Specifics, please.

However, clearly the question of the interaction between cosmic ray primary and secondary particles with the atmosphere and there impact on cloud production isn't well understood,.....

the question is what happens when it's all released again.

Being as you claim to be the expert in this area, how is it you are so blindsided by it as a potential explanation for the majority of climate change?

Much of the AGW hype assumes a positive feedback that ignores CO2 effects on plant growth instead of the normal negative feedback provided by plants.

An alternative is to implement draconian policies that pit energy and food needs against each other and the environment and create resentment levels leading to war including civil war on a global scale. All this on questionable science based on circumstantial evidence ignoring unknowns with clear political and profit motives for those most involved with pushing the policies.

So, it will be interesting to see whether a causative relationship does exist. Time will tell I suppose.

I would never compare this science with that of the 2012 crowd, however. It's one thing to say the science is dodgy, but to compare the hypothesis of a legitimate academic with a fear-mongoring pseudoscience is more than unfair.

In any case, I don't agree with the concept of the op; climate is such a complex system. There's no reason to think there can't be a large number of factors that enter into the equation.

It seems that we're finally getting past the idea that the science is settled and we're continuing to learn more. Not a bad thing, for sure.

Oh, and I'd say flyguy did a fine job with the whole "greenhouse" thing.

The new scientific terms:

Claiming to have "debunked" by repetition of the claim is not refutation.

I'd say that the B.S. is really getting higher on this thread.

your rant about CO2 being the culprit of all the "warm" weather doesn't hold water. especially when we're experiencing snow storms/ blizzards, and the like getting consistently early each year.

If you get your head out your but long enough to see through your visor you'd see that just because a bunch of brain washed, guilt ridden koolaid drinkers believe in what they're scared into believing by rote just doesn't work in the real world. your rant about CO2 being the culprit of all the "warm" weather doesn't hold water

Don’t think so? The propaganda is so predictably repetitious that the rebuttal(s) is(are) as easy as referencing a previous post from months ago. Check out The Collective’s message 231 of:

http://forums.plentyoffish.com/10593991datingPostpage10.aspx

The fallacy of assuming a relatively uniform temperature and pressure gradient in the atmosphere (and one DOES when they compare it to “layers of paint”) is well known. This is the SAME fallacy of the 1901 experiment used to “refute” the GHG effect. It was wrong then. It is wrong now. It was wrong the first ten times (and that is a modest estimate) you mentioned it. It will be wrong no matter how many times people repeat this subterfuge online.

At no time did I claim uniform distribution of gasses in the atmosphere but you claim I did. I simply claimed at the surface, the absorption is near 100% within a few hundred feet. How is an explanation of the science propaganda?

In general, more CO2 will promote more plant growth in a self regulating negative feedback reducing the pressure to destroy more rain forests.

The first part of this is statement is quite questionable... Increasing CO2 50% doesn't cause many (if any) plants to grow 50% faster, because photosynthesis rates are most often limited by the amount of light available (not CO2), as well as by the amount of water and other "nutrients" available.

Bruce Kimball, a research leader of the Water Conservation Laboratory of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Phoenix, Arizona, has pulled together nearly 800 scientific observations from around the world measuring the response of food and flower crops to elevated CO2 concentrations. The mean (average) response to a doubling of the CO2 concentration from its current level of 360 ppm is a 32 percent improvement in plant productivity, with varied manifestations in different species.

however, does that take into account human impacts on vegetation?

One of the interesting projections I heard about once is the long-term future for Earth's biosphere in which, ironically, carbon dioxide could become in very short supply.

A 'green' movement needs to happen and happen quickly. But it shouldn't be because of a fear of AGW. It should be because it just simply makes friggin sense.

Since the wind does not blow constantly, a full capacity fuel based generator network needs to be maintained with an expanded transmission grid to collect power from the disperse turbines.

I have to admit I voted against him and certainly did not favor his deficit spending but he did end the morass of the Carter years and ended the cold war. This ended new production of nuclear weapons, freed Eastern Europe and started a long economic growth period in the US and the world. I agree, there was way too much conspicuous consumption. The current president, like Reagan, was elected for his charisma but is clearly bringing back the morass of the Carter years and makes Reagan deficit spending appear paltry. His total lack of resolve in dealing with the world’s bad boys appears to be leading to a new nuclear arms race among terrorist states. I don’t recall Reagan’s cabinet being full of tax cheats. I hope Obama doesn’t bring back disco.

