Do you have a reliable source for that statement, or are you just making that up, as usual.
Where do you get that? If the earth were 4 times further away, the inverse square law would make the intensity 16 times less. Please cite a reliable source that says Trenberth's climate model "moves" the earth 4 times further.
Don't be silly. The cartoon is just a simplified picture of total average energy flow. The picture of the earth is merely representational. Just because the picture depicts a flat earth doesn't mean the model is flat!
You are wrong. Trenberth et,al. writes,
"Surface upward long-wave radiation is adjusted to account for spatial and temporal variability."
That is correct only around the equator at high noon. Even then, only half of the radiation is reflected before it reaches the earth surface. There is zero sun energy on the dark side of the earth, and the energy approaches zero toward the poles because of Lambert's cosine law.
Here you are correct. Trenberth uses this in his model. If you are trying to compute how much total average sun energy strikes earth, it is very simple. First, the sun energy over the total earth is divided by half because dark side receives no energy, second, the integral of Lambert's cosine law over the sunlit area divides the energy by half again. The total average sun energy is then 4 times less. That is where the factor of 4 comes in. From the illuminated area. Not from some fictitious moving of the earth by a factor of four. That factor is also where the value 341 W/mm comes from. In short, it is never noon everywhere at the same time!
You are getting your information from a totally screwed up source. Or perhaps you are making it all up.
You answered my first question on back radiation, but you did not answer my second question,
"...the diagram shows the earth surface is losing 493 W/mm where the radiation part is 396 W/mm as IR. Do you think that is accurate? If not what ball park figure do you think would be more accurate?"
