Also forgot to say that another source of info similar to this is Realclimate.org run by many of the original scientists who wrote the papers at NASA/GISS in NY. They have years of scientific information.

See reply above. CO2/GHGs does NOT trap photons It absorbs the photon and since it is then at about 900C it vibrates and transfers the enrgy to the neighboring molecules within microseconds which then radiate energy up or down & complete the continouous energy in equals energy out process. If ther are no photons available the GHG doex not absorb one. This is why there are continuously excess GHGs available ie there is cold water and CO2 in the air and the ocean. If you want more warming than the normal 33C then you HAVE to add more energy photons. The sun has to increase (it hasn't changed since the 1960s) or we have to get more energy from gravity such as when the moon in its eccentric orbit gets closer.

Tom I am working on a full reply It takes time. Start with this & I will get to 2, 3 & 4 soon I hope.

Tom. thank you very very much for reading thinking and then rsponding. Usually I do not get responses. Naturally I disagree with your conclusion that my arguments are weak. If ind that some of then are so strong that they completely invalidate the conventiaonal IPCC scenario. But be that as it may I will explain my take on each of your 4 concerns.

1.The thermal Inertia Concern: I do NOT think raising the temperature would make it such that the energy out exceeded the energy in at equilibrium conditions. Given that daily fluctuation due to Earth rotation will change the temperature by +/- 15- 20 degreesC, then we will be at equilibrium probably within a day, or at most 2. I agree that the T^4 relationship of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law (SBL) would result in more energy radiated out at the higher temperature. BUT the amount radiated out changes with the temperature Once it reaches equilibrium it stops or ceases to increase past the equilibrium in equals out. The out can change. The in can NOT change due to Man's influence. The in is dictated by sun & gravity etc anything Man does on the planet can only change the energy out.. Energy out equals energy in, ie the in dictates the temperature. Since the energy in is always the same (solar plus gravity plus potential energy) then the temperature has to always be the same (at equilibrium- ie the energy in dictates the temperature). Only adding more energy in can raise the equilibrium temperature. We know that gravity and eccentricity changes the energy in on long cycles due to orbital eccentricity. I claim that it is this long cycle change that dictates the long Earth energy cycles. ie the 1998 and 2010 (12 years and 60 years Jupiter resonance orbit with Saturn AND Venus- 199-. 1940 and 1998) apart earth energy peaks are dictated by the gravity from Jupiter's 12 year Earth orbit. When Jupiter is closest the energy coming in peaks and maximizes the temperature. The IPCC analysis FAILS to address gravity or potential energy at all. The sun solar insolation and the GHE causes, they say, 33C of warming. So where does the other 255K come from? I claim gravity and PE. Any changes in measured temperature come from changes to the total energy in. which dictates the equilibrium temperature. The sun adds 15-20C every day & takes it away every night. Part of it is by increasing the GHE contribution. The sun's gravity adds a significant fraction of the 255 left. But it changes very little on a year over year basis due to Earth eccentricity as the Earth goes fro 0.98 AU out to 1.02 AU in winter. The proximity of Jupiter to Earth changes based on Jupiter's 12 year orbit goes from 4.5 AU to 6.5 AU and back. This variation while smaller that the suns solar insolation change is more than enough to account for the observed 0.7 to 1 degree variation over the 150 years of temp measurement. These variations are summarized in the Gravity causes Climate Change paper. The full Wobble Theory paper (all 250+ pages) documents the magnitude of the variations and that Jupiter is the largest change while Venus being closer but smaller and varying from 0.26 AU to 1.75 AU accounts for another significant change. When you combine the two peaks Jupiter at 4 AU and Venus at 0.26 AU such as in 1998 and 2010, you get the addition of energy peaks that exceeds the individual contribution, AND it results in a variable energy input that results in the variable Earth peak equilibrium temperatures. the change in temp due to the GHE can not account for the temperature decreases. Cyclic gravity due to eccentricity can and does. The full Wobble Theory paper ( avasilable at www.scribd.com for $10) identifies these variations and shows that the changes in gravity correlated to the observed GISP2 temperature peaks for thousands of years. not just for the 150 years of measured temps. The problem with the Vostok temps etc is that they also are localized at specific points AND they use 300 year data points. They will not identify the changes that happen from the cooling in 1880 to 1910, or the cooling from 1940 to 1970, or the warming in between. because the sampling data points are too far apart to identify the 1880, 1940 and 1998 peak or previous peaks. Penn State's Richard Alley did a fantastic job of sampling GISP2 data ten years apart. BUT he still thinks CO2 causes the warming. Theory is not his strong suit. You can use his data and orbital data to identify that GISP2 data point peak at the same time as the peak in Jupiter reaching its closest point for thousands of years back every sixty years as far as the orbital data goes (2000BC) The correlation is almost perfect.

