You should give it up Iceskater.
G&T claimed that there was no first principles physics that establishes the greenhouse effect.
The MCSV response to that claim was silence.
If there were first principles physics in support of it, say experiments in the vacuum of space, that would have been offered up in response in one hot second!
So what we have here is a theory. Theories are made to be first proven. All that skeptics can do is show proofs are unreliable. You have engaged in this thread pretending theory to be fact. You haven't and cannot back up that claim.
I see the whole thing differently and this derives from my experience in doing heat calculations for residences:
1) the two inner faces of a sphere inside of a sphere with the same surface area will radiate exactly the same. That creates a static condition of no heat interchange in accordance with science. We accomplish this little miracle by assuming that effective perfect insulation of the outer shell and a limited potential of 400watts to the inside of the inner shell. To avoid the geometric issue we are going to assume both spheres have the same surface area. Impossible but this point will not depend upon an expanding shell which will require a window for heat to flow.
2) The idea of the innerside of the outer shell also radiating 400watts will be realized by the perfect insulation.
3) heat will radiate from the warmer object at exactly the rate the 4th power rule dictates, but we have zero heat transfer and zero heating or cooling going on anywhere (conflicting with your model that a 400watt return of energy from the the outer shell will warm the inner shell) Nothing warms. If we measure these surfaces with an IR meter they will say 400watts or 17C.
4) nothing warms because the inner shell is internally heated with a radiant source of exactly what the inner shell radiates to the outer shell. If backradation was warming the innershell the warming would be infinite, the damn device would go nuclear in the blink of an eye. So that idea of backradiation warming the surface of the heated object is a pipe dream and the input source is already fully committed to warming the inner shell. It has no additional potential to warm something warmer than the 17C that a 400 watt stream of radiation can warm.
I believe proponents of your model look at a 400 watt input as having sufficient potential to push temperatures higher by continuing to deliver more and more energy as necessary to cause the outside of the other shell to radiate at 400 watts. But if the potential is limited to 400watts and the 400 watts input is subject to the engineering curve then no more energy will flow from the input when in equilibrium with the inner surface of the inner shell. Its identical to the the inner shell becoming the input source for the outershell. The toolbox curve says no exchange of energy between anything including the input source.
5) Ok now for the test. We strip some of that perfect insulation away from the outer shell. Heat begins to conduct through the outershell.
The conduction is slow because there is still a lot of insulation. So the interface is still supplying a 400watt potential to the inside of the outershell and heat flows from it through the shell to outerspace. You can take an IR meter and it will tell you the temperature of that shell is now based upon 400watts minus whatever the flow is through the shell. That figure in turn using the tool box curve will produce that flow from the inner to the outershell.
6) We continue to strip insulation and the flow through the outershell approaches 400 watts.
7) we strip more insulation from the outershell and the flow will not increase above 400watts because the rate of flow is restricted by the rate of radiation from the input.
While perfect insulation may be unachieveable its OK as a concept and one could substitute an external radiant heat source of 400watts in lieu of the perfect insulation.
This whole model is in 100% compliance with both Stefan's constant and the engineering toolbox curve. The variable rate of insulation is capped on the high end by the rate of radiation from the inner shell. The rate of cooling lower than 400 watts is determined by conductivity of the outershell. The energy flow from the input to the inner shell when the outer shell is perfectly insulated is zero. The inner shell in turn is providing a 400watt input to the perfectly insulated outer shell and getting 400 watts back for zero net heat transfer as well.
Both the source input to the inner shell and the inner shell input to the outershell are managed equally by Stefan's constant and the engineering toolbox curve. Both result in zero net flow of energy and zero warming above the 4th power rule for inputs. This is not the case with your model. Your input source continues to flow energy into the innershell contrary to the toolbox curve until 400 watts flows out through the outershell at 400 watts. It could care less if there is a 400watt energy source shining from the outside it will just jam those watts into that light bulb and make the current in the wires feeding it goes backwards. This is superwatt in action versus puny watt! See below for the schematic of this.
Its clear to me you are wrong in claiming somebody must adopt your model to stay in compliance with Stefan's constant and the engineering toolbox curve. I think you need to adopt the above model to do that.
Perhaps you could level a different criticism of this alternative model? And we can move past your half-baked ideas? or if you can't lets just move past your half baked ideas and move on to something else entirely.
Schematic of Iceskater's view of thermodynamics: