it not colder than the atmosphere, no energy would move to it.

So you say...but all the kings horses and all the kings men and hundreds of billions flushed down the drain on climate science have not resulted in a single measurement of energy moving from cool to warm.

Refrigeration.

 

[Lagboltz]

No...the detectors are cooled so energy will move to the detector at all...were it not colder than the atmosphere, no energy would move to it.

There has to be back radiation because all things at any temperatures radiate to all things at any temperatures. That has been known for 100 years. Get with the times.

The rest is just sleight of hand...unmeasurable....an ad hoc construct...the output of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...climate science calls it thermal flux....it is non existent...it is the imaginary forcing which causes climate models to run consistently hot even with constant readjustment. If you put actual energy values...that is actual measurables in trenberths cartoon, it would look like this.

See above and note that you forgot that the Stefan-Boltzmann law says that the earth radiates about 396 W/m2 outward, and there is no quantum mechanical mechanism that says otherwise.

So you say...but all the kings horses and all the kings men and hundreds of billions flushed down the drain on climate science have not resulted in a single measurement of energy moving from cool to warm.

That's true. Thermal energy does not spontaneously move from cool to warm.

See above....and admit that you believe in magic, unmeasurable, unobservable energy flux forcings caused by the great and all powerful CO2.

It's not just CO2, it's also water vapor that back radiates.
We have been through all this before. It's the Stefan-Boltzmann law that clearly shows that the net power radiated is the difference between the power radiated minus the power absorbed. Quantum Mechanics shows it cannot be any other way.

 

[palerider]

"Anthorpogenic" by definition means "human caused". I am not sure every scientist, or even a majority of them, agree that man is the primary source. Most ceertainly they agree that man is a contributing factor.

Then perhaps some research on your part is in order...because you are clearly misinformed.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position"

American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3

American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4

American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5

American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6

American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7

The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9

U.S. Global Change Research Program
"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12

I could go on but this should be sufficient...now unless you want to claim that there are no "reputable" scientists within those bodies, it is clear that climate science claims that man is the primary cause for global climate change.

Aain you have to fabricate what I said into something you want to believe. No where have I said, or any article I have posted has claimed, that climate change has never occurred in the past. The difference is past changes have been caused by natural events such as volcanic eruptions, meteor crashes into the earth, etc. The changes now have been aggravated since the beginning of the industrial age, and that is not "nature".

Which brings us right back to my original statement...you claim that "this time" we are responsible for the climate change....and all those scientific academies, and organizations claim that "this time" we are responsible for the climate change. And you are quite wrong in your claim that all past climate change, or even most of past climate change was due to meteor crashes, and volcanic eruptions...we know that "events" have happened which caused the climate to change for some period of time, but those events are not responsible for the long term changes in climate from warm to cool....the "events" you mention would have resulted in cooling and perhaps enough particulates in the air to make it very cold for a period of time....probably long enough to result in loss of plant life leading to extinctions....volcanoes and meteors, however would only lead to cooling due to dust and particulates in the atmosphere which would result in less sunlight reaching the earth. None of those events would cause warming...and for most of earth history, the earth has been considerably warmer than the present. Warm is the norm here on earth...so warm, in fact, that for most of earth's history there was no ice at one or both poles.

So again, you believe that man is causing the present climate change...and all those academies and organizations agree with you...I am asking upon what observed, measured, quantified, empirical data do you and these academies full of scientists make the claim that man is responsible for the climate that we see presently which is well within the boundaries of natural variability. I have looked high and low for some such evidence and can ask you for it with supreme confidence that you will not find it. It doesn't exist....claims of man made warming are nothing more than bullshit.

And you have yet to post even one scintilla of evidence that man is NOT influencing the change.

The complete absence of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that he is causing climate change after flushing hundreds of billions of dollars down the toilet in the attempt to find some such evidence speaks for me...at this point, the claims that man is causing climate change coming out of the scientific community are nothing more that bought and paid for propaganda....there is little money for those who hold skeptical views and pointing out the truth could easily cause irreparable damage to one's career....do you think it is just coincidence that top shelf scientists tend to come out holding skeptical positions after they retire?

