Paradoxical Earth.. Complex responses often misinterpreted...

[Billy_Bob]

That CO2 absorbs and re-emits at other than 15 microns does nothing to refute Ian's comments. It has a strong band at 15 microns and it behaves as he contends. What error do you believe he is making?

The Earth's surface absorbs a wide range of SWIR and LWIR. It re-emits it primarily in broad band LWIR. Energy in the 15 micron band and others is absorbed by CO2 within the first few meters of atmosphere and re-emits in all directions. Energy transport from that point upwards is a combination of radiative, conductive and convective. When energy gets high enough in the stratosphere, the rarity of the atmosphere allows radiated IR to escape to space.

That is my understanding of what Ian has contended. Ian may certainly correct me if I have erred. Do you believe any part of that to be in error?

Tell me moron, How much weight in mass does CO2 have and then tell me how much it warms with energy that is radiated at -80 degC. then tell how much the atmosphere will warm with the warming of CO2.. DO THE MATH RETARD!

1. CO2 does not warm by empirical experiment, so it warms NOTHING..

Hahahahaha. That is hilarious! jc calling someone else a retard!

No, that mantle is yours, you've earned it.

You really don't get it... Sad.. Very sad..

Tell me IAN how much energy is in a photon radiated at -80 deg C. Do you know? I DO..

You rail at SSDD about "dimming photons" and you cant even quantify why a photon radiated at 0.2um will have 100,000 times more energy than a photon at 10um.. Its the power contained within the particle and it changes with the molecule emitting at its temperature.

SO tell me IAN, how much power is contained in a photon emitted at 16um? Without knowing this number you can not hope to prove warming of our atmosphere by CO2..

 

[justoffal]

That CO2 absorbs and re-emits at other than 15 microns does nothing to refute Ian's comments. It has a strong band at 15 microns and it behaves as he contends. What error do you believe he is making?

The Earth's surface absorbs a wide range of SWIR and LWIR. It re-emits it primarily in broad band LWIR. Energy in the 15 micron band and others is absorbed by CO2 within the first few meters of atmosphere and re-emits in all directions. Energy transport from that point upwards is a combination of radiative, conductive and convective. When energy gets high enough in the stratosphere, the rarity of the atmosphere allows radiated IR to escape to space.

That is my understanding of what Ian has contended. Ian may certainly correct me if I have erred. Do you believe any part of that to be in error?

And the next idiot piles on. Which I don`t mind at all, the more the merrier. According to IanC CO2 can trap and retain photons unless it`s so rare that it can`t reabsorb them: :
"Only when the concentration of the radiative gas is so rare that it loses the capacity to reabsorb the radiation
does the gas start losing energy by escape to space."
I`m glad you also subscribed to this idiotic photon trap.where photons radiate into a CO2 gas cloud and nothing comes out ....and all the while the same idiots mock SSDD about a "photon dimmer switch"
There must be photons from biblical times still trapped in my CO2 fire extinguisher according to Crick and IanC

Well not only will the CO2 be present but so will the entire array of organic molecules that compose our human bodies be present when our favorite star expands out to the perimeter of the Mars orbit neatly incinerating earth along the way. Hydrocarbon combustion will no doubt be extinct long before that rather warm day....oh....and forget the sunscreen..it won't work.

Jo

 

[justoffal]

That CO2 absorbs and re-emits at other than 15 microns does nothing to refute Ian's comments. It has a strong band at 15 microns and it behaves as he contends. What error do you believe he is making?

The Earth's surface absorbs a wide range of SWIR and LWIR. It re-emits it primarily in broad band LWIR. Energy in the 15 micron band and others is absorbed by CO2 within the first few meters of atmosphere and re-emits in all directions. Energy transport from that point upwards is a combination of radiative, conductive and convective. When energy gets high enough in the stratosphere, the rarity of the atmosphere allows radiated IR to escape to space.

That is my understanding of what Ian has contended. Ian may certainly correct me if I have erred. Do you believe any part of that to be in error?

Tell me moron, How much weight in mass does CO2 have and then tell me how much it warms with energy that is radiated at -80 degC. then tell how much the atmosphere will warm with the warming of CO2.. DO THE MATH RETARD!

