This is physics misunderstanding. There's no such thing as "equilibrium temperature" between two systems. The zeroth law of thermodynamics is that all you need to know in order to tell whether two systems are at thermodynamic equilibrium with each other is the temperature. If they have the same temperature, they are at equilibrium, period. You don't need to know anything else.
In this case, a wall which only allows transfer of heat via radiation (say, two simple thin transparent walls that only stop particles with vacuum gaps between them) is a diathermal wall.
Climate arguments with laypeople is usually full of things that go against common sense thermodynamic intuition, and then the funny thing is that when you state the common sense thermodynamic intuition, which doesn't fit the narrative, they object to things which are as basic physics as you can get.
I bet that the confidence in climate change takes a nose dive with understanding of physics. It reaches a stable position somewhere of "well we're doing approximations too so without looking into it, maybe their approximations aren't so bad". If you do go looking into it in detail, you're either too invested to go against it, or you go against it and get cancelled / whatever, and then you're faced with a squad of believers who understand nothing but defend it with absolute confidence, with understanding that sounds more like caloric or phlogiston theory than actual modern physics.
There's a funny social gradient from climate modelers which know exactly how far away from the truth these models are, but still do the best that they can, to their managers, press releases, activists, politicians, where the entire thing looks like a game of broken telephone. And the honest people who say "I'm doing the best I can but I know it's not enough" are probably drowning in the shadow of those with dishonest conviction.
EDIT: to also correct a little simplification, you can prevent heat loss to radiation by reflectivity. But that's not the case with CO2 in the atmosphere, the arguments of greenhouse effect is not about reflectivity. Reflectivity would be the albedo of the surface, which is indeed important. But the atmosphere is completely negligible for reflectivity purposes.
Actually the model for the greenhouse effect is pretty simple, climate models are much more sophisticated than that for example CESM have about 5000 equations as the model takes into account interactions between the biosphere and the atmosphere, clouds and carbon stocks. But greenhouse effects is a really simple you can implement it yourself and verify the results, here's a good start https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealized_greenhouse_model
> EDIT: to also correct a little simplification, you can prevent heat loss to radiation by reflectivity. But that's not the case with CO2 in the atmosphere
CO2 absorbing some infrared light and transmitting it back to the earth is a form of reflection.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeroth_law_of_thermodynamics
In this case, a wall which only allows transfer of heat via radiation (say, two simple thin transparent walls that only stop particles with vacuum gaps between them) is a diathermal wall.
These arguments aren't anything new, there's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_law_of_thermal_r...
Climate arguments with laypeople is usually full of things that go against common sense thermodynamic intuition, and then the funny thing is that when you state the common sense thermodynamic intuition, which doesn't fit the narrative, they object to things which are as basic physics as you can get.
I bet that the confidence in climate change takes a nose dive with understanding of physics. It reaches a stable position somewhere of "well we're doing approximations too so without looking into it, maybe their approximations aren't so bad". If you do go looking into it in detail, you're either too invested to go against it, or you go against it and get cancelled / whatever, and then you're faced with a squad of believers who understand nothing but defend it with absolute confidence, with understanding that sounds more like caloric or phlogiston theory than actual modern physics.
There's a funny social gradient from climate modelers which know exactly how far away from the truth these models are, but still do the best that they can, to their managers, press releases, activists, politicians, where the entire thing looks like a game of broken telephone. And the honest people who say "I'm doing the best I can but I know it's not enough" are probably drowning in the shadow of those with dishonest conviction.
EDIT: to also correct a little simplification, you can prevent heat loss to radiation by reflectivity. But that's not the case with CO2 in the atmosphere, the arguments of greenhouse effect is not about reflectivity. Reflectivity would be the albedo of the surface, which is indeed important. But the atmosphere is completely negligible for reflectivity purposes.