I recognize that there are those who are inclined NOT to believe any government funded scientist, or for some other reason are convinced there is no basis to believe human activity could have any significant impact on climate.

This caught my eye, as I recently learned of an effort to resolve this issue through a new form of large scale, high capacity battery:

I recognize that there are those who are inclined NOT to believe any government funded scientist, or for some other reason are convinced there is no basis to believe human activity could have any significant impact on climate.

Actually, that's an interesting point because a lot of funding for research comes from government coffers, and yet a couple of governments have actually been philosophically opposed to the concept of AGW. So clearly the science is not actually serving any political agenda .

Neither of these exaggerations is accurate.

As an example, the government funded research into Iraq’s WMDs. In general, people will do what they are paid to do regardless of who pays.

The history of man would not be so full of war and destruction if it were not for power given to or taken by governments. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I'd agree...however, the source is up for debate.

So where is the actual refuting? At no time did I claim uniform distribution of gasses in the atmosphere but you claim I did. I simply claimed at the surface, the absorption is near 100% within a few hundred feet. How is an explanation of the science propaganda?

One very close analogy is to refer to the bands as colors in a similar fashion to visible light split through a prism. That is where an analogy of paint colors comes from. Repetitious claims referring to yet more repetitious claims of some phantom refutation still doesn’t refute anything.

How do you explain how a specific wavelength of IR can be absorbed by a substance that simply cannot absorb that wavelength?

Its like painting a red car red over and over. It's still red. More red paint does not change that.

There is very little solar heating in the polar regions to heat the ice and most of that is reflected by the ice unless there is something to make the ice darker, say volcanic dust. It should be clear I am not a drone that accepts some collective consensus but I actually think for myself and try to understand the physics. After all this time, I am still awaiting explanations.

The real green house effect is primarily clouds reflecting radiated IR. Since the earth is traveling in a vacuum, the only cooling mechanism it has is radiation. The wavelength of the IR being radiated is determined by the chemical bonds of the substances involved. For earth, that is mostly water. Convection heating of the atmosphere would require that the gasses of the atmosphere be able to radiate in long wave IR to effect any cooling. CO2 can radiate heat from the earth’s atmosphere into space as can water vapor and clouds. In short, the real heat retainer is clouds just as it is on Venus.

Labeling me a denialist is an inaccurate simplification implying I favor unrestrained squandering on fossil fuels.

My concern is how the record of environmental destruction so far in the name of reducing CO2 does not bode well for the even more destructive initiatives on the table. The poor science behind the AGW theory goes hand in hand with the poorly though out schemes to fix the problem. The immense profits to be gained by those who are nothing more than non-productive parasites allude to less that honest motives.

In general, more CO2 will promote more plant growth in a self regulating negative feedback reducing the pressure to destroy more rain forests. The CO2 will also help the rain forests survive all the other crap we subject them to as well as reduce the land needed to grow food. In reality, the fossil fuels are biofuels. Wind turbines are a threat to migratory birds and likely a threat to climate that farming depends on. Ethanol directly competes with food production and creates pressure to use energy optimal crops resulting in massive sea life destruction from the algae blooms. PV cells at first seem like a good idea until one compares the energy they produce with the energy needed to make and deploy them. All these fixes are good in moderation and have their place but the Inconvenient Truth is that the AGW movement is not about moderation but profit and power of the few over the many. Nothing epitomizes the hypocrisy more than soon to be billion air Al Gore flying around in a private jet raking in millions from AGW fear mongering.

You consistently ignore the fact that the atmosphere has a pressure temperature gradient by conveniently mentioning only the incidental that saturation of absorption occurs near the surface. Your implication has been that adding more CO2 will not make a difference (all viewers can find that in the links provided in that post.) Your intent is quite clear. No amount of coy, “that’s not what I meant” is going to take that away. You simply base your whole “The Greenhouse Gas Effect is flawed” theory on that false premise.

This is about climate science and not mitigation strategies.

Tell us all why contradictory observation isn’t enough to discount Shaviv’s hypothesis.

That is another testimony to the resilience of The Collective’s argument.

Lol. This old straw man again?

Truth is, aren't all elements are exactly that. Otherwise, they would have vastly elongated signatures in a spectrum instead of narrow absorption and emissions features. And yet, have you not indicated that other gases such as methane are far more efficient as aborbers? As for water vapour, yes that makes sense as a broadband absorber, however, even its efficiency is going to be at a peak level.