Jimmy,
I appreciate your reply.
I struggled with the same question.
We are in an equilibrium situation energy in equals energy out. Whenever a GHG absorbs a photon it becomes unavailable to absorb another photon (for a few microseconds). It does return to the ambient temp (since the photon came from the ambient temp air & is returned there is no change in temp!) & is ready to absorb another photon. Apparently it takes many absorptions & releases before a photon gets to space. The key point for me was that by the time the GHG is ready to absorb another photon we have progressed to where there is another set of energy coming in. from outside. We get 1366 plus or minus 0.5 since the 1960s. watts/M^2.or watts is energy per second (IDed by an Australian from ANU working for the US Navy in Wash DC) It all gets down to the timing of the process. Does the few microseconds of absorbtion balance the energy in and energy out. Apparently the Stefan-Boltzmann Law (SBL) says that if the temp is warmer (ie a photon from teh ground is absorbed & the energy return to the air (warmer as you say) then the SBL WILL automatically based on the temp to the fourth power radiate more energy out faster until it returns to equilibrium at the speed of light. ie The air/globe is ALWAYS at equilibrium. thus energy in is instantaneously fixed but the energy OUT can only change by the SBL. It can NOT exceed the equilibrium (ie be warmer) or else the SBL radiates faster. On this basis If there is ONLY limited energy photons coming in, being absorbed by the ground/ocean and reradiated as IR for the GHE, AND we have the situation where more GHGs does not result in warming, (more humidity does not increase the temperature) AND we have the ocean having lots of GHGs just sitting there, then you have to conclude that there are more GHGs than photons at any one instance of time. THUS the IPCC models where more released CO2 GHGs immediately absorb a photon while there are many others just sitting in the air are wrong. Why don't all these others just absorb the new photon instead of only the man released CO2 absorbing them? MY answer is that with limited photons coming in, they must all get used by only some of the existing GHGs, You also have a nightly reduction in temperature results in more GHGs being released to the excess in the air whenever the temp and the GHE reduces. When man adds more they do not absorb a photon because there are no more unused IR photons (the photons are all in use generating the existing 33C of GHE temp) This is why the GHE is limited to 33C In spite of more rain and more ocean making more GHGs available. So if more GHGs are added by man they do NOT cause warming just more excess GHGs, There is no feedback because all the water available has already occupied all the photons. The amount of warming from the GHE is therefore dictated by the amount of energy coming in, which is balanced by the equal amount goiing out by the SBL. Hence Arrhenius in his 1896 paper where he concluded that (in IPCC words) More GHGs means more warming" was wrong. He should have found that more energy means more warming as happens every morning. The proof being that every night the energy in decreases, the GHE decreases, the temperature decreases IN SPITE of the number of CO2s increasing. Arrhenius is contradicted every night.
You can NOT get more warming than equilibrium because the Stefan Boltzmann Law WILL increase to radiate it out in order to maintain equilibrium. If this is true then the temperature is dictated by variations in the incoming energy, not by what man does . The solar insolation can change (which it hasn't) or you can get slow changes in energy from gravity ie The moon causes annual changes in tides. when it gets closer to Earth around Xmas. I used to get high tide waves come crashing over the swimming pool walls on the headland every Xmas when I was growing up in Sydney. but only when the moon was closer to cause more energy. Jupiter and Venus change the amount of energy in also when they get closer to Earth . They coincide to cause extaordinary warming when it happens together in 1998 and 2010. the recent temperature peaks. When the planets start moving away (Oct 2010) the energy decreases and we get cooling such as the 2010/11 very cold northern hemisphere winters. The change form HOT to cold happened when both Jupiter and Venus started to move further away, decreasing the energy in. The colder temps mean that the air can't hold as much moisture. So we get more rain and floods. Bottom line Man can not reduce or increase teh temperatuer away from equilibrium with the energy coming in. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law counteracts any changes automatically instantaneously. Only adding in more energy in or decreasing ti can cause Earths temp changes. Man can NOT destroy energy so he can'NOT make it globally colder or hotter. He can do it locally eg a refrigerator but if it gets colder in one place it gets equally hotter elsewhere. This is how high & low pressure weather systems work.

