you purposefully ignorant troll... why do you lie? I have proven this to you over and over. Its from NASA and it was proven with experiments. Nasa created an experiment with statellites and proved that CO2 is also a very effective coolant. If you even understood that co2 captures and then re radiates you would understand the same property can either cool or warm depending on where the gas is located and where the energy is coming from. Its seems you would rather be ignorant than learn science. here is the experiment.... https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/ For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.
Fair enough, but please do try to get to it. It's very interesting. Especially the Nir Shaviv research into solar affects on cloud formation. This work presents an entirely new hypothesis for which colleagues in Denmark have already obtained direct, experimental, evidence. It appears to be very high quality work. This may be the missing piece to the puzzle. Somehow I am not surprised. Shaviv is a Brilliant young physicist! We will hear much more from him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nir_Shaviv#Prizes_and_awards
here is the key to why your debunking is not on solid ground...your debunker made a claim about clouds which is not borne out by recent scientific research. The recent studies have shown that more clouds may mean warming or cooling depending on which type of clouds they are and where they are located. High clouds tend to keep warmth in. Lower clouds like the clouds in the tropics keep warming out... https://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/role.html In order to predict the climate several decades into the future, we need to understand many aspects of the climate system, one being the role of clouds in determining the climate's sensitivity to change. Clouds affect the climate but changes in the climate, in turn, affect the clouds. This relationship creates a complicated system of climate feedbacks , in which clouds modulate Earth's radiation and water balances. Clouds cool Earth's surface by reflecting incoming sunlight. Clouds warm Earth's surface by absorbing heat emitted from the surface and re-radiating it back down toward the surface. Clouds warm or cool Earth's atmosphere by absorbing heat emitted from the surface and radiating it to space. Clouds warm and dry Earth's atmosphere and supply water to the surface by forming precipitation. Clouds are themselves created by the motions of the atmosphere that are caused by the warming or cooling of radiation and precipitation. If the climate should change, then clouds would also change, altering all of the effects listed above. What is important is the sum of all these separate effects, the net radiative cooling or warming effect of all clouds on Earth. For example, if Earth's climate should warm due to the greenhouse effect , the weather patterns and the associated clouds would change; but it is not known whether the resulting cloud changes would diminish the warming (a negative feedback) or enhance the warming (a positive feedback). Moreover, it is not known whether these cloud changes would involve increased or decreased precipitation and water supplies in particular regions. Improving our understanding of the role of clouds in climate is crucial to understanding the effects of global warming. Atmospheric scientists have learned a great deal in the past many decades about how clouds form and move in Earth's atmospheric circulation. Investigators now realize that traditional computer models of global climate have taken a rather simple view of clouds and their effects , partly because detailed global descriptions of clouds have been lacking, and partly because in the past the focus has been on short-term regional weather prediction rather than on long-term global climate prediction. To address today's concerns, we need to accumulate and analyze more and better data to improve our understanding of cloud processes and to increase the accuracy of our weather and climate models.
"Get'em outahere" I say. Stu, you've got to be joking. That guy Christopher Keating, I don't care if he studied physics one semester on line. Hell I don't care if he graduated from Antonelli College with honors in animal husbandry , or even if he has actually met Barbara Bush! I can tell immediately from his comments that he is not a competent scientist. I am not saying he never was; I am saying he is not. (present tense.) This is a ridiculous response of yours. And on top off everything, like a tiny Maraschino Cherry atop a giant mountain of Cool Whip, he ('Prof.' Keating) refers me to a science journalist. Give me a break! Pleeese.
Experts can conjecture stuff and set themselves up to rule imaginary kingdoms. It suits the introvert personalities that are drawn to science to do that and they do it in every area they inhabit [infest would be a better word]
hey, climate denial IS religious Me neither piezoe. Hell I don't even care if Keating doesn't support Trump! I don't care either if the Shaviv guy is an Israeli-American physics professor , carrying out research in the fields of astrophysics while failing rather miserably to make a splash with his own cosmic ray hypothesis on the side. Although rumor has it he's now trying to adapt his wonky research into making hand held ray guns for space cadets. The real question is, does anything Keating say against Nir Shaviv's ideas have real scientific merit. So why your (ridiculous) response attacking Keating the messenger If you were being in any way serious about trying to understand the science behind the statements rather than hold a dogmatic determination to refuse any evidence that spoils the climatard belief system, it would have been just as easy for you to take into account information in the second link I gave. Ah but that debunks Shaviv too and by scientist(s) more than competent . But you ignored it, presumably because right there, is a professor of Space Environment Physics directly concerned with the subject, who finds the science on solar influence affecting global and regional climate - does not support Nir Shaviv. You presumably attack the messenger because as a climate denier you would read in the link the simple fact that actual temperature records are completely inconsistent with any of the solar forcings Shaviv talks of. Maybe you should be more skeptical of your own denial. But quite frankly, no amount of denial or protest or refusal to understand it, is going to be any more scientifically reliable than a horse on a staircase. and yeah john oliver's end of season show is especially brilliant. Check it out!