The "Physicist" seems to muddle energy with temperature. If you follow his theory a matt black surface left in sunshine would end up the same temperature as a white one - which I'm pretty sure (if only personal empirical data) isn't the case, at all.

   - Andy.

no but in a vacuum it certainly would.
The reason that the black bits of the cat get hotter in front of the fireplace than the white is that the absorption rate is lower for the white,  Now the emissivity is also lower, but in air the loss from radiation, even from 'radiators' is not the main cooling mechanism. Given a more or less identical cooling, but a variable rate of heat absorption vs reflection now the white bits are cooler.

If you force the only available heating and cooling mechanisms to be radiative, then a uniform black object and a uniform white one reach the same final temp, just the black one gets there a lot faster. But for satellites if we make things that are white, or shiny,  on the side facing the sun and metallically connected to things that are darker - i.e good radiators and absorbers, on the side facing away from the sun, now the equilibrium is not the same as if it was turned about.

The thing is we thrive only because of the fact that the surface of the earth is not all at one uniform temperature, much as a uniform land level would be no good to us either as it would all be flooded, just not as deeply as the deep bits are now.

Mike.

The planet circles the sun and rotates on its axis with a focal point at the equator of 1370 watts per square meter reducing to the poles then off into space via the Hadley cells. The physicist says an equilibrium will be found as the input energy is constant. It might bounce about a bit in the atmosphere as it works its way to the poles and beyond. And may alter temperatures over time as has been seen during the roman warm period and the little ice ages. 

Broadly true at the macro level. Ignores the variation in solar flux with the 22 year sunspot cycle and the variation in earth to sun distance through the year and indeed the fact the sun is running down with occasional hiccups. And ignoring that the temperature of thew atmosphere is quite different from top to bottom. It is colder on mountain tops for  a reason  - that model fails to explain ;-)
  A simple model like that will get you earth surface temperature within about 50 degree of what we actually observe - it is at  the level of the spherical or cuboid horse calculation.  Fine for the astrophysics degree and to eliminate planets where life is clearly impossible.

Unfortunately failing to understand the finer structure of that temperature distribution is fatal to humanity.
Mike.

Trying to unscamble what you say, the models that the IPCC profess to be proof of AGW only use the Northen Hemesphere where we have monitoring systems but only surface monitoring. They then use pure guess work to assess what's going on laterally.  Then say we're all doomed.

Do you take modelling over observation?

Because the UNs political arm do exactly that.

They use algorithms that are driven to show CO2 is the cause. Proove it isn't CO2.

All the models show way above observation nothing below.

Trying to unscamble what you say, the models that the IPCC profess to be proof of AGW only use the Northen Hemesphere where we have monitoring systems but only surface monitoring. They then use pure guess work to assess what's going on laterally.  Then say we're all doomed.

Do you take modelling over observation?

Because the UNs political arm do exactly that.

They use algorithms that are driven to show CO2 is the cause. Proove it isn't CO2.

All the models show way above observation nothing below.