1. CO2 does not warm by empirical experiment, so it warms NOTHING..

Hahahahaha. That is hilarious! jc calling someone else a retard!

No, that mantle is yours, you've earned it.

You really don't get it... Sad.. Very sad..

Tell me IAN how much energy is in a photon radiated at -80 deg C. Do you know? I DO..

You rail at SSDD about "dimming photons" and you cant even quantify why a photon radiated at 0.2um will have 100,000 times more energy than a photon at 10um.. Its the power contained within the particle and it changes with the molecule emitting its temperature.

SO tell me IAN, how much power is contained in a photon emitted at 16um?

Precisely why I referenced the second law earlier.

Jo

 

[IanC]

Doesn't mater what you said...you defend the radiative greenhouse effect and climate science says that radiation is the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere...sorry you didn't know what you were defending...perhaps if you read sometime for the purpose of learning something rather that simply skimming for something you

Actually, if you look at an energy budget like Trenberth's Cartoon, it shows roughly 100/165 moving by conduction and convection, 40/165 directly escaping through the atmospheric window, and only 25/165 by other radiation.

Since when has far less than half been declared the primary means?

Conduction is the means of transport for more than 90% of the energy from the surface to the troposphere..and that is why your models are failures...

Conduction is the means of transport for exactly 0% of the energy leaving the surface to escape to space...and that is why your absurd claims are meaningless.

How long ago did you decide for yourself that you have it all figured out and decided to stop trying to learn anything new?

From: William Happer Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:29 AM
To: David Burton
Dear David,

Some response are entered below in square brackets and upper case. Thanks for your interest!

Will

From:David Burton
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 10:49 PM
To: William Happer
Subject: Another dumb question from Dave

Dear Prof. Happer,

At your UNC lecture you told us many things which I had not known, but two of them were these:

1. At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.

2. The mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is on the order of 1 second (a billion times as long).

Did I understand that correctly? [YES, PRECISELY. I ATTACH A PAPER ON RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF CO2 FROM THE CO2 LASER COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THE BENDING-MODE TRANSITIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, 010 – 000. AS I THINK I MAY HAVE INDICATED ON SLIDE 24, THE RADIATIVE DECAY RATES FOR THE BENDING MODE ALSO DEPEND ON VIBRATION AND ROTATIONAL QUANTUM NUMBERS, AND THEY CAN BE A FEW ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE SLOWER THAN 1 S^{-1} FOR HIGHER EXCITED STATES. THIS IS BECAUSE OF SMALL MATRIX ELEMENTS FOR THE TRANSITION MOMENTS.]

You didn't mention it, but I assume H2O molecules have a similar decay time to emit an IR photon. Is that right, too? [YES. I CAN'T IMMEDIATELY FIND A SIMILAR PAPER TO THE ONE I ATTACHED ABOUT CO2, BUT THESE TRANSITIONS HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY STUDIED IN CONNECTION WITH INTERSTELLAR MASERS. I ATTACH SOME NICE VIEWGRAPHS THAT SUMMARIZE THE ISSUES, A FEW OF WHICH TOUCH ON H2O, ONE OF THE IMPORTANT INTERSTELLAR MOLECULES. ALAS, THE SLIDES DO NOT INCLUDE A TABLE OF LIFETIMES. BUT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO TRACK THEM DOWN FROM REFERENCES ON THE VIEWGRAPHS IF YOU LIKE. ROUGHLY SPEAKING, THE RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF ELECTRIC DIPOLE MOMENTS SCALE AS THE CUBE OF THE WAVELENTH AND INVERSELY AS THE SQUARE OF THE ELECTRIC DIPOLE MATRIX ELEMENT (FROM BASIC QUANTUM MECHANICS) SO IF AN ATOM HAS A RADIATIVE LIFETIME OF 16 NSEC AT A WAVELENGTH OF 0.6 MIRONS (SODIUM), A CO2 BENDING MODE TRANSITION, WITH A WAVELENGTH OF 15 MICRONS AND ABOUT 1/30 THE MATRIX ELEMENT SHOULD HAVE A LIFETIME OF ORDER 16 (30)^2 (15/.6)^3 NS = 0.2 S.

