The transfer of thermal energy by radiation is discussed in the context of the Earth's surface and its atmosphere. When considering what happens as the Sun is warming the surface each morning, it is noted that its radiation is being directed onto the land surfaces and some distance below the surface of the oceans. So, additional radiation supposedly transferring further thermal energy from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This law must apply (on a macro scale) between any two points at any particular time. An apparent violation cannot be excused on the basis of "net" radiation, because "net" radiation has no corresponding physical entity and is meaningless and useless for determining heat flow in situations when other processes are also involved.
It may be deduced that none of the radiation from a cooler body(and only a portion of the radiation from a warmer body) has any thermodynamic effect on the other body.
All such radiation from a cooler source is rejected in some way,and it can be deduced that resonance and scattering occurs without any conversion to thermal energy. The radiation continues in another direction until it strikes a cooler target, which could be in space.
Furthermore, the stability of sub-surface temperatures will tend to maintain the observed close thermal equilibrium at the interface between the surface and the atmosphere. Hence other heat loss mechanisms are likely to adjust, in order to compensate for any reduced radiation.
Some commonly raised questions are answered in the Appendix, where there is also discussion of temperature trends and climate cycles, as well as counter arguments for several possible objections to matters raised herein.
to download PDF file and read FULL report from Douglas Cotton, B.Sc., B.A., Dip. Bus. Admin at Principia-Scientific.org
Doug Cotton is yet another scientist showing that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere plays an insignificant role in resonating against a small percentage of the total surface emission. The new PSI recruit added,“It's important to highlight the difference between thinking of a barrage of equal photons, compared with a picket fence (just a few spectral emission lines) from CO2 up against the flood of all frequencies coming from the surface. “
Open Media Peer Review: the Future of Science Publishing?
What is unique here is that the pioneering 'peer review in open media' (PROM) requires authors to be responsive to real time criticisms and suggestions from fellow scientists who, as reviewers, share notes and suggest improvements while third parties can watch as it happens.
Cotton's paper was put online and discussed among a panel of reviewers from various diverse disciplines for several weeks. This is the key to PSI's more robust assessment. “It's far better when outside experts add their voice to the review process, as was recommended by the Oxburgh Report (2010).” For those who don't recall the British government commissioned a panel of experts to evaluate evidence of misconduct by climatologists after the 'Climategate' scandal. The Report recommended more reviews by outside experts.
The PROM system addresses that need and encourages a real-time dialog between author and reviewers ensuring that feedback is heeded and acted upon. “This is the way more science should be done in this age of instant high-speed document transfer,” adds O'Sullivan. “The author got invaluable input from his reviewers and he acted upon the feedback he got, plus the reviewers were able to satisfy themselves of the validity of Doug's research because they saw precisely how the author collated his evidence and substantiated his findings.”
In a series of email exchanges the four reviewers, Dr. Matthias Kleespies (environmental scientist), Alan Siddons (radiochemist), Hans Schreuder (analytical chemist, ret.) and Professor Claes Johnson (applied mathematics) ensured that expertize from various scientific disciplines was applied constructively and thoroughly, unusual for the assessment of climate science papers.
Recognizing PSI is gaining a reputation for quality and integrity in an age of 'post-normal' government science, seventeen new members have added their names to this organisation's campaign for a return to traditional scientific values. Those values extol openness and full verifiability.
PSI is sending out a clear message that it has no faith in the current discredited system employed by mainstream science journals that are perceived as increasingly politicised. It does seem there are more principled scientists willing and able to shine the light of reason onto post-normalism and papers like Cotton’s add to that luminosity. “If we can get the politics out of science then sanity has a chance to return,” opined O'Sullivan.
Recently joined new members show the growing awareness of the impact PSI is beginning to make. 
A Policy Statement
addressing the thorny issue of 'post-normalism' can be found on the Principia Scientific International website. It's accompanied by an invitation to all concerned scientists to add their voice - either in a passive or proactive capacity - to the campaign for a return to old fashioned scientific values.
[1.] Cotton, D., ‘Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics,’
(March 12, 2012), Principia Scientific International (principia-scientific.org)
[2.] Alberto Miatello; Ulric Lyons; Dr.Gerald V. Todd; Joe Bastardi; Louis A.G Hissink; Dr. Jinan Cao; Ken Coffman; Dr. James O. Coles III; Dr. Dev Dangol; Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser; Robert Webster; Kevin 'K'; Robert Ashworth; Dr. Geraldo Luís Lino;Berthold Klein; Alan Caruba; Dr. Matthias Kleespies