The Greenhouse hypothesis does NOT correctly explain Earth's mean surface temperature with radiation calculations, nor that of Venus. Hence there is NO evidence that radiation reaching a planet's surface is the primary determinant of its temperature. Real world data (over 30 years) indicates more moist regions are cooler. Water vapor varies between 1% and 4% whilst CO2 is 0.04%. Hence, we can get a rough idea as to what might happen if CO2 levels were 100 times as great (4%) by looking at regions that have 4% water vapor. These are COOLER than similar but drier regions at about the same latitude and altitude. The study is published in the Appendix of my 2013 paper and my book, both linked at http://climate-change-theory.com - where is there any counter study?

Ant
I have stated that Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation in ALL directions not just down.
Why do you keep on arguing with something no-one here at all has said? Do you have a reading comprehension problem or do you mean something else by "reaction" than re-radiation?

Siliggy

Did you not see this comment:

In relation to the energy created by green house gases; Skeptical Science says:

"An earthquake measuring 6.0 on the Richter Scale shakes the earth with the destructive energy of 6.3x1013 Joules. Since 1998, our climate has absorbed more than 2 billion such earthquakes (4.0 every second) in accumulated energy from the sun, due to greenhouse gases, and continues to absorb more energy as heat each and every day."

In 2006 Time stated climate change was a serious matter:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/03/29/3764068/time-global-warming-worried/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=cptop3&utm_term=1&utm_content=23&elqTrackId=b0abab3b9f484baea46c8a6758b5eba8&elq=ceace1f7d51e49ab871d8bb5a45384fd&elqaid=29616&elqat=1&elqCampaignId=5320

At that time the instability of the West Antarctic ice sheets was not known.

James Hansen et al, have also published a recent paper in relation to the breakdown of Antarctic ice sheets.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/22/james_hansen_sea_level_rise_climate_warning_passes_peer_review.html

A further new new paper in relation to Antarctica:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7596/full/nature17145.html

The Arctic is also not in good shape.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/28/arctic-sea-ice-record-low-winter

The pause has not ended. It will continue until at least 2027 for reasons here: http://climate-change-theory.com

Doug, last year was the hottest on record, and so far this year is on track to be even hotter. The pause, if it was ever anything more than statistical noise, is certainly over now.

How much hotter do you think it's going to get after 2027?

Richard Muller was a skeptic until he studied what was happening with temperature in relation to climate change. He had been partially funded by the Koch Bros.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTk8Dhr15Kw