I am a retired nuclear engineer who became interested in global warming about 4 years ago, and have been studying it ever since. The article takes all the scientific malfeasance issues that the AGW promoters are guilty of and assigns them to the skeptics--an easy way to make an argument. All of the comments by John Dodds are absolutely correct.

I would like to add the point that Radiated E/M energy from planets etc (measured by satellites) is NOT the sole form of energy out. There is also energy in the form of Gravity and as magnetic field energy.
The argument that satellite measurement balances or doesn't tthe E/M energy coming in as solar insolation is irrelevant since both are incomplete..
It is a fact that Jupiter radiates more energy than comes in as solar insolation. (likewise for planets further out. This argument for the Venus temperature is not complete.

If you accept the Arrhenius 1896 conclusion that "more GHGs means more warming," then you get Michael's viewpoint and the IPCC "true believer" accepted view. and the recent Joe Romm conclusion that a reduction in Solar insolation due to reduced sunspots will NOT diminish the "forcing" by GHGs. (just how can simply adding a GHG which does NOT add any energy result in more energy for warming?)
HOWEVER, If you accept the idea that that it is not the GHGs but the energy change in the number of photons (caused by insolation and gravity and potential energy) absorbed by the GHGs in the GHE, then you get one of the "denier" viewpoints (Cotton & Dodds etc Wobble/cycle theory) that the number of energy photons, NOT the number of GHGs, causes warming, in the greenhouse effect.

This BASIC assumption/conclusion results in the current conflict.
Once you choose the IPCC "side" you get the conclusion that GHGs force warming, and hence all the numbers quoted about forcings etc. You also get the logical (but wrong) ROMM conclusion that reducing sunspots & solar insolation will not reduce the energy in and temperature, even though teh Hansen/Jones data assumes per IPCC that Solar Insolation is the SOLE source of warming energy.
You also get the derivative conclusions that more GHGs causes warming, that economic conclusions are similarly derivate etc that you get damages from warming & more cyclones/hurricaness cause more damages, AND all the derivative Science that draw conclusions base on the ASSUMPTION that more more GHGs cause warming,

If you choose the denier conclusion that energy photons not GHGs cause the warming, then you get the derivative conclusions that a reduction in sunspots and the number of solar insolation photons will result in cooling (& the little ice age cold- not from the number of GHGs). This also says that many if not all of the conclusions from derivative science work that relies on the computer programs (which are programmed with the more GHGs means more warming conclusion) then many of these derivative works are flawed.

In conclusion this basic conclusion by Arrhenius, AND its slant or emphasis on GHGs instead of energy photons, results in the current conflicts.

Mr. Brown, You can start with http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/05/hyperventilating-on-venus.html. CO2 does add several dozen or so degrees to the surface temperature, but is not responsible for the 400 or so extra degrees.

Well this what the IPCC say:

Narrowing the uncertainty in cloud feedback may require both improved parametrizations of cloud microphysical properties (e.g., Tsushima et al., 2006) and improved representations of cloud macrophysical properties, through improved parametrizations of other physical processes (e.g., Williams et al., 2001) and/or increases in resolution (Palmer, 2005).

