A challenge has been put out to Roberts by a Geologist:

http://theconversation.com/our-planet-is-heating-the-empirical-evidence-63990

Anybody who holds the number of conspiracies held by Roberts, can not be taken seriously.

A clip showing the action of light and CO2:

http://vimeo.com/32056574

The 11 year ARM study provides greater sophistication in showing forcing in the natural environment.

Disagree with the experiments and studies, please produce experiments that CO2 and radiated infrared do not create warmth. Just verbiage/sophistry is a non-answer.

sherro1
Speed is the main thing. It takes 100,000 or so years from the centre of the sun's gas. The moon is quicker :
" When sunlight hits the moon's surface, the temperature can reach 253 degrees F (123 C). The "dark side of the moon" can have temperatures dipping to minus 243 F (minus 153 C)."
easy come, easy go. Probably a couple of minutes ?
For a 1 degree rise in this place there must be a tiny decrease in speed of yesterday's heat leaving. ( even if heat cools faster from a higher temp). Maybe someone compared sun's gas density : speed with change on earth.

You reference geophysicist Dr Sandiford writing in The Conversation.
A few posts back from here, I gave a description of processes that are completely at ease with Dr Sandiford' description.
What was the purpose of quoting Dr Sandiford in respect of processes found in text books?

The hound says:” Tin foil hat time again.”
I knew the hound was deficient in the top storey, but was not aware of the depth of his stupidity.
I thought Max Green was the only one to use this particularly stupid fraud promoter’s slogan.
It is no surprise that the IPCC have been shown to be wrong again.
When they predicted global warming because of the increase in CO2, global warming stopped. Their unproven hypothesis on the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere has failed.
The surprise will be if they are ever proved to be right about anything.
John Ryan shows that the fraud promoting nutters are active with his particularly incoherent post.
Bigmouth O'Reilly is out again with reams of irrelevance and lies. It is pointless to direct a rational statement to him as he is incapable of rational behaviour, aren't you, bigmouth.

Sliggy, the coolant is a metaphor. The point is, increasing the temperature of the coolant flowing in would reduce its ability to absorb heat, even though once it's hotter it would indeed radiate out more heat.

To put it in more general terms, every engineer should know that any change that reduces a dynamic system's ability to lose heat cools it.

And yes there is (very slightly) more up than down to radiate at.

And you're correct that the thermosphere is cooled by CO2 – but there's so little CO2 (and indeed so little of any substance) in the thermosphere that its effect on temperatures below is negligible.

________________________________________________________________________________

ttbn,

Looking at, and exaggerating the significance of things that climatologists are already aware of, treating it as a new discovery and coming to easily debunked conclusions is not actually "learning the truth". You only think he's learned the truth because his conclusions fit your prejudices.

________________________________________________________________________________

runner,

If people pointed out that human activities including pollution and overfishing are affecting the squid population, would you accuse them of being arrogant enough to think they can regulate the squid population?

If not, why do you make similar accusations relating to climate?

________________________________________________________________________________

Leo Lane,

I pointed out a few months ago that the blog post on which you had based your accusation that "global warming stopped" was years out of date and the conclusion was now untenable – global warming continues and the notion that it had ever stopped was just an artefact of using cherry picked statistics.

So why do cling to the silly belief that it's stopped when the evidence clearly shows otherwise?

Air cools stuff as it passes over or through it. Were this not so, our radiator cooled engines would overheat. Blowing on the soup spoon cools the soup, and as warm air passes over water, some of the retained heat is transferred to the water, which is also heated by direct solar radiation.

Turn on a fan and soon your sweat soaked body starts to cool as the moisture on your person starts to evaporate, to add to the atmospheric moisture.

Endlessly repeatable experiments, which produce endlessly repeatable results are the very cornerstone of good science!

Several samples of air can be collected and contained as measured cubic metre samples; with the Co2 content removed the drop in measured temperature is just 0.05C, whereas, with the moisture content evacuated, the fall is 30C! Repeat all day to get exact same result!

Proving that the real GHG, may well be H2o? And seen during the dead of winter, when a cloudless night, even in the inland tropics, can produce frost. Conversely an overcast night is generally considerably warmer.

Co2 is an excellent fertilizer, which promotes verdant plant growth, (the greenhouse effect) and increased plant growth generally equates to additional moisture aspiration via the lush improved growth. Thus increasing the atmospheric moisture content or humidity. Which then, just as we see on an overcast night, increased humidity equates to higher temperatures, thanks to the thermal blanket that is atmospheric moisture.

Wind action can and does transfers some of this heat to water, which reacts by producing further increased atmospheric humidity!

Round and round it goes, where it ends nobody knows! In the interim, none of our prospects or economy will be harmed by the rollout of thorium based cheap, clean and inherently safe energy! Just the very opposite! Now tell me Jenny, what the deleted expletive is your problem with that!?
Alan B.