Understanding the 'greenhouse' effect

[louise]

At Dr Judith Curry's blog, there has been an attempt to explain how additional CO2 in the atmosphere contributes to an increase in temperature. Judith states "So, if you have followed the Climate Etc. threads, the numerous threads on this topic at Scienceofdoom, and read Pierrehumbert’s article, is anyone still unconvinced about the Tyndall gas effect and its role in maintaining planetary temperatures? I’ve read Slaying the Sky Dragon and originally intended a rubuttal, but it would be too overwhelming to attempt this and probably pointless. Has anyone else read this?

I’m asking these questions because I am wondering whether any progress in understanding of an issue like this can be made on the blogosophere. Yes, I realize there are a whole host of issues about feedbacks, sensitivity, etc. But the basis of greenhouse don’t seem to me to provide much intellectual fodder for a serious debate."

judithcurry.com/2011/01/19/pierrehumbert-on-infrared-radiation-and-planetary-temperatures/

[marchesarosa]

Did Louise read any further than the openening paras by Judith Curry? Did she read "Climate Etc" at all or did she get her pointer from a "How to Argue with a Skeptic" crib sheet?

The comments following Judith's introduction are interesting. Here' just one from cagw_skeptic99:

"The unknown unknowns clearly rule the theoretical environment of today, and it doesn’t appear that significant resources are being directed at discovering them. Most of the money goes into stronger and stronger drum beats for the choir that sings at CO2 true believer’s religious events."

When 50% of all climate research funding ( a suggestion of Dr Roy Spencer) goes into investigation of Natural Variation we will have a much better understanding of current climate as well as more insight into the future.

[louise]

I think I agree with Bart Vergheggen when he states

Reading most responses here, I think the answer to Judith’s question tips heavily to a “no”.