what the fuck are you lying about now. I tell you on just about every thread... the same property of co2 that traps energy and shoots some of it to earth ... traps incoming energy coming in and shoots it back into space. I explain co2 acts like a blanket and a shield. I provided the NASA satellite experiment which proves it acts as shield. I have also explained there are studies which show that as you add more co2 its properties as a blanket decrease logarithmically. I also show you through peer reviewed paper by humlum and other peer reviewed papers that co2 levels trail changes in temperature. So why the hell would I deny co2 traps some upward IR from the earth and sends some of it back? you act like you are proving something. you just post the same shit with discussing any of the science which is not favorable to your superstition about co2. you are just a drone. If you wish to talk science... point out with science how what I said above is wrong. You will cease being a troll moron when you understand our atmosphere is a very complex system with negative feedbacks. If it did not have negative feedbacks we would probably have had a runaway heating situation and everything would have burned away.
I just wanted to comment that I am somewhat familiar with the Laken, et al. paper you cited. In this paper Shaviv's 2005 paper is cited without much comment. I think the Laken paper contains at least one serious error, Fig. 5, in that it is using GCR uncorrected for energy. Only Cosmic rays with energy greater than ~10 GeV can penetrate the earths atmosphere. This is the varying sub-component of TSI that affects ionization and cloud seeding. The other problem is that the Laken paper, like the IPCC and so many others, have tried to correlate cloud cover with TSI (total solar irradience), but of course cloud cover does not correlate with TSI. It is the ionization from CRF above 10 GeV that is correlated, not TSI. I don't see, therefore, the Laken et al. paper as a refutation of the Shaviv findings. The IPCC models do not of course attempt to model cloud cover, which is critically importnat. Shaviv is somewhere in the middle ground between the IPCC and Salby. His work indicates that Anthropomorphic contributions are larger than Salby has maintained, but considerably smaller than the IPCC maintains.
They'll make any, same and similar claims as GW deniers. I suggest for your own sake, you don't rely on your memory for anything important.
What is my point? Really!? Your point appears confused piezoe but thanks for expanding. It's like you have been hypnotized by the likes of Shaviv and Salby but at the same time recognize the flaws in their ideas, though you seem to want to step around them for no good apparent reason. Even if Shaviv's proposals were by some inexplicable means to be found valid, when you read through what he is saying, it is that there might be a relationship between solar influences and cloud formation but only in certain situations, though even then it wouldn't /doesn't / couldn't account for the exceptional increase in global warming. So he invents (I use the word loosely) or should I say - suggests the idea of an 'indirect mechanism'. The problem with that is, it doesn't change anything as galactic cosmic ray flux on Earth has increased over a corresponding period(a cooling effect)... " which is exactly the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures" as cited previously. So according to that fact alone, his 'indirect mechanism' may as well be down to fairy farts as it won't meet with observed scientific data in any event. The only measurable observable scientific explanations that do meet and can account for increased temperatures are man made emissions. Which was my point all along. So if anything, Shaviv is anyway indirectly confirming the overwhelming role of anthropic GW, as once again, natural causes, particularly the one he proposes, could not account for the observed rise in temperatures, even if he or you believe his idea has some sort of merit.
I wasn't aware I referred specifically to Laken. The observed data countering Shaviv is much more recent. I do however acknowledge your willingness to post the comment above, where we have Shaviv advising Salby that anthropic activity is greater than Salby is allowing for!! That really is the underlying point. It is specifically what the great preponderance of science finds. That the comparatively recent measured extreme increases in global warming can only be explained by the overwhelming Anthropomorphic contributions, not natural events. It is unconscionable why anyone in their right mind would even want to deny the fact.
I remember that in addition to being an imbecile, you have no sense of humor. Please continue to wallow in your miserable life.
This is appearing to be less and less likely as more studies appear. Go to 4:13 in the Nir Shaviv youtube video I posted a link to for a nice summary of IPCC problems. It isn't that anthropomorphic contributions aren't present. They are, and they are insignificant. Anything the IPCC doesn't know how to include in their models they find an excuse to ignore. This is a very convenient truth. https://screenshots.firefox.com/0pvuQdvuPjuZDUJx/www.youtube.com
When the only studies that appear to you as believable are Shaviv and Salby against overwhelming scientific evidence, then of course man made emissions will seem less likely to be relevant. But for you to say man made emissions are insignificant is, to put it scientifically, bullshit. Basically Shaviv and Salby would have better hypothesis for showing anthropomorphic emissions were insignificant if they just kept dividing current levels by 2 until reaching a figure they liked better.
Where on Earth did you get that idea? You must have read related threads I've contributed to? Even Hansen unwittingly has shown this to be the case if the feedback is negative, not positive. Positive feedback is a requirement to show a significant effect of rising CO2. (At the projected levels. CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas.) The mechanism for positive feedback is unknown (some assumed it was increased water vapor and thus clouds, but as you yourself pointed out, current understanding is that clouds are net cooling. ) In other words, positive feedback is assumed despite the absence of a plausible mechanism! However NASA Scientist (at the time) Ferenc Miskolczi has published a theoretical paper showing that negative feedback is a requirement of the observed energy balance. You can, therefore, add Miskolczi to your list of brilliant physicists who are throwing cold water on Hansen's hypothesis. As someone interested in science you should also be reluctant to accept the assumption of positive feedback in the absence of a plausible mechanism. By contrast, plausible mechanisms for negative feedback do exist. Because positive feedback systems are unstable and are driven to there positive limit, any proposed positive feedback mechanism must include an explanation of why we Homo sapiens still exist on this planet.