Challenge to the Warmers: What's your Theory?

[ScienceRocks]

The radiation at a longer wave from the surface of the earth then light waves being that earth is cooler then the sun as the sun is 11,000f and earth is 59f(sun mostly visible because is hotter) this radiation then hits the green house gases and get reflected in all directions, meaning some of it gets forced back the surface of the earth, which creates a surplus of "energy" within earth climate system then that otherwise would occur if allowed to all come from the sun. More or less 117% give or take at the surface to 100% coming from the sun.(maybe not the numbers, but close) Why because some of the energy is transported back to the surface of the earth because of green house gases. NOT made, but not allowed to escape into space. That is why water vapor and other green house gases cause a warming...Yes pressure=density of the Atmosphere and molecules close to each other=higher temperatures. You can have a shit load of energy, but if you don't have the density you have a mars. That is why mars is cold.

 

[RWatt]

do you really believe CO2 makes no difference in the overall equilibrium of the globe's climate? or are you just complaining about how it is presented? the earth is warmer with an atmosphere and in the big picture it doesnt matter what values are used to describe how much IR is emitted and bounced around. only the net escape matters for non specialists. I can understand you being pissed off at being sold a whacky diagram and theory based on climate models that are hardwired to show excess importance for CO2 but you seem to want to argue niggling mistakes and deny everything that the warmers say just on principal. do you deny CO2 affects the temp, even if we cant attach a specific number to it?

Here are the basic facts. The greenhouse effect and AGW depend on backradiation from an atmosphere that is colder than the earth to heat the earth.

Backradiation exists. Not only observed fact, but it would defy physics if there wasn't backradiation. The atmosphere emits infrared radiation - you've said so yourself that greenhouse gases emit infrared radiation, so how are you proposing that none of that emitted infrared radiation intercepts the surface of the Earth?

Further fact: CO2 is not, has not been, and never will be an energy source BUT all AGW and greenhouse effect scientific papers claim that more energy is being radiatied from the earth and atmosphere than is received from the sun. This MUST involve the creation of energy somewhere as the sun is the only source of energy.

It involves the reuse of energy not the creation of energy.

Atmospheric CO2 has an average temperature of -20 degrees C and the surface of the earth has an average temperature of +15 degrees C. It is therefore impossible for CO2 to cause the warming of a warmer earth as it would be a clear violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Without the CO2 there the Earth's average temperature would be a lot lower than 15C. Without the CO2 there would be less backradiation. Less backradiation means the surface is absorbing less energy. Less energy absorbed leads to cooling.

As I have already pointed out, and provided links to the experiment performed by the physics department of BYU, and you may perform it yourself for about 15 dollars and an hour and a half of your time; if you point a parabolic reflector at the sky during daylight hours but away from the sun, you can achieve a cooling effect. If backradiation existed, it would warm any object inside the dish no matter which direction you point it.

Backradiation will be warming the dish. But the reason it's cooled is that radiation from the ground is being shielded by the reflector. If the radiation from above could be blocked out too it would get even colder.

Further, if you point the dish at the sky during the night, it is possible to get ice when the ambient temperature is nearly 48 degrees. According to climate science, backradiation is happening everywhere 24/7.

Without back-radiation it would be even colder.

Explain which law of phisics would allow CO2 to backradiate and warm the earth and yet allow ice to form when the temperature is nearly 48 degrees F by aiming a parabolic dish at that same radiation.

Because an object is not only absorbing infrared from the atmosphere, but also infrared emitted from the surroundings (walls, trees, cars, the ground itself). To cause a cooling you only have to block out some of those, even if you leave one of them (eg backradiation) as is.

 

[Big Fitz]

However, the rise in CO2 since the advent of the Industrial Revolution CO2 is 25-35%

Which cannot be proven to be man's fault, only THEORIZED is man's fault. We do not know all the sources of and sequestering factors of CO2. Only models of what we DO know about.

If you don't know the basics, should you really be commenting?

I know you shouldn't be.

 

[RWatt]

wirebender- subtracting a negative number gives a positive result. slowing down the loss of heat results in more heat remaining. the atmosphere dampens the temp swings in both direction, which doesnt happen on the moon.

None the less, you want me to beleive that a cooler atmosphere can heat up a warmer earth.