So, after a CO2 (or H2O) molecule absorbs a 15 micron IR photon, about 99.9999999% of the time it will give up its energy by collision with another gas molecule, not by re-emission of another photon. Is that true (assuming that I counted the right number of nines)? [YES, ABSOLUTELY.]

In other words, the very widely repeated description of GHG molecules absorbing infrared photons and then re-emitting them in random directions is only correct for about one absorbed photon in a billion. True? [YES, IT IS THIS EXTREME SLOWNESS OF RADIATIVE DECAY RATES THAT ALLOWS THE CO2 MOLECULES IN THE ATMOSPHERE TO HAVE VERY NEARLY THE SAME VIBRATION-ROTATION TEMPERATURE OF THE LOCAL AIR MOLECULES.]

Here's an example from the NSF, with a lovely animated picture, which even illustrates the correct vibrational mode:

http://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation

Am I correct in thinking that illustration is wrong for about 99.9999999% of the photons which CO2 absorbs in the lower troposphere? [YES, THE PICTURE IS A BIT MISLEADING. IF THE CO2 MOLECULE IN AIR ABSORBS A RESONANT PHOTON, IT IS MUCH MORE LIKELY ( ON THE ORDER OF A BILLION TIMES MORE LIKELY) TO HEAT THE SURROUNDING AIR MOLECULES WITH THE ENERGY IT ACQUIRED FROM THE ABSORBED PHOTON, THAN TO RERADIATE A PHOTON AT THE SAME OR SOME DIFFERENT FREQUENCY. IF THE CO2 MOLECULE COULD RADIATE COMPLETELY WITH NO COLLISIONAL INTERRUPTIONS, THE LENGTH OF THE RADIATIVE PULSE WOULD BE THE DISTANCE LIGHT CAN TRAVEL IN THE RADIATIVE LIFETIME. SO THE PULSE IN THE NSF FIGURE SHOULD BE 300,000 KM LONG, FROM THE EARTH'S SURFACE TO WELL BEYOND A SATELLITE IN GEOSYNCHRONOUS ORBIT. THE RADIATED PULSE SHOULD CONTAIN 667 CM^{-1} *3 X 10^{10} CM S^{-1}*1 S WAVES OR ABOUT 2 TRILLION WAVES, NOT JUST A FEW AS IN THE FIGURE. A BIT OF POETIC LICENSE IS OK. I CERTAINLY PLEAD GUILTY TO USING SOME ON MY VIEWGRAPHS. BUT WE SHOULD NOT MAKE TRILLION-DOLLAR ECONOMIC DECISIONS WITHOUT MORE QUANTITATIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE PHYSICS.]

(Aside: it doesn't really shock me that the NSF is wrong -- I previously caught them contradicting Archimedes: before & after.)

If that NSF web page & illustration were right, then the amount of IR emitted by CO2 or H2O vapor in the atmosphere would depend heavily on how much IR it received and absorbed. If more IR was emitted from the ground, then more IR would be re-emitted by the CO2 and H2O molecules, back toward the ground. But I think that must be wrong.[YES, THE AMOUNT OF RADIATION EMITTED BY GREENHOUSE MOLECULES DEPENDS ALMOST ENTIRELY ON THEIR TEMPERATURE. THE PERTRUBATION BY RADIATION COMING FROM THE GROUND OR OUTER SPACE IS NEGLIGIBLE. CO2 LASER BUILDERS GO OUT OF THEIR WAY WITH CUNNING DISCHARE PHYSICS TO GET THE CO2 MOLECULES OUT OF THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM SO THEY CAN AMPLIFY RADIATION.]

If 99.9999999% of the IR absorbed by atmospheric CO2 is converted by molecular collisions into heat, that seems to imply that the amount of ~15 micron IR emitted by atmospheric CO2 depends only on the atmosphere's temperature (and CO2 partial pressure), not on how the air got to that temperature. [YES, I COULD HAVE SAVED A COMMENT BY READING FURTHER.] Whether the ground is very cold and emits little IR, or very warm and emits lots of IR, will not affect the amount of IR emitted by the CO2 in the adjacent atmosphere (except by affecting the temperature of that air). Is that correct? [YES, PRECISELY. WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT WHAT CHANDRASEKHAR CALLS AN “ABSORBING ATMOSPHERE” AS OPPOSED TO A “SCATTERING ATMOSPHERE.” ASTROPHYSICISTS ARE OFTEN MORE INTERESTED IN SCATTERING ATMOSPHERES, LIKE THE INTERIOR OF THE SUN. THE BLUE SKY DURING A CLEAR DAY IS AN EXAMPLE OF SCATTERING ATMOSPHERE. VERY LITTLE HEATING OR COOLING OF THE AIR OCCURS WITH THIS “RAYLEIGH SCATTERING.”]

