I keep asking you specific questions, you keep answering with generalities.
You are asking questions for which there is no known answer. There are theoretical answers, hypothetical answers, and answers that are the result of mathematical and computer models but no known answer.
You apparently like interpreting but doing so leads only to where you are. You hold a belief based on models which have not and likely never will be proven. You are guessing at best and completely snookered at worst.
can the earth's surface emit radiation towards the sun?
Perhaps towards the sun, but the energy will never transfer to the sun.
or is it magically stopped by some superpower that you have deemed to call the second law?
Again with the dishonesty. If you had an honest argument, you wouldn't have to resort to dishonesty nearly so often and could actually argue against what your opponent says rather than making up statements which you argue against. The second law and all physical laws are just expressions for forces at work in the universe. Strangely enough, we rarely actually understand those forces. Heck, we can't even fully explain gravity and it is the most well known natural force at work here on earth.
I can't tell you why energy or heat can't transfer from a cool region to a warm region and you can't either. No one can. We haven't reached that point yet that we can explain exactly what force is at work and how it works. You can bet though, when we get there, if it is in your life time you will find that you are, and have been dead wrong in your belief that energy or heat can transfer from cool to warm.
does this superpower take into account all the atmospheric molecules, their speed and potential collisions, so that only photons that would actually make it to the sun are stopped. what is the driving force behind this superpower and how does it make all those calculations?
This superpower as you so childishly describe forces which you can't begin to expain either does take everying into account or doesn't have to. Acting as if you know something that neither you, nor the most brilliant minds in modern science know is just nonsensical. Do you enjoy looking silly?
can the atmosphere emit radiation towards the earth? or is it magically stopped by some superpower that you have deemed to call the second law?
Again with the dishonesty. Are you able to honesty talk about a topic or do you fabricate whenever you sit down at the keyboard. Are you so dishonest face to face as well?
Does the second law say that the cooler atmosphere can transfer energy to the warmer surface of the earth? If it does, then I guess it can. We both know that it doesn't so it can't. There is ample evidence that it doesn't as well. You might start with the fact that in order to measure downdwelling radiation, you must cool the instrument far below the ambient atmospheric temperature. Why do you suppose it is that you can measure downdwelling radiation only when the instrument is colder than the atmosphere? Is there a superpower at work there or is it just a force that we don't presently understand?
You get more rediculous as you go. Ad hominem attacks and attempts to deride your opponent only serve to show how weak your argument is. If you had an honest argument you wouldn't have to attack me.
Science of doom? Now I am laughing at you.
next lets look at CO2 more closely. any excited molecule will emit radiation. if you plot repeated emissions they will be released in all directions equally.
Are you sure of that? I think not. If you could prove that, then you could prove that energy transfer from a cool region to a warm region were possible. Again, you are basing your argument on unproven assumptions. Do you like unproven assumptions? I am guessing you do since you buy into the greenhouse effect even when the models that supposedly prove it fail repeatedly.
again, this is observed data not 'computer models'. CO2 preferentially absorbs and emits the same frequencies of Infrared Radiation.
There has never been an observation of spontaeous energy transfer from cool to warm. Why make things up? And again, if you look at emission lines, they are not as sharp as absorption lines. That is because there is a slight frequency change upon emission.
CO2 returns ~ half of the radiation it receives in certain IR bands.
No it doesn't and this is proven by the fact that you can't measure downdwelling radiation unless you cool the instrument to a temperature far below the ambient temperature of the atmosphere. You would think that someone like you who believes he knows the unknowable (at this point in science) could at least clue into something that basic.
this balances out the same amount of radiation from the surface. it is not heating the surface, it is slowing the loss of energy.
So where is the hot spot? If CO2 were, in realty, slowing the loss of energy, there would be a hot spot and we both know that it doesn't exist. Another epic failure of the scam you have placed your belief in. You would think that someone who believes he knows the unknowable would question his belief when something so blatant as the required hot spot fails to show up.
the sun's radiation which is more highly ordered is doing the heating. the surface is heating the atmosphere by the same process of the planck curves above. there is no violation of the second law. it is a statistical proof not some superpower all seeing unknown law of physics that stops radiation by reading the temperature of every particle in the universe.
Again, do you enjoy looking absurd? When you fabricate an argument that your opponent has not made, it makes you look rediculous and dishonest. Is that your goal? If you believe that energy is being transferred from the cooler atmosphere to the surface of the earth, then yes, there is a violation of the second law. Energy transfer from cool to warm would be a reduction of entropy.
I am sure you will just answer back with the same talking points, especially ones that dont fit the actual conditions, but you wont be able to defeat quantum mechanics, photons, or the general rather than individual nature of the second law.
Your "conditions" are so far from actual as to be pointless. It is you who lives, and will eventually die by questionable mathematical models and computer simulations. And I don't have to beat quantum mechanics. All I have to do is ask you to prove downdwelling radiation at ambient temperature or show me the required hot spot in the atmosphere.. We both know that you can't do either so obviously there is a problem with your interpretation of the physics at work. That is the problem with trying to interpret what doesn't need interpreting.
