You really should try to read for comprehension. Your link was to a model based on collins, et al. There are all sorts of models there based on this person or that. For example, here is one based on trenberth et al.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/Earthebal.html#c1
Do you really believe that more than twice as much energy radiates down from the atmosphere as a result of backradiation than comes in from the sun? Really?
They show all sorts of models there but don't subscribe to any of them. If you read their statement on the greenhouse effect, you will find statements like may, and could rather than does. The laws of physics say what they say and the fact that various climate scientists are either deliberate frauds, or victims of an error cascade doesn't alter what the laws say or mean.
So again, which of the so called greenhouse gasses is emitting at a frequency that is not found in the infrared windows that make infrared astronomy possible? Again, direct hard observable evidence that backradiation is not happening and you continue to ignore; just like the way you ignore the fact that a parabolic reflector, when pointed at clear sky produces a temperature lower than the ambient, and when the temperature is 45 or less the temperature in the reflector gets low enough to form ice on water. If backradiation were beaming back to the surface of the earth, you couldn't cause the formation of ice with an ambient temeprature in the 40's.
You have been hoaxed and are just to proud to admit it. That is sadder than falling for the hoax in the first place.
