Chris Ho-Stuart asks
“Here’s my question made as simple as I can make it.
is there thermal radiation coming from the atmosphere to the surface?”
Of course there is, why would you doubt that?
“It looks to me that you are saying that pyrgeometers are actually measuring a net IR flux (which is true) ”
Yes again and this net flux is 66W/m2
The most up to date report I have says this figure is subject to an uncertainty of 17W/m2
“Remember that the atmospheric back radiation scientists are measuring is hundreds of watts per square meter.”
The figures of hundred of W/m2 you quote are speculations based on whether or not their SB calculations are being properly applied, emissivities accurately determined, temperature changes accurately followed.
What they acctually measure is 66W/m2 but they admit that this figure might be as low as 49W/m2
Many commentators whose views I respect such as G&T think the DLR figures are inflated.
There is no doubt that the vast majority of climate scientists are diligent and follow the scientific method.
However on the release of climategate 2 it appears there are some leading figures who determine IPCC policy where this cannot be assumed.
They are working to an preconceived agenda and as such regard data as something to be interpreted in such a way as to fit their agenda.
Figures can be adjusted, worst case scenarios assumed, contradictory evidence ignored.
Figures like Phil Jones and Mann (of hockeystick fame) do not fill me with confidence
Their reluctance to release data is a wake up call for any who can follow and expose their anti-scientific method.
Huge financial interests are involved.
George Soros and other hedge funds stand to lose billions if the CO2.
driven greenhouse gas theory is faulsified.
In no other branch of Physics would they accept an instument as flakey as