A s far as I am aware a consensus that is barely constrained by observation would be best described as the experts' best guess, would it not? Is that really an adequate basis to re-engineer society from on high?

Cloud formation and the sun is the subject of the CLOUD experiment at CERN. Nothing may come of CLOUD, but I don't see why anyone holding themselves out as a disinterested expert could ignore CLOUD if they are going to comment on the effect of the sun on climate.

That's strange; the title is:

On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications

Richard S. Lindzen1, and Yong-Sang Choi

It was published:

May 22, 2011 18
Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences

And the Abstract is:

We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea 26 surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) 27 outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000-2008) satellite instruments. 28 Distinct periods of warming and cooling in the SSTs were used to evaluate feedbacks. An earlier 29 study (Lindzen RS, Choi Y-S (2009) Geophys. Res. Lett. 36:L16705) was subject to significant 30 criticisms. The present paper is an expansion of the earlier paper where the various criticisms are 31 taken into account. The present analysis accounts for the 72 day precession period for the ERBE 32 satellite in a more appropriate manner than in the earlier paper. We develop a method to distinguish 33 noise in the outgoing radiation as well as radiation changes that are forcing SST changes from those 34 radiation changes that constitute feedbacks to changes in SST. We demonstrate that our new method 35 does moderately well in distinguishing positive from negative feedbacks and in quantifying negative 36 feedbacks. In contrast, we show that simple regression methods used by several existing papers 37 generally exaggerate positive feedbacks and even show positive feedbacks when actual feedbacks are 38 negative. We argue that feedbacks are largely concentrated in the tropics, and the tropical feedbacks 39 can be adjusted to account for their impact on the globe as a whole. Indeed, we show that including 40 all CERES data (not just from the tropics) leads to results similar to what are obtained for the tropics 41 alone – though with more noise. We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST 42 fluctuations exceeds the zero-feedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, 43 the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed 44 SST are less than the zero-feedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize 45 these models. The results imply that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity.

I might add that Spencer's work in respect of climate sensitivity has been subject to revisions:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/Spencer-and-Braswell-08.pdf

http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/spencer-braswell-jgr-20101.pdf

And that Spencer and Braswell conclude a similar climate sensitivity to Lindzen and Choi; 0.6C to 0.7C.

The profound aspect of Lindzen and Choi's finding is that there is no equilibrium sensitivity; the temperature response we have from the existing level of CO2 is all we are going to get and there is no further 'pipeline' heating.

As I say, this is profound and susbstantially undermines the doomsday predictions emanating from the IPCC.

Tim, did you factor in the oceanic heat absorbing effect?

I also claim zero climate sensitivity for CO2 & methane etc. I claim that it is the number of energy photons, not the number of GHGs that cause the changes in temperature. If you add CO2 you will ONLY get more warming, IF and ONLY IF you add more energy photons to the added or already excess GHGs in the air. When you reduce the number of photons you reduce the GHE every night, every winter, every 60 years, every 900-1000 years etc. in spite of adding more GHGs/CO2
If there is no change in the number of photons, then adding or reducing the number of GHGs (Cap & Trade) will have NO IMPACT on the temperature. Add more water when it rains & it does NOT change the temperature.
This is why clouds etc have a zero feedback and sensitivity. All the clouds do is locally move the temperature around. They do NOT change the number of photons.
This is why cosmic rays & the increase in cloudiness have zero impact. They do NOT change the temperature. They do NOT change the number of photons SIGNIFICANTLY. The only impact of Svenmark's(sp?) cosmic rays have is that the cosmic rays add a very tiny amount of energy photons. The impact is trivial. The derivative clouds just move the energy around to a non cloudy part of the sky.
The conclusion is that while you can change the number of GHGs by Cap & Trade etc, you can NOT change the number of photons. Any reduction is photons by geo-engineering or blocking sunlight, will NOT change the energy from gravity. Any such reduction in temperature will be compensated by the Stefan Boltzmann Law which at the reduced temperature will reduce the energy radiated out UNTIL we return to the equilibrium temperature dictated by the total energy coming in (Mostly from gravity- which man can NOT change)

One other point. The GHE happens whenever and wherever a photon is absorbed by a GHG. ie in the air, and underground where the inner Earth temperature is a sea of IR photons. Any underground methane ALREADY is subject to the GHE. just as it is when it is released to the air. Moving the methane (releasing iit to the air) does NOT result in an increase in GHE warming. It just moves the temperature around, but not the global average. there is NO added warming unless there is added photons to interact with the already excess of methane in the globe.

