Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ???

[h-j-m]

At Roy Spencer's site his article Global Warming 101 I read that the idea of global energy balance (incoming=outgoing) is the very core of the case. During quite some battle at skepticalscience.com argument #54 "2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory", which I quit in the end when next to all replies where nothing more than ad hominem attacks in disguise, of cause I tried to become familiar with the second law of thermodynamics.

Now, with respect to a of global energy balance I remember one point of the second law of thermodynamics that blows the whole idea out of the water. Having scanned this thread to make sure this was not mentioned earlier I am ready to go.

The point is that according to the second law of thermodynamics an energy conversion (transformation of one form of energy to an other e. g. pressure to kinetic) at total efficiency (efficiency = 1) is impossible. Radiation getting absorbed by matter of cause is a energy conversion. Matter emitting radiation is another. Therefore the equation energy in = energy out violates that law. Looking at the Trenberth et al. diagram I can estimate at least three times when such a double conversion (radiation to matter, matter to radiation) take place. That is impossible!!