More facts:

Radiating IR is realized by propagating electromagnetic fields. These fields are vector fields and they travel at, or very near the speed of light. The earth radiates IR at a rate of about 390 watts per square meter. This heats the atmosphere to an average of -20C. The atmosphere in turn radiates about 324 watts per square meter in all directions.

Subtract the resultant EM field (390-324) and the remainder is 66 watts per square meter in favor of the earth so the radiation is up. All of the energy radiated from the surface of the earth is radiated into cold space. There is no slowing down of the rate of heat loss. You simply can not store up more energy than is available.

You've answered your own question. The heat transfer is from the warmer surface to the cooler atmosphere

390 - 324 = 64wm-2 in the direction from surface to atmosphere.

But look what happens if the back-radiation doesn't exist:

390 - 0 = 390.

The surface is now losing 390watts per square meter rather than just 65watts per square meter. As a result it will cool significantly.

It's only as warm as it is today because of that subtraction of 324wm-2

 

[RWatt]

However, the rise in CO2 since the advent of the Industrial Revolution CO2 is 25-35%

Which cannot be proven to be man's fault, only THEORIZED is man's fault. We do not know all the sources of and sequestering factors of CO2. Only models of what we DO know about.

For it not to be man's fault we'd have to believe at least two preposterous things.

1) That this was just a coincidence:

CO2 just decided to do jump like it hasn't done in millions of years exactly in time with human emissions.

2) That the 15 billion ton increase in CO2 each year has nothing to do with our 30 billion tons of CO2 emissions each year. Which not only presents a preposterous accounting problem - how an input of 30 billion tons per year can't be held responsible for a rise of just 15 billion tons per year, but also beggars belief at how our 30 billion tons could be mysteriously vanished even as 15 billion tons from who knows where is left alone to accumulate.

 

[skookerasbil]

Theory is gay

 

[ScienceRocks]

Theory is gay

No it is not. If there was not for Theories( idea's that are supportrd by more then one scientist and backed up by data) thought up by scientist throughout the ages you wouldn't have that computer your typing on or anything. You likely would be in a cave somewhere freezing your ass off.

 

[sparky]

i don't believe i've ever been witness to the dismantling of science in any issue , as i have with (the misnomer) global warming

 

[wirebender]

No they don't assume that. They are measuring incoming infrared radiation.

Some are, some arent. I have been through all this with Trakar before, but since it is short, I will cover it with you again. First, lets look at the ones that don't.

An uncooled infrared radiometer pointed at the sky will measure the frequency of any incoming "light" and makes a calculation based on Wien's displacement law to determine the temperature of the "light" emitter or source of the radiation. Then using Stefan-Boltzmann's law Q = sigma T^4, suggests a downdwelling IR "flux" from the atmosphere.

Based on this, climate "scientists" claim to be able to prove the effects of "greenhouse" gasses. The question is, are they? I don't believe they are and here is why.

Do you think it is proper to use Stefan-Boltzman in the form of Q = sigma T^4 in an attempt to measure downdwelling IR from greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere? Stefan-Boltzman describes the radiant energy from a blackbody into a surrounding space at zero degrees Kelvin. The problem lies in the fact that the surface of the earth is not at zero degrees Kelvin and not only that, is warmer than the emitting source of the radiation.

Then there are the radiometers that actually do measure downdwelling radiation but each and every one of them proves that downdwelling radiation is not a source of IR to the earth.

The radiometers that can actually measure downdwelling radiation have, each and every one, been cooled to a temperature far below the -20C temperature of the atmosphere in order to make it possible to take a direct measurement. Just as predicted by the second law of thermodynamics.

For example:



Cryocooler Assembly
"Low vibration, long life focal plane operation near 58 K is critical to the success of AIRS.."


Dewar Assembly

"The focal plane assembly operates at 58 K for high sensitivity and is packaged in a permanent vacuum dewar which mates directly to the 155 K grating spectrometer."

58K = -215 deg C !!