So again, if all these agencies, and academies believe and state publicly that man is causing global climate change, lets see the observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence....if it exists, it should be no problem at all to find...in fact, it should be everywhere you look...a skeptic should not be able to escape it....you should have volumes at your disposal to slap down any claim that I could make that we are not causing global climate change and yet, you are reduced to asking me to prove a negative.

 

[palerider]

Refrigeration.

Perhaps you have never read the second law of thermodynamics....energy won't move SPONTANEOUSLY from cool to warm without some work having been done to make it happen...when lagboltz and I were talking, I am sure that we both understood that I was talking about energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm as the topic has been discussed to death between us...Sorry I didn't whip out my crayons and draw you a picture....Do you think that refrigerators are examples of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm?

 

[palerider]

There has to be back radiation because all things at any temperatures radiate to all things at any temperatures. That has been known for 100 years. Get with the times.

I agree that a mathematical model that has existed for about 100 years says that everything radiates to everything else, but back radiation has never been measured while radiation moving from warm to cool can be readily measured without cooling the instruments which, again, is not resulting in measuring back radiation at all but simply energy moving from a warmer object to a cooler object. Instruments can certainly measure the incoming radiation from the sun without being cooled...why then do you suppose would not be equally easy to measure radiation coming from the atmosphere since you believe it is more than double what we receive from the sun.

See above and note that you forgot that the Stefan-Boltzmann law says that the earth radiates about 396 W/m2 outward, and there is no quantum mechanical mechanism that says otherwise.

The SB law applies to black bodies...the earth isn't anything like a black body...the application of the SB law to the earth's atmosphere is one of the fundamental flaws of climate science....

That's true. Thermal energy does not spontaneously move from cool to warm.

No energy moves spontaneously from cool to warm.

It's not just CO2, it's also water vapor that back radiates.

Nothing back radiates....

We have been through all this before. It's the Stefan-Boltzmann law that clearly shows that the net power radiated is the difference between the power radiated minus the power absorbed. Quantum Mechanics shows it cannot be any other way.

yeah...we have been through it...The SB law is written as a one way equation describing gross energy movement....the equation does not describe a two way energy moment and the fact that you can't measure backradation pretty much proves my point....measuring radiation with an instrument that is colder than the energy source is not measuring back radiation...it is simply measuring energy moving from a warm source to a cool one....

 

[Lagboltz]

I agree that a mathematical model that has existed for about 100 years says that everything radiates to everything else, but back radiation has never been measured while radiation moving from warm to cool can be readily measured without cooling the instruments which, again, is not resulting in measuring back radiation at all but simply energy moving from a warmer object to a cooler object. Instruments can certainly measure the incoming radiation from the sun without being cooled...why then do you suppose would not be equally easy to measure radiation coming from the atmosphere since you believe it is more than double what we receive from the sun.

Back radiation has been measured. There is no mechanism in physics that would prevent radiation from moving from a colder object to a hotter object. The measuring instrument should be cooled for best accuracy.

A thermal instrument that isn't cooled picks up stray radiation from the instrument housing. Think of this example at higher frequencies. Suppose you are trying to read a book with an incandescent light glowing at 2000 degrees. Suppose you put on glasses that were at 2500 degrees to better focus. Three things would happen.

1. The proximity of the glowing glasses would considerably cut down the contrast of what you are trying to see through them, even though the book image may be discernible.

2. Any measurement you would try to make through the glasses would be hopelessly compromised.

3. Your face would be disfigured beyond recognition.

The SB law applies to black bodies...the earth isn't anything like a black body...the application of the SB law to the earth's atmosphere is one of the fundamental flaws of climate science....

No energy moves spontaneously from cool to warm.

Nothing back radiates....

yeah...we have been through it...The SB law is written as a one way equation describing gross energy movement....the equation does not describe a two way energy moment and the fact that you can't measure backradation pretty much proves my point....measuring radiation with an instrument that is colder than the energy source is not measuring back radiation...it is simply measuring energy moving from a warm source to a cool one....