You seem to be under the impression that adding CO2/GHGs adds warming (ie what IPCC says.) If the world is always at equilibrium, and it results in 33C of warming, AND this requires that all of the available photons are in use (continuously), then if you add CO2 (which we do!) it can NOT undergo the GHE because there iare NO More photons available to be used. for more GHE or for feedback The only way to get more warming is to add more photons to get more absorbtion and the added photons causes more GHE & the warming. If an added CO2 catches the photon (with NO added energy in), some other CO2 does NOT & the temp stays the same. More CO2 or water vapor just adds more excess GHGs unused by the GHE . Just like when fewer energy in photons every night results in fewer GHE absorbtions which resutls in MORE unused GHGs released to the air BUT it cools , not warms with more GHGs..This is a common sense balance. The IPCC claim is JUST PLAIN wrong. The real claim should be that more energy photons means more warming, and fewer photons means more cooling. as proven by the Sun every day and night..
I may have mis spoken trying to balance the mass of stratosphere etc. I meant to balance the energy, as in energy in equals energy out.. The amount of energy lost to the colder stratosphere, does not balance the energy gained in the warmer troposphere, ground ocean, and the rest of the Earth. especially if the sole source of energy per IPCC is solar insolation which basically has not changed since the 60s. The IPCC analysis is illegally creating warming energy (unless they can identify a source of added new energy (eg gravity!)

Jimmy, Thank you for asking the questions, & letting me provide my answers. I think your contribution will provide some answers to people questioning the IPCC science. However as Gavin says (below) you will not convince me.

Your last question first: There is a 250+page paper called "John Dodds Wobble Theory of Global Warming" available in www.scribd.com that calculates the forces of gravity of each of the sun and planets as a function of time & prioritizes them.. The reason it is not in the summary "Gravity causes Climate Change" is practical - no one will read it. its too long. It provides some of the detailed calculations you want.
The reason I thought of my model is that the IPCC model left unanswered questions that do not make sense. Yes the greenhouse effect (GHE) exists but why is there left over, not used in the GHE, CO2 and water vapor on Earth? My answer because the limited amount of incoming energy all gets put to use. If it is all in use, then you can not get any feedback because there is no more energy available for it. If there were more energy, it would get used by all the GHGs in the ocean.(before you add more CO2)

It is inconsistencies like this that tell me the IPCC model doesn't work. My major complaint is that it treats the problem on a limited basis. (all It fails to address other parts of science (gravity and Potential energy) and the effects they have. It doesn't look at the total big picture. It says that warming happens only in the air between the stratosphere & troposphere/Ground & the GHE creates energy to account for feedback etc BUT then it immediately claims that energy comes form the underground/Earth every night to continue to cause the GHE at night. There is a whole laundry list of inconsistencies. the major one being the failure to comply with the Law of Conservation of Energy.
I will attempt to go thru your comments (which actually represent the whole workl's concerns) and point out your inconsistencies.

