Actually, I sadi that a flat earth with no rotation is an inappropriate model for the earth, not for making graphs of temepratures. Why not simply be honest and address my comments as stated rather than fabricate statements that I never made. Do you actually believe a computer model of a flat earth that doesn't rotate, has no night, and exists in a perpetual state of twilight can accurately depict the earth as it exists?
Which places and times might the ground be colder than the atmosphere?
Stop the bus. 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."
Energy WILL NOT FLOW spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. Which part of that are you having trouble with? Are you saying that you reject the second law of thermodynamics? Are you saying that the second law is a false statement? It is clearly in direct opposition to your number one claim. You left the tracks with your first statement.
The second law of thermodynamics is stated in absolute terms. It isn't about net flows, it isn't about statistics, it isn't about systems, it is about the direction that energy can flow. I say again, according to the second law of thermodynamics, energy WILL NOT FLOW spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. Since the rest of your statement is built upon your first statement, I am afraid, that your claims, like those of cliamte science with regard to the greenhouse hypothesis simply do not pass the smell test.
I asked you to describe a mechanism by which the greenhouse effect works without violating a law of physics, you lost with your first statement.
Your number 1 is number 2 and it doesn't pass the smell test.
None reaches the earth. Neither heat nor energy will flow from a cooler object (the atmosphere) to a warmer object (the surface of the earth)
Law of conservation of energy: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed
If even one fraction of one watt per square meter were radiated back to the surface and were absorbed, it would increase the amount of energy the earth radiates by that fraction of a watt per square meter over and above the amount of energy the earth absorbs from the sun. Energy must be created in order to radiate more than is absorbed from the energy source. No energy is radiated from the atmosphere to the ground.
If you are the sort that does experiments, I can describe a simple one to you that proves that there is no backradiation from the atmosphere to the ground. I can point you to a site with plans for a quite effective and inexpensive solar oven. Point it at the sun and it will boil water as fast as your stovetop. Point it away from the sun into a clear sky, however, and place a thermometer in the parabola and you will see the temperature drop several degrees below the ambient temperature. If backradiation from the atmosphere were warming the surface of the earth, you would not see a cooling effect by pointing the dish at clear sky. Point the dish at a clear sky at night when the ambient temperature is between 33 and 45 degrees F and you can watch ice form. If backradiation were happening as climate science claims, you could not form ice when the ambient temperture is so far above freezing.
(continued)