Focal Plane Assembly

"The PV modules consist of 1, 2 or 4 bi-linear arrays of back-side-illuminated HgCdTe detectors"

"The AIRS FPA is unique in its hybrid PV/PC approach and required special care in the routing, shielding and grounding of very low noise (nV) PC signals in the presence of high level (V) PV signals. A total of 526 leads interconnect to the motherboard assembly using a series of 10 high-density, thin-film flex cables specifically designed for cryogenic operation

TES Instrument Specifications

"Individual detector array spectral coverage (cm-1) 1A (1900-3050), 1B (820-1150), 2A (1100-1950), 2B (650-900) All mercury cadmium telluride photo voltaic at 65 K "
65K = -208 deg C!

Each and every one of these instruments used to measure downdwelling radiation is cooled to a much lower temperature than the atmosphere so that the radiation will flow towards the instrument. Every measurement that claims to have measured downdwelling radiation has been either deliberatly, or through ignorance, falsified.

You only need look as far as the second law of thermodynamics to see the truth.

“Second Law of Thermodynamics: 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.”


If they did not cool the radiometers, they would get no measurement as the downdwelling radiation would not flow to the warmer earth just as the 2nd law states.

Man can do that. We have the tech to do it.

Man does not have the technology to violate the laws of physics. Th

It isn't an impossible measurement to make as you seem to think.

Then why do they have to cool the instruments to a temperature lower than the atmosphere in order to get a direct measurement?

Just as we can measure how much visible light is coming from a certain direction, so can we measure how much infrared light, or UV light or any other kind of light is coming from a certain direction.

Only if the insturument is cooler that the source because energy will not flow from cool to warm. If you don't cool the instrument, you get nothing but noise.

And when scientists point instruments up at the sky, they detect large amounts of infrared coming down, and it's source must be the atmosphere itself.

They only detect that radiation if they cool their instruments to a temperature lower than the atmosphere. If they don't cool the instruments, the radiation won't flow into the instrument. Cool will not move spontaneously to warm. The second law again.



I will have to get to the reset of your posts tomorrow.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

i don't believe i've ever been witness to the dismantling of science in any issue , as i have with (the misnomer) global warming

Thats because pointing to some local weather event and going, "See that? Do you see that? ManMade Global Warming!" isn't science.

Watching Kaku describe the rigorous testing of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, he said that if there was even one data point out they'd have to discard the entire theory. You see how ridiculous it is that we can't even get this AGW "Theory" on record.

 

[RWatt]

If they did not cool the radiometers, they would get no measurement as the downdwelling radiation would not flow to the warmer earth just as the 2nd law states.

Radiation is not heat, so the 2nd law doesn't cover it, hence there is no violation of the 2nd law from back-radiation.

You claim that molecules only radiate towards cooler objects. How could they possibly manage this feat?

First of all they'd have to know what object the light they emit will hit. Considering light doesn't propagate instantly they'd have to be capable of calculating the position of objects in the universe in the future to know what what the light would intercept. In many cases this would involve calculating positions of objects years in advance.

Second they'd also have to know what temperature that object would be at the moment of interception, not at the time of emission. So they'd have to be able to predict future temperature's of objects too.

Thirdly they'd need some kind of imbued intelligence to decide whether or not to emit based on the above.

Of course none of these abilities exist in nature, they defy and violate any number of properties of the universe (eg causality).

CO2 molecules in fact just emit infrared radiation in any random direction. It doesn't matter how warm or cold the object the light will hit will be.

There will be infrared radiation emitted by the Earth heading towards the Sun for example.

They only detect that radiation if they cool their instruments to a temperature lower than the atmosphere. If they don't cool the instruments, the radiation won't flow into the instrument.

Where will it go then?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"I'd post the Theory of ManMade Global Warming but I have other, more important things to do right now"

 

[ScienceRocks]

"I'd post the Theory of ManMade Global Warming but I have other, more important things to do right now"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Still no theory.

And for those of you intimidated by an article from "MIT" here's what you need to know

"The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees. This can be compared to a median projected increase in the 2003 study of just 2.4 degrees. The difference is caused by several factors rather than any single big change. Among these are improved economic modeling and newer economic data showing less chance of low emissions than had been projected in the earlier scenarios. "

They took their Wheel of Climate Change Model (yeah, I can't believe that the real scientists at MIT haven't thrown these ******* clowns off campus either) and doubled down on their losing bet

Why is AGW about economics?

"...one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy." IPCC

 

[wirebender]

Radiation is not heat, so the 2nd law doesn't cover it, hence there is no violation of the 2nd law from back-radiation.