Thank you for educating a dumb old computer scientist like me! [YOU ARE HARDLY DUMB. YOU GET AN A+ FOR THIS RECITATION SESSION ON RADIATIVE TRANSFER. ]

Talk to Dr. Happer about that zero percent. I suppose he might explain to you how terribly wrong you are....In fact, the above email from him does just that.

We based a good portion of our experiment on Dr Happer's findings. Energy residency time and the fact the molecules reactions to EM excitement is bending (which fails to cause warming of the molecule). Which is also why IR heaters do not warm the air.

What we found was a firm affirmation of Dr. Happer's observations.

I think you're fibbing. Happer was commenting on other people's data.

Here is a telling quote from the Happer email chain-

If 99.9999999% of the IR absorbed by atmospheric CO2 is converted by molecular collisions into heat, that seems to imply that the amount of ~15 micron IR emitted by atmospheric CO2 depends only on the atmosphere's temperature (and CO2 partial pressure), not on how the air got to that temperature. [YES, I COULD HAVE SAVED A COMMENT BY READING FURTHER.] Whether the ground is very cold and emits little IR, or very warm and emits lots of IR, will not affect the amount of IR emitted by the CO2 in the adjacent atmosphere (except by affecting the temperature of that air). Is that correct? [YES, PRECISELY

That is in direct opposition to surface IR not being able to hear the atmosphere, and it directly opposes the claim that the production of radiation is controlled by outside temperature.

 

[IanC]

That CO2 absorbs and re-emits at other than 15 microns does nothing to refute Ian's comments. It has a strong band at 15 microns and it behaves as he contends. What error do you believe he is making?

The Earth's surface absorbs a wide range of SWIR and LWIR. It re-emits it primarily in broad band LWIR. Energy in the 15 micron band and others is absorbed by CO2 within the first few meters of atmosphere and re-emits in all directions. Energy transport from that point upwards is a combination of radiative, conductive and convective. When energy gets high enough in the stratosphere, the rarity of the atmosphere allows radiated IR to escape to space.

That is my understanding of what Ian has contended. Ian may certainly correct me if I have erred. Do you believe any part of that to be in error?

Tell me moron, How much weight in mass does CO2 have and then tell me how much it warms with energy that is radiated at -80 degC. then tell how much the atmosphere will warm with the warming of CO2.. DO THE MATH RETARD!

1. CO2 does not warm by empirical experiment, so it warms NOTHING..

Hahahahaha. That is hilarious! jc calling someone else a retard!

No, that mantle is yours, you've earned it.

You really don't get it... Sad.. Very sad..

Tell me IAN how much energy is in a photon radiated at -80 deg C. Do you know? I DO..

You rail at SSDD about "dimming photons" and you cant even quantify why a photon radiated at 0.2um will have 100,000 times more energy than a photon at 10um.. Its the power contained within the particle and it changes with the molecule emitting at its temperature.

SO tell me IAN, how much power is contained in a photon emitted at 16um? Without knowing this number you can not hope to prove warming of our atmosphere by CO2..

Radiation is measured as a macroscopic property. It doesn't matter how many photons it takes to make up a joule. A joule is a joule, and energy is conserved.

But don't get me started on entropy.

 

[IanC]

Tell me IAN how much energy is in a photon radiated at -80 deg C. Do you know? I DO

I have asked you a few times to explain to the message board what you mean when you claim CO2 radiates at minus 80C. You declined.

Do you want me to do your work for you? I will make you look as foolish as you are.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The actual equations physicists and meteorologists use for gas energy transfer ignore radiation because its contribution is insignificant. Convection and conduction rates in the atmosphere are high enough to easily carry away upward any mysterious energy that might appear at any altitude in the troposphere.

