Stefan- Boltzmann equation debunked???

[The Big I]

Hey All I am currently have a discussion with a AGW sceptic on another site and he has produced these documents to disprove AGW
htese are the siteshttp://climaterealists.com/attachments/ ... edited.pdf and http://climatology.suite101.com/article ... gas-theory

Any ways I'm not full bottle with the Stefan Boltzmann theory in regards to blackbodies but from what the article say that with the Apollo missions it was noted that the moon was heating up when apparently it shouldn't (the article claims) according to the Stefan-Boltzmann the NASA scientist came up with the theory that the 2d blackbody is incorrect so they had come up with an improvement to the equation.Anyway climate scientist use 2D blackbody in their calculation instead of the newer and much more accurate 3D blackbody calculations knowing that there is an much more accurate version, is this true that the CS are knowingly using therefore lying about AGW how can I contradict his c &P?

[Grog]

3D blackbody? This is fucking retarded. It is obvious climate scientists does not treat the earth as a perfect blackbody with nothing else going on. What gave these idiots this idea?

[higbvuyb]

It looks to me like they're basing their claim that "Treating the earth’s surface as a blackbody...is the first assumption climate science makes when predicting the earth's temperature" on an undergraduate climate science lecture.

[higbvuyb]

This is just nonsense. Even applying the Stefan-Boltzmann law in the most basic of forms would require you to consider the heat capacity of the moon. If you didn't, and you're considering a rotating moon, you wouldn't be able to derive surface temperature because you would have the equation to tell you how much energy is going in/out at whatever temperature, but you wouldn't know what the change in energy is doing to your temperature.

To get their graph, they've probably done something dumb like make radiance of sun (W/m^2) = stefan's constant * T^4.

You can assume that they're basically arguing that all of climate science is based off something you could work out for fun using high school physics.

[Wyrm]

The Stefan-Boltzmann law, even augmented by an emissivity term, ϵ, only refers to grey-bodies, where the propensity to reflect or absorb does not depend on the frequency of the light. This is not the case for real bodies. To go beyond a first-order calculation, you need to consider the fact that the Earth has color — emissivity as a function of frequency.

The Earth's atmosphere is almost completely transparent to visible light, which is where the Sun emits most of its heat. It is not so transparent to infrared light, which the Earth would emit most of its heat due to its temperature. Without greenhouse gasses, the Earth would freeze solid.