Dang RWatt. I had no idea. I knew that you were grasping in regards to the science; but I had no idea that the topic was this far over your head.

Tell me RWatt, if radiation and heat are unrelated, what is the problem? If downdwelling radiation is not carrying heat, why is it so important to you to try and prove that it exists? Hell, according to you, no amount of IR matters because radiation is not heat. According to you, 2,000 watts per square meter of IR from the sun to the surface of the earth would mean nothing as heat and radiation are different things. If heat and radiation are not related, then no amount of backradition could possibly cause warming so why it it even an issue for you?

Clearly, you really don't have a clue and it isn't my place to teach you the basics. Here is a clue, radiation is one of the means by which heat is transported. Here, at least make an effort to learn the basics.

Radiation - The Physics Hypertextbook

You claim that molecules only radiate towards cooler objects. How could they possibly manage this feat?

Actually, I never made any such claim. Are you now reduced to erecting strawmen to tilt against in an effort to win a point? You lost any credibility you may believe you had with that first idiotic statement, now simply making up statments to attribute to me only further erodes your position. Do feel free to bring forward any such statement by me if you like and provide a link to the post.

I won't even bother with your first second or third point, as I never made any such statment that would require such a response.

CO2 molecules in fact just emit infrared radiation in any random direction. It doesn't matter how warm or cold the object the light will hit will be.

What, precisely do you believe IR to be RWatt? Are you familiar with the term thermal radiation. How do you suppose a wave of IR might be separated from the heat that it is carrying?

There will be infrared radiation emitted by the Earth heading towards the Sun for example.

So according to you the earth can warm the sun? Are you saying that the earth, which depends on the sun for its energy can, in fact, warm the sun if even by a very small amount? Tell me what law of physics you base that bit of jibberish on.

Where will it go then?

It spontaneously flows to cold, therefore it flows up towards cold space. You can only measure downdwelling radiation if you cool the instrument to the point that it is colder than the upper atmosphere. Heat will spontaneously flow from warm to cold but not from cold to warm. If you don't cool the instrument, no radiation will flow to it to be measured.

 

[wirebender]

The radiation at a longer wave from the surface of the earth then light waves being that earth is cooler then the sun as the sun is 11,000f and earth is 59f(sun mostly visible because is hotter) this radiation then hits the green house gases and get reflected in all directions, meaning some of it gets forced back the surface of the earth, which creates a surplus of "energy" within earth climate system then that otherwise would occur if allowed to all come from the sun.

Describe the physical law that you supppse allows surplus energy to be created. We get X amount from the sun and that is all there is. You can't get more energy out than was put in.

 

[flacaltenn]

WireBender:

How's about...... you can't measure tiny amounts of crap -- if you're crapmeter is already full of crap??

Works for cameras measuring visible light, receivers measuring RF, or radiometers measuring IR..

This may also help from Wikipedia:

Infrared radiation is popularly known as "heat" or sometimes known as "heat radiation", since many people attribute all radiant heating to infrared light and/or all infrared radiation to heating. This is a widespread misconception, since light and electromagnetic waves of any frequency will heat surfaces that absorb them. Infrared light from the Sun only accounts for 49%[11] of the heating of the Earth, with the rest being caused by visible light that is absorbed then re-radiated at longer wavelengths.

The Radiant modes described in Thermo are not same as EM modal travel. ANY EM radiation can cause heat. But heat in an object causes IR emission..

 

[ScienceRocks]

The radiation at a longer wave from the surface of the earth then light waves being that earth is cooler then the sun as the sun is 11,000f and earth is 59f(sun mostly visible because is hotter) this radiation then hits the green house gases and get reflected in all directions, meaning some of it gets forced back the surface of the earth, which creates a surplus of "energy" within earth climate system then that otherwise would occur if allowed to all come from the sun.

Describe the physical law that you supppse allows surplus energy to be created. We get X amount from the sun and that is all there is. You can't get more energy out than was put in.