Jimmy: "Concerning your model of IR radiation through a GHG: This should be demonstrable in a lab, do you have any references for laboratory tests in support of this model? "
JD: NO lab experiments that I'm aware of. Depends, Do you count Mother Natures Lab known as "Reality"? Daily we have energy-in increasing(sun solar insolation in the morning) & decreasing (reduced sun in the evening.) CO2 increases the whole day but mostly at night when its colder & man burns hydrocarbons to warm up. SO if GHGs cause warming by themselves (ie "more GHGs means more warming" per Arrhenius & IPCC), WHY does it cool down at night when there are more GHGs? Could it be that the amount of energy, not the GHGs causes warming? Could it be that the IPCC model is full of SH**? Could it be that more solar insolation in the morning reacts with some of the excess GHGs in the air, and helps cause a small amount of warming (20C daily rise out of 287K total), but given that there are tons more GHGs, available that the amount of energy-in limits the amount of GHG warming & what about my Pet Rock's warming? THIS PROVES that the IPCC model is not a valid explanation of warming. So, What is? Lets agree that the GHE exists, that the temperature goes up & down & has been increasing since 1970s, and that the GISS/CRU temperature measurements and Ice Core (GISP2) estimates (p7 of "Gravity causes..." Paper with the current warming added in at the end- this chart alone puts an end to the statement that there has not been a similar warming in the past ), are reasonable estimates (even with Climategate's few missing or extrapolated data points) & try another theory. Try my Wobble theory or Gravity theory? At least it accounts for the reality of Warming and Cooling AND agrees that the Greenhouse Effect is real (but trivial). According to IPCC we have a continuous increase of GHGs, which means the temperature can NOT go down. in spite of what reality says.

Jimmy: "The proximity of Jupiter to the earth and any associated changes in gravitational potential energy have no effect on earth's temperature.
JD: why? Says what authority? Doesn't the Moons gravity cause tides and tidal energy? Actually it is a combination of the Suns & Moons gravity (about 50/50) but who is quibbling!) Again says who? Are you claiming that the gravitational movement of the oceans (& the liquid core) does not create movement that creates friction that creates heat?

Jimmy:"I don't dispute that gravitational potential energy can be converted into heat, like when a space shuttle re-enters earth's atmosphere, but in the case of Jupiter there's no thermal interaction until it crashes into earth.
JD: Jupiter radiates gravity waves of energy! which the Earth intercepts which cause movement which causes friction which causes heat. Sun also radiates gravity wave energy, and E/M solar insolation wave energy. Since the solar insolation always pushes the Earth OUT, but the gravity pulls it IN, and the Earth is in a constant variable orbit, then the gravity wave energy MUST win out and be larger than the solar insolation E/M energy.

"Gravitational potential energy is not heat until it gets turned into heat. A pendulum converts gravitational potential into kinetic and back without generating any heat except for a little by friction. There's no friction between Jupiter and Earth. Gravitational and magnetic fields are not radiated as energy out, they're just fields. "kighthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_potential_energy#Gravitational_potential_energy
JD" Sorry Jimmy you need to restudy your basic physics. Solar insolation is just an electromagnetic field (E/M)- that transfers energy at the speed of light. Gravity is just a field that transfers energy at the speed of light. Magnetic Fields are just a field that transfers energy at the speed of light. They are all forms of energy . Heat is kinetic energy molecule vibration IF you convert heat/KE to Potential Energy/PE, you can NOT measure the PE directly BUT when it becomes PE the energy has to come from somewhere: the KE source because of Conservation of Energy. If you get more PE and a corresponding less KE you get cooling because thermometers ONLY measure KE. Just like satellites only measure Kinetic Energy or temperature but not PE. You can have PE storing energy (as Jupiter gets further away) or moving KE to PE and back etc . Satellites only measure part of the story.

Nobody ever said that there would be no radiation out of the earth at night. The earth is still warm enough at night to radiate, according to the Stefan boltzmann law as you've mentioned. It doesn't matter that there's no incoming light at the time, it would take a lot longer than a night for the earth to cool to the same temperature as outside space. OK, so it fluctuates warmer - cooler over time.

I'm not a proper scientist myself, just a young engineer, so I apologize for not being able to reference established work.
I disagree with your characterization. Apparently you have physics, thermo etc or most of a basic science education. What you do NOT have is all the specialty stuff to get a PhD. You should and ARE capable of arguing the basic principles (as I do, I only have a Masters in engineering & 40 years experience) Who cares if you do not quote the original source of Newton's Law of Gravity- its in a textbook!
Jimmy:Most of the things you say are inconsistent with basic things that I learned in school and university physics, mechanics and thermodynamics. JD:Again I disagree.
JD:Most of the things I say are based on my thought processes to get to the conclusion. What you are missing is all my basic assumption (like IPCC theory doesn't work). If we both agree on the basic education we would probably agree. It just takes a lot of communication like this to get the agreement. As long as we both argue science!

