Have you ever been a little skeptical about carbon dioxide supposedly warming the Earth?

Suppose there were another planet in our Solar System located in an orbit about root 2 times (~1.4142x) further from the Sun and having no atmosphere. It would receive half the solar radiation that Earth receives at our top of atmosphere, but about the same as Earth receives at its surface, because about half of our TOA solar radiation is either reflected or absorbed in the atmosphere.

The imaginary planet’s Solar constant would thus be about 1360/2 = 680W/m² and, for the sunlit hemisphere the mean flux would be half that, namely 340W/m² which has black body temperature of 278.3K, equal to 5°C. However, that 5°C would only be achieved in a flat disk receiving uniform flux of 340W/m² striking it orthogonally. Because the mean is based on variable flux, the actual mean would be below 5°C. And that’s just for the sunlit hemisphere. If the planet kept one face always towards the Sun, the dark side would get down below 3K unless there were significant internal conduction across from the warm side. So we are talking about a very cold mean temperature about half way between 278K and 3K.

So it’s absolute garbage to talk about there being only 33 degrees of warming due to the introduction of an atmosphere sending additional radiation back to the surface. In fact, according to those energy diagrams, the Earth’s atmosphere (after 30% reflection) receives 235W/m² (342-107) at the top, and then delivers from its base 492W/m² (324+168) into the surface, thus amplifying the solar energy by over 109%.

So there’s apparently about 150 degrees of warming due to back radiation if you work things out using the incorrect 20th century paradigm that assumes radiation determines a planet’s surface temperature.

You all need to think outside the square and break free from the indoctrination that has been prevalent in the whole education system from the 1980′s onwards. It’s all wrong.