The earth at thermal wavelengths is close to a black body. The emissivity of vegetation, water and ice cover are generally greater than 0.95 and spectrally flat in the 8-12 μm range. Dry sand is more like 0.85. That is pretty close to a black body. Besides emisivity is already a factor in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

The SB equation definitely allows for two way radiation. Do we have to go through that again? Your major argument is that you don't believe in quantum mechanics.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Perhaps you have never read the second law of thermodynamics....energy won't move SPONTANEOUSLY from cool to warm without some work having been done to make it happen...when lagboltz and I were talking, I am sure that we both understood that I was talking about energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm as the topic has been discussed to death between us...Sorry I didn't whip out my crayons and draw you a picture....Do you think that refrigerators are examples of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm?

As usual, your arrogant, and ignorant, childish behaviour becomes your prominent trait. Refrigeration is a form of moving cold to warm even if force is required. In nature it occurs with the melting of glaciers, ice packs, and ocean currents. It can even happen in the bathroom with the opening of a door (It is called "cold invection"). Sorry your "intelligence" is so limited as to not be able to discern actual facts. Nothing new about that though.

 

[palerider]

As usual, your arrogant, and ignorant, childish behaviour becomes your prominent trait. Refrigeration is a form of moving cold to warm even if force is required. In nature it occurs with the melting of glaciers, ice packs, and ocean currents. It can even happen in the bathroom with the opening of a door (It is called "cold invection"). Sorry your "intelligence" is so limited as to not be able to discern actual facts. Nothing new about that though.

Energy does not move spontaneously from cold to warm...sorry that you think it does....tell me when and how you believe energy moves spontaneously from cold to warm because none of the "examples" you gave fits the bill.

Pouring cold water in warmer water does not move energy from cold to warm...the warmer water does not heat up even a bit...the cold water starts warming as a result of energy moving from the warmer water to the cold water...energy only moves from cold to warm...putting an ice cube in warmer water does not result in the water warming which is what would occur if energy were moving into it....the ice starts melting as a result of energy moving from the warmer water to the ice....and the same is true for air currents....blowing cool air into warm air does not result in the warm air further warming which would be the result of moving energy into it...the cool air starts to warm because energy is moving from the warm air into the cool air.

You clearly haven't put much thought into this which was evident when you suggested that there are natural refrigerators.....when you move energy from a cool object to a warm object via work...the warm object becomes warmer....describe an instance in nature where a warm object becomes warmer as a result of energy moving from a cool object to the warm object.

 

[palerider]

Back radiation has been measured. There is no mechanism in physics that would prevent radiation from moving from a colder object to a hotter object. The measuring instrument should be cooled for best accuracy.

Backradiation has never been measured....measuring radiation with an instrument cooler than the radiator is not measuring back radiation...that is simply measuring radiation moving from warm to cool.

A thermal instrument that isn't cooled picks up stray radiation from the instrument housing. Think of this example at higher frequencies. Suppose you are trying to read a book with an incandescent light glowing at 2000 degrees. Suppose you put on glasses that were at 2500 degrees to better focus. Three things would happen.

The instruments supposedly used to record backradition are cooled because that is the only way to get energy from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer instrument except in rare instances of temperature inversions which are also not back radiation but simply air moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler ground.

Instruments do not need to be cooled to accurately measure radiation coming from the sun and according to warmer wackos more than twice the energy of the sun is being returned to the surface from the atmosphere

The earth at thermal wavelengths is close to a black body. The emissivity of vegetation, water and ice cover are generally greater than 0.95 and spectrally flat in the 8-12 μm range. Dry sand is more like 0.85. That is pretty close to a black body. Besides emisivity is already a factor in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

The earth is not a black body and again, the application of the SB equation to the atmosphere is one of the fundamental failures of climate science.

The SB equation definitely allows for two way radiation. Do we have to go through that again? Your major argument is that you don't believe in quantum mechanics.

Sorry...that's not what the equations say. This equation

states explicitly that the power of a radiator is equal to its emissivity X its area X the SB equation X the difference between the radiator and its surroundings....show me within that equation where you believe there is any description of two way energy flow.