“Basic physics” is the antidote to “climate science” Lysenkoism.

 

[Crick]

Billy, in your graduate school work, do you get away with providing references or substantiations for your claims as rarely as you do here? If so, it must be a fantastic school... in the classical sense.

 

[mamooth]

you cant even quantify why a photon radiated at 0.2um will have 100,000 times more energy than a photon at 10um..

It obviously doesn't. It has 50 times as much energy, because the frequency is 50 times higher.

Now Billy is even denying E = H * nu. What a loon.

 

[SSDD]

you cant even quantify why a photon radiated at 0.2um will have 100,000 times more energy than a photon at 10um..

It obviously doesn't. It has 50 times as much energy, because the frequency is 50 times higher.

Now Billy is even denying E = H * nu. What a loon.

A single photon radiating at either frequency will be the same amount of energy....The EM fields however, will be very different.

 

[Wuwei]

A single photon radiating at either frequency will be the same amount of energy....The EM fields however, will be very different.

Whoa! Now you and Billy are loons. Mamooth is right. The energy of a photon is Planks constant times the frequency. It is commonly written as
E = H nu. (nu is a common Greek symbol for frequency)
I know you don't believe in Quantum Mechanics, but to go that far is pure loony.

 

[Billy_Bob]

It is utterly amazing how easily fooled you fools are.. Enjoy your circle jerk because that is about all you alarmists are worth... Jerking each other off seams to be the only thing you all like.. Peer Review by circle jerk pretty much sums up AGW as you all refuse to think critically or use cognitive thought..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It is utterly amazing how easily fooled you fools are.. Enjoy your circle jerk because that is about all you alarmists are worth... Jerking each other off seams to be the only thing you all like.. Peer Review by circle jerk pretty much sums up AGW as you all refuse to think critically or use cognitive thought..

Does matter stop emitting when warmer matter is nearby?

 

[Wuwei]

you cant even quantify why a photon radiated at 0.2um will have 100,000 times more energy than a photon at 10um..

It obviously doesn't. It has 50 times as much energy, because the frequency is 50 times higher.

Now Billy is even denying E = H * nu. What a loon.

It is utterly amazing how easily fooled you fools are.. Enjoy your circle jerk because that is about all you alarmists are worth... Jerking each other off seams to be the only thing you all like.. Peer Review by circle jerk pretty much sums up AGW as you all refuse to think critically or use cognitive thought..

Planck's very simple formula E = H * nu was an enormous breakthrough that explained the ultraviolet catastrophe of classical physics and was instrumental in understanding black body radiation. It was the beginning of quantum mechanics. The fact that SSDD and Billy don't know that speaks volumes to their lack of education in basic college physics. Yet they both rant like maniacs when they are caught in their ignorance.

.

 

[SSDD]

I can explain the 16,000 W/m2 easily enough.

We are waiting.

..you, on the other hand can't even state what a simple equation says..

Why do you keep lying about that. I stated exactly that well over half a dozen times.

No, alas you didn't..you have dodged over and over..

Tell me what does this equation say? What does it describe? x - y = z

 

[SSDD]

Lol...I feel your pain. I have been at the trade
For thirty years dealing directly with
Heat transfer including the aqueous
Contaiment of Co2 at various energy levels
and temperatures. From the very beginning of this debate some thirty years ago I always
Marveled at the sudden appearance of
Multiple experts pontificating about the utterly ludicrous. I have always wondered how anyone could possibly know whether
the atmospheric concentrations caused the warming or the warming caused the atmospheric concentrations since both are equally likely. Yet they always seemed to be so certain that I assumed I must simply be lacking in the appropriate knowledge of the matter. Then it occurred to me one day whilst Conversing with a Psuedo climatologist/expert about skinny Polar bears that these people aren't experts in anything but opinion, that they have an abundance of.

Regards:

Jo

Might I suggest a quick review of "Summary for Policy Makers" in "The Physical Science Basis" which may be found at www.ipcc.ch

Been through that over and over and by your own admission, it is an outrageous request to ask for a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability......it is outrageous to ask for a single piece of observed measured data which establishes a coherent relationsihp between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...and I am being unreasonable to ask for a single published paper in which the hypothetical warming caused by human activity has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses...