I'm not very knowledgeable in this area, but believe I've read that the "energy" comes into the climate system(the energy that is not reflected away from the Atmosphere, clouds, ect) so the energy that makes it to the surface is what is lefted over(70% for clear day, 25% for cloudy day with 3,000 feet of depth of the clouds) to heat the surface of the earth. This energy is radiated, yes a large part of this energy escapes to space, but what green house gases do is act as a trap for this energy, which readmits this energy in all directions. Being that some of this energy is forced back down to the surface, so that energy is now to be used to warm the surface. That is how you get a imbalance and with such get global warming. As you increase the ghg's the level of heat able to escape to space becomes less and less. Water vapor is also a ghg and works in this way.

I hope I'm not to far off. I'm learning.

 

[RWatt]

Radiation is not heat, so the 2nd law doesn't cover it, hence there is no violation of the 2nd law from back-radiation.

Tell me RWatt, if radiation and heat are unrelated, what is the problem? If downdwelling radiation is not carrying heat, why is it so important to you to try and prove that it exists?

They are not unrelated, but they are not the same thing.

Heat is the transfer of energy between two bodies, as in the total net transfer. That includes all forms of energy transfer not just radiation.

Infrared light carries energy, not heat.

So when I say 330wm-2 backradiation from the atmosphere is absorbed by the surface I am citing a transfer of energy from the atmosphere to the surface.

As well as that there is 350wm-2 infrared radiation from the surface is absorbed by the atmosphere. That is another transfer of energy. There is also about 100wm-2 energy transfered from the surface to the atmosphere by convection and evaporation.

Adding them all up (350 + 100 - 330), the net energy flow between the surface and atmosphere is about 120wm-2 from the surface to the atmosphere. That's the direction of heat transfer. It's from the surface to the atmosphere. That's expected because the surface is warmer than the atmosphere.

Hell, according to you, no amount of IR matters because radiation is not heat.

Radiation carries energy. The temperature of the surface moves toward a level proportional to the amount of energy it absorbs. That means, quite simply, that backradiation is contributing to the temperature of the surface. Without backradiation the surface would be absorbing less energy and hence would be cooler. Just as if less sunlight was being absorbed the surface would cool. Absorbed energy is absorbed energy. It doesn't mater whether it was carried by sunlight or infrared, once it's absorbed it's part of the pot that determines the objects temperature.

You claim that molecules only radiate towards cooler objects. How could they possibly manage this feat?

Actually, I never made any such claim. Are you now reduced to erecting strawmen to tilt against in an effort to win a point?

You did make such a claim. You said: "Each and every one of these instruments used to measure downdwelling radiation is cooled to a much lower temperature than the atmosphere so that the radiation will flow towards the instrument."

Which means you are claiming infrared radiation from the atmosphere won't flow towards objects that are warmer than the atmosphere. Although now your response above suggests you do in fact think infrared radiation from the atmosphere will flow towards objects that are warmer. That's correct so lets go with that. There is still something missing.

You are proposing photons of infrared light are emitted downwards from the atmosphere towards a warmer object, but those photons never reach the warmer object.

The question then is what are you proposing happens to them mid-flight?

There will be infrared radiation emitted by the Earth heading towards the Sun for example.

So according to you the earth can warm the sun?[/QUOTE]

Only by an irrelevantly small amount, lots of leading zeroes, but yes. The presence of the Earth means the Sun is absorbing more energy than it would do if the Earth wasn't there.

Are you saying that the earth, which depends on the sun for its energy can, in fact, warm the sun if even by a very small amount? Tell me what law of physics you base that bit of jibberish on.

The Earth emits infrared radiation into space. Some of that will head towards the Sun. It's light, it doesn't stop or bend round the Sun, it goes straight into it and is absorbed, not reflected. It means the Sun is gaining a little extra energy by the Earth being there. If it's gaining a little extra energy it means it's warmer.

Where will it go then?

It spontaneously flows to cold, therefore it flows up towards cold space.

You said:
"If they don't cool the instruments, the radiation won't flow into the instrument."

You keep talking about radiation "flow". You are aware that infrared radiation is light right? Like visible light infrared radiation will travel in a straight line. It can't turn round or "flow" round. The direction it is emitted in determines which direction it will travel in a straight line until it hits something. If it's emitted downwards it will keep going downwards.

I can't seriously believe you are claiming that molecules in the atmosphere emit either up or down depending on the temperature of some instrument at the surface, so what are you claiming?

 

[wirebender]

They are not unrelated, but they are not the same thing.

