Thomas O'Reilly

This might be relevant: to help you improve your writing style.

"... Read the source however many times it takes to be able to tell others what the source says, without looking at the source.Paraphrasing means you use the source’s ideas, but you put those ideas into your own words and sentence structure." from https://www.coursehero.com/file/p3lf8nv/Is-CUTTING-AND-PASTING-a-good-idea-PARAPHRASING-Determine-that-the-source-is/

Otherwise, it's as though you can't process information, or think for yourself. You can think for yourself, right?

Thomas Oh Really says
"Yes, and they also know that ALL heat is generated by the Sun and if it wasn't for our Atmosphere we'd already be fried and frozen daily."
Right after saying
"Please stop trying to masquerade as someone with intelligence or who has true knowledge about Climate Science."
Looks like the old "Pride goes before a fall" is true.
Here are a few of the myriads of other sources of Heat on our planet.
"Like a hybrid car, it taps two sources of energy to run its “engine” – primordial from assembling the planet and nuclear from the heat produced during natural radioactive decay.

They may be able to quatify this by 2025?
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14735543.Amount_of_fuel_left_in_Earth_s__tank__will_be_known_by_2025/

Now this one might be via the sun but it may not
"The four planets that influence the most the solar surface through tidal forcing seem to affect the Earth climate. "
http://gpcpublishing.com/index.php?journal=gjp&page=article&op=view&path%5B%5D=443

A lot of the tremendous energy released by a lightning strike could also come from deep space.
"Scientists have come up with a few possible explanations for how lightning gets going, and the new technique could eventually discern between the options. One is that chunks of ice and water in a storm concentrate the fields, creating small regions that are strong enough to spark. Another controversial idea is that cosmic rays themselves might initiate lightning, thanks to the charged particles they leave in their wake."
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/04/cosmic-rays-could-reveal-secrets-lightning-earth
Thomas and the IPCC will need to wait untill the science is settled for all the above. Oh but wait there is more.

Keep Shrugging Thomas. Here is some more heat for you.
Starlight is bringing us heat from outside our solar system.
"If the universe is static, homogeneous at a large scale, and populated by an infinite number of stars, any sight line from Earth must end at the (very bright) surface of a star, so the night sky should be completely bright. This contradicts the observed darkness of the night."
Wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox#/media/File:Olber%27s_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif

Ok we all know that gravity waves have been detected recently. Do we know how much heat they transfer to us?

Aidan above has said "heat comes from solar energy and particles from space interacting with particles in the thermosphere."
Thanks Aiden.

Now if one hundred billion neutrinoes go through our thumbnail every second and then right on through the planet or vice versa, do we know how much energy they transfer to the planet via non contact magnetics? What about how much they transfer to our Van Allen belts?
"Energy and momentum losses in the process of neutrino scattering on plasma electrons with the presence of a magnetic field."
"The results we have obtained demonstrate that plasma in the presence of an external magnetic field is more transparent
for neutrino than non-magnetized plasma."
http://cds.cern.ch/record/581549/files/0209196.pdf
Oh just call it trivial and ignore it even if it could be more energy than we get from the sun.

Then there is dark energy. Does anyone know what it does, what it is and if it exists?

Jennifer,
I stopped reading O'Reilly’s posts during your last essay here when I learnt that when he is presented with incontrovertible evidence contrary to his agenda here, he either does not respond, changes the subject or presents a tirade of irrelevant links, or abuse and whatnot other distractions.
For instance, I‘ve no idea if he tried to look at the UK Met office graph cited above although I notice the link I provided is inactive and would need to be pasted into a browser which might be a tough ask for him. Here it is clean (hopefully):

http//crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.png

If it fails again just paste it into a browser.

I wonder if others here predicting a horrible death for their grandchildren have no desire to learn that that may not be the case.

It is funny how when a challenge is put to provide experiments to show that CO2 has no impact on radiative forcing none have been provided, says it all.

On 16/9 at 7.19pm:

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.

Not able to do so, then denier arguments are but a facade without foundations.

AGW CO2 science cannot produce experiment or any evidence to show how greenhouse gas increases sea surface temperature in different locations but not globally at the same time.