I suggest that you put your hand into the area in which the radiation is focused and tell me that the energy is of a lower temperature than the water, or whatever you have placed there. By the way, if you take that solar cooker and point an infrared heater at it, you will not be able to achieve a temperature even as high as the temperature of the heater. It is the conversion of shortwave to longwave IR and focusing that energy into a small area that is key to its operation.
You believe the atmosphere absorbs short wave radiation, converts it to longwave radiation, focuses it into a small area (gathering and focusing energy is the key to how the oven works), and then radiates it back to the ground? How does a molecule that is invisible to short wave and has no mechanism by which to retain energy do that?
The key is that a solar cooker is in no way analogous to the atmosphere. Perhaps you should read up a bit on how solar cookers work before you attempt to compare them to the atmosphere.
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/solarcooking/images/2/2e/Granada06_david_denkenberger.pdf
The atmosphere has no means of focusing energy. So called greenhouse gasses absorb and emit radiation and in doing so actually scatter the radiation, not concentrate it as is the case with a solar cooker.
And yet, the energy budget shows clearly that twice as much energy is absorbed by the surface of the earth from the atmosphere than is absorbed from the sun. There is only the amount of energy being absorbed by the ground from the sun coming into the system. That being the case, how does the surface of the earth, according to that energy budget radiate more than twice as much?
and yet, you continue to state that the atmosphere can not warm the warmer earth due to the laws of thermodynamics. interesting. I know you understand the principles involved.
If you are going to try and prove longwave radiation within the same frequency band as is emitted from the surface of the earth is running back "downstream" so to speak against the EM field of far greater magnitude propagated from the surface of the earth and actually reaches, and is absorbed by the surface of the earth then yes, you are going to have to disprove a law of physics.
What is interesting; and I mean really interesting is how badly someone can misunderstand the laws of physics. Why are you here in this discussion? Your knowledge base concerning any of this is so childlike that I can't imagine why you would want to discuss the topic. First, a solar cooker works because it is capable of absorbing short wave energy and radiating long wave. The atmosphere, especially so called greenhouse gasses are not. In fact, so called greenhouse gasses are completely invisible to short wave radiation and only capable of absorbing and emitting a very small and limited band of the longwave spectrum. Then the solar oven absorbs nearly all of the incoming shortwave radiation and emits longwave radiation and is capable of focusing the emitted longwave radiation into a very small area. The atmosphere has no capacity to focus energy at all. The atmosphere does exactly the opposite by serving to scatter LW radiation.
If you are promoting the idea of longwave radiation from the cooler atmosphere within the same bandwidth of longwave radiation emitted from the surface of the earth radiating back to the surface of the earth and being absorbed then you are violating the laws of thermodynamics. First, it would add to the amount of radiation being absorbed from the earth's only energy source thus constituting the creation of energy and violate the first law of thermodynamics, and would require that longwave radition from a cooler object flow to a warmer object violating the second law of thermodynamics.
You need to spend some time understanding the difference between long wave and short wave radition and the concept of focus before you try to analogize a solar cooker to the atmosphere. That attempt represents a truely foundational lack of knowledge of thermodynamics. You are doomed to lose this part of the discussion as surely as you lost the first because unlike you, I actually can do the math.
By the way, have another look at this graphic:
Do you think it is coincidence that it shows the entire surface of the earth being irradiated at once? Don't you think that k-t might have illustrated the earth as a sphere, dark on one side if that was how their energy budget represented the earth? Hell, they even took the time to illustrate every continent so that no misunderstanding woud happen and yet, you completely misunderstood, even when k-t stated that their budget irradiated the entire surface of the earth simultaneously.