That being the case, exactly what do you expect people to find there? Do you just hope that everyone you send there is as easily fooled as you?

 

[SSDD]

The work to which I linked has been reviewed explicitly by hundreds, if not thousands of degreed, published scientists. Appeal to authority is valid if the reference is an ACTUAL AUTHORITY on the question under discussion. That is certainly the case with the IPCC assessments.

I have never claimed to be a scientist. I have a BSc in Ocean Engineering and have been working as one for the last 36 years.

You now claim to have empirical evidence "showing them wrong". What evidence and who is "them"?

And yet, there isn't a single paper there in which our hypothetical warming has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to greenhouse gasses...nor is there a single piece of observed, measured data there which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability..

There is plenty of data there....but precious little evidence of anything other than if we have an influence on the climate, it is indistinguishable from natural variability.

 

[SSDD]

There must be photons from biblical times still trapped in my CO2 fire extinguisher according to Crick and

There is a very reasonable probability that one of the molecules of air expelled in Jesus's last breath is present in the next lungful that you breathe. Matter is long-lasting under typical conditions.

Photons exist only as long as it takes to carry energy from the emitter to the absorber. Once absorbed that energy takes a different form. Out of many forms.

I don't see how you can say a packet of energy that is originally transported as a photon, then absorbed and turned into some variant of potential or kinetic energy, then transformed back and forth a few million times until perhaps it is used to create a photon that has a similar frequency as the first. Is this what you consider 'trapped photons'?

Lol...I feel your pain. I have been at the trade
For thirty years dealing directly with
Heat transfer including the aqueous
Contaiment of Co2 at various energy levels
and temperatures. From the very beginning of this debate some thirty years ago I always
Marveled at the sudden appearance of
Multiple experts pontificating about the utterly ludicrous. I have always wondered how anyone could possibly know whether
the atmospheric concentrations caused the warming or the warming caused the atmospheric concentrations since both are equally likely. Yet they always seemed to be so certain that I assumed I must simply be lacking in the appropriate knowledge of the matter. Then it occurred to me one day whilst Conversing with a Psuedo climatologist/expert about skinny Polar bears that these people aren't experts in anything but opinion, that they have an abundance of.

Regards:

Jo

Might I suggest a quick review of "Summary for Policy Makers" in "The Physical Science Basis" which may be found at www.ipcc.ch

Why? You have been challenged over and over to bring forward any sort of real observed, measured evidence in support of the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...You can't do it..and by your own admission, the information there is good enough to fool you...you can't bring any actual evidence forward, but you are fooled...you think everyone is as easily fooled as you? You know there is noting there of any use and yet you keep referring people to it...Why?

 

[Crick]

Those studies and the many before it were good enough to convince better than 97% of the world's climate scientists that AGW is valid. The you - someone with no valid scientific education and a plethora of blatantly incorrect interpretations of fundamental physical laws - should choose to reject all of that concerns me not a whit. What does concern me is that others visiting this site can be taken in by your faulty contentions.

 

[Wuwei]

I can explain the 16,000 W/m2 easily enough.

We are waiting.

..you, on the other hand can't even state what a simple equation says..

Why do you keep lying about that. I stated exactly that well over half a dozen times.

No, alas you didn't..you have dodged over and over..

Tell me what does this equation say? What does it describe? x - y = z

Here is what all scientists understand the SB equation to be since 1879. It is the standard derivation in textbooks for an object at temperature T₁ and a surround at temperature T₂.

Rₑ = esT₁⁴ , . .where Rₑ is the rate of emission of an object.
Rₐ = esT₂⁴, . .where Rₑ is the rate of absorption of an object.

The net rate is the difference between radiation and absorption.
Rnet = Rₑ - Rₐ = esT₁⁴ - esT₂⁴ = es(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)

If the net is positive heat is flowing away from the object.
If the net is negative heat is flowing toward the object.

You were told that over a dozen times. Tell me what you think is the dodge.

You said, I can explain the 16,000 W/m2 easily enough.
Lets hear it.

Edit: Oops. The Greek symbols sigma and epsilon in the formulas were erased by the text editor. I wrote them back as e and s.