Some of the things you say seem to misrepresent current science e.g "How do you explain that at night the ground radiates and the GHE continues even though there is no incoming solar insolation energy." JD: I assume that energy-in in the morning results in the measured GHE, Since there is no solar insolation energy in at night then there is no solar insolation caused GHE at night, BUT yes the Earth ground radiation causes a reduced GHE at night. Most people (non -scientists/engineers) do not acknowledge this. So if energy out sends out more energy in the morning, & less at night, AND the energy-in only happens in the morning/Day, just where does the Earth continuously get the energy that it radiates at night? If it balances (ie we are at equilibrium) then the energy of the Earth core should be reducing every night but it doesn't. There MUST be a source of energy that works at night. (Lets try gravity!)

Jimmy: or "What about conservation of energy? In order to be warmer you have to have absorbed more energy Your scheme does not."(sure it does, the energy reflected by the GHGs.)
JD: First GHE energy doesn't exist by itself., it is just borrowed from the solar insolation energy photons coming in. A photon adds energy from somewhere else (the sun or gravity), the GHG does NOT It is a passive molecule. It can NOT create energy) Second the energy from the GHE is trivial (0.7C rise after 100+ years) compared to solar insolation (10-20C rise daily.) What you were missing was my incomplete argument & the basis for my statement. I think we probably agree when you add in the basis.

Perhaps if your paper "Gravity Causes Climate Change" provided a better explanation and better evidence for the proximity of planets causing warming through gravitational potential energy, or more data from lab experiments supporting your model of GHG CO2 interaction, then my thoughts would be different.
JD: Try going to my 250 page Wobble Theory document ($10 at www.scribd.com) It identifies lots more of the basics, what the amount of gravity energy is, how much larger the SUN, Moon forces are than Jupiter and Venus etc How it varies with time. How the Earth warming temperature for 3000 years actually correspond to the gravity force variations, BUT the CO2/GHE variations do NOT. How the sun gravity contributes most to the 287 degree temp & the GHE and solar insolation variations only contribute about 33C to the total. ( Where does the rest come from?)

Jimmy: I will not contribute any more to this discussion."
JD: OK, your choice. BUT I bet you will continue to think about it until you have resolved the whole issue. I've already done my thinking. I concluded that the IPCC model is not valid. I am a convinced DENIER., I believe the GHE exists but does not contribute to warming since it just borrows Solar insolation energy, I believe were getting warmer 1970-1998 or 2002. I think I can also project that it will get colder for 30 years of Doug's (and my) 60 year cycles. Doug and others identify it. I identify that gravity causes it & how it varies). I think the 12 year Jupiter/gravity forced sub-cycle will make it get colder for 6 years from Oct 2010 (the closest point- minimum PE), with a Jan 2014 warming spike due to Venus gravity causes- see force or energy prediction chart in Ch 4- p.8 of "Gravity causes Climate Change" , then warmer till 2022 (half a 12 year sub cycle), then colder till 2028 (or about 30 years from 1998) Then it will get another 30 year warming sub-cycle caused by the Jupiter/Saturn resonance gravity effects. The question is what is the magnitude or it? Will it warm more than 1970-98? or less?What causes it? Does GHE contribute? or is it gravity? and PE?. I have my prediction in the Wobble Theory paper.
You are already on your way to who knows where??. You are asking questions & getting part true answers. You will evaluate the whole question and come to your own scientific conclusion. (I think it will probably match mine, since you ask too many damn good questions & do NOT accept what does NOT seem to be valid.) This exchange hopefully will help convince others and put a stop to the fraud that more GHGs means more warming" and forcing me to pay a fortune to control CO2 when it will not do a single thing to cool the planet. Its all in the energy, which Man can NOT control. Thanks for the questions, and good luck. - John

"Venus: No Greenhouse Effect" is at

http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html