When Judy Curry on August 13 2011 gave up the idea of DLR/backradition after a long debate on my article on blackbody radiation in Slaying the Sky Dragon, she did not understand that this effectively meant that she gave up CO2 climate alarmism, as is now evidenced by her criticism of her former alarmist buddy Richard Muller and his BEST data.
But real science is logical. If you say A then you have to say B.
PS Two days later Curry again agrees with Muller and the criticism has faded, probably because of heavy backradiation.
There is no need of talking about DLR. It is enough talking about GHG(e g CO2) and the SB law.
SvaraRaderaI'm an engineer and not a physiscist. Claes, can you please explain why you cannot accept for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_green_house_effect.svg
SvaraRaderaThis picture is almost without quantitative content, in particular in the statement "some of infrared radiation is absorbed and re-emitted by the greenhouse gas molecules" which is fully obscure and opaque (= 0).
SvaraRaderaIf you find that statement obscure and opaque, the problem is with you, not with the statement.
SvaraRaderaAnonym @ 31Oct 02:32 Are you a registered engineer that should comply to a code of ethics that includes continuous learning? I am a registered engineer with some experience in combustion & furnaces (beside many other engineering topics). I like to learn. I do not have all the answers about how things work, but my experience indicates to me that no author of the IPCC reports and no climate scientist who advocates AGW alarmism has a full understanding of heat & mass transfer. Why do you not read Perry's Chemical Engineering Handbook before quoting bias edited (W Connolly has no engineering qualifications) Wikipedia?
SvaraRadera