Heat is the transfer of energy between two bodies, as in the total net transfer. That includes all forms of energy transfer not just radiation.

What you don't seem to be grasping is that radiation is the vehicle by which heat moves if you are going to arbitrarily remove convection and conduction from the equation. If the radiation is not moving in a given direction, the heat isn't moving in that direction either.

Stefan-Boltzman Law / Heat Radiation

“Radiation is heat transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which carry energy away from the emitting object.”

P = e(BC)A(T^4 – Tc^4)

Where P = net radiated power in watts , e = emissivity, BC = Stefan’s constant, A = area, T = temperature of radiator or emitter and Tc = temperature of the surrounding space or another body

rearranging the equation gives you:

P/A = e(BC)T^4 – e(BC)Tc^4 expressed in Wm2

This equation represents a subtraction of two EM fields. The difference between the two fields will measure P/A and will move in the direction of the greater field. In accordance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, there is no energy flow from cooler to warmer. This is precisely why instruments must be cooled to a temperature lower than the atmosphere in order to get a measuremet of downdwelling radiation. It only happens if the instrument is cooler than the emitter, in this case, the atmosphere. The radiation doesn't propagate in the direction of the earth because the earth is warmer than the atmosphere.

So when I say 330wm-2 backradiation from the atmosphere is absorbed by the surface I am citing a transfer of energy from the atmosphere to the surface.

When you say that 330 Wm2 backradiation from the atmosphere is absorbed by the surface, you are making the claim that the atmosphere is providing nearly double the amount of energy to the surface of the earth that the sun provides when the sun is the only source of energy. The 330 Wm2 you claim is energy from nowhere. Free energy. The stuff of perpetual motion.

Do describe the law of physics that allows the atmosphere (not a power source) to radiate nearly twice as much energy to the surface of the earth as the sun (which is the only power source available). Describe this law of physics in detail.

You did make such a claim. You said: "Each and every one of these instruments used to measure downdwelling radiation is cooled to a much lower temperature than the atmosphere so that the radiation will flow towards the instrument."

Then you should have no problem bringing such a statment forward. Or are you now claiming that photons or EM fields are molecules? What substance are photons and EM fields moleculse of?

Which means you are claiming infrared radiation from the atmosphere won't flow towards objects that are warmer than the atmosphere.

That is precisely what I am saying and have given you the means by which to prove it to yourself. If the EM field is not moving towards the earth then the heat is not moving towards the earth. The larger EM field determines in which direction the heat moves and according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, heat does not spontaneously move from cool to warm.

Although now your response above suggests you do in fact think infrared radiation from the atmosphere will flow towards objects that are warmer. That's correct so lets go with that. There is still something missing.

Clearly, this is way over your head. I have never made any such claim and the fact that you must now deliberately fabricate falsehoods to attribute to me says about all that need be said about you and your argument.

The question then is what are you proposing happens to them mid-flight?

I am proposing that photons move in the direction of the EM wave that is carrying them.

Only by an irrelevantly small amount, lots of leading zeroes, but yes. The presence of the Earth means the Sun is absorbing more energy than it would do if the Earth wasn't there.

I am laughing in your face. The sun doesn't absorb any energy at all from the earth because the EM field is propagating away from the sun. You would need a larger EM field than the sun to move energy towards the sun. Do the math or show me the math to prove that the earth is an energy source for the sun.

I can't seriously believe you are claiming that molecules in the atmosphere emit either up or down depending on the temperature of some instrument at the surface, so what are you claiming?

I can't believe that you are making the claim that EM fields, or photons are molecules. Clearly you are unable to understand whatever it is that you are reading.

I have asked once before and you dodged the question. If downdwelling radiation is a reality, how is it that you can achieve a cooling effect by pointing a parabolic dish towards that same radiation that you claim is heating the surface of the earth to a greater degree than the sun itself? And if you are going to claim some insulating effect, show me the math, because if you turn that same dish towards the earth you get a heating effect which is precisely what the 2nd law of thermodynmamics predicts just as the 2nd law predicts that if you point the dish towards the sky but not in the direction of the sun, you will realise a cooling effect. Downdwelling radiation or backradiation simply is not a reality and this is proven by the fact that you have to cool the instrument to a temperature lower than the atmosphere in order to achieve a measurement.