Which argues that their is a difference between the flow of heat from a hotter to a colder body and the energy flow between two bodies at the same temperature as I read it.<quoted text>
I agree that a person standing 1 AU from the sun would be heated by its rays. And I agree that a person standing 1 AU from two stars of the same temperature would be heated more quickly.
However a person at the same temperature as the both stars would be heated not at all.
I disagree. If, instead of two suns, we put a mirror behind me, both the front and rear side will get roasted, again. The flow of energy DOES depend on area and direction while the non-flow of energy between bodies at the same temperature is a different problem.<quoted text>
The issue here is the earth's 'back-radiation''reflecting' from the CO2 layer and hitting the earth again. This cannot cause warming.
Getting hit by both the direct and reflected heat means more warming.
Yes. A body in a perfect insulator will gain and lose no heat.<quoted text>
If CO2 were a perfect thermal reflector and allowed no thermal radiation to escape, then the earth would not be able to radiatively cool in the thermal spectrum. To put this in thermodynamic terms, the earth would emit a photon, using up its heat energy, resulting in a drop in its temperature. The photon would then return to the surface of the earth -- which is now colder than when it emitted the photon -- and thus upon absorption re-heat the earth to its original temperature.
False. A GHG molecule will absorb an UPWARD flowing IR photon from the surface (the SOURCE of the heating) and reradiate it in ALL directions,'reflecting' about half back towards the source.<quoted text>
BUT CO2 is not a perfect thermal reflector. It isn't a reflector of any kind.
No. 50% continues on an upward track while 50% is reflected. Note that this is somewhat irrelevant to the troposphere where most energy is moved by convection. The real issue comes at the troposphere to stratosphere boundary where convection gives way to radiation and only radiation can LEAVE the planet.<quoted text>
The warming mechanism requires that CO2 absorb radiation in its absorption bands and re-emit it isotropically. This means for all outgoing radiation in these bands, a minimum of 50% escapes to space.
Note too that you are treating the problem as one of a STATIC temperature while the real model is one where the surface is continually warming from insolation and the heat flux received must be radiated away past the insulation effect of CO2 in the stratosphere (at the 'radiative surface' where the chance of a photon making it to space without a second to Nth capture is 50%)
There is an inherent difference between the static models you set up and the real world of a heat FLOW.
But it sets up a GRADIENT of temperature to drive the flow outward against the 'resistance' of GHG capture. The surface MUST be hotter than the temperature of an airless body in order that the amount ESCAPING is equal to the incoming insolation.<quoted text>
Any 'trapped' thermal radiation between the CO2 layer and the ground will lose 50% to space for every 'bounce'(that is, every absorption and re-emission from the CO2 layer and subsequent absorption and re-emission from the ground). Again: This only increases the path length the radiation must travel in order to escape to space, it does not change the amount of radiation escaping.