tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post9098013911539008886..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Wondering Willis Eschenbach looks for sunlight in the Arctic winter - yeah, really!Souhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-51080104209211897242014-12-21T04:06:37.259+11:002014-12-21T04:06:37.259+11:00I am no fan of Anthony Watts. I have been banned f...I am no fan of Anthony Watts. I have been banned from commenting at his web site.<br /><br /> It is interesting to analyse how Eschenbach has used diversionary tactics to divert attention from the point made by the AGU press release on reflectivity changes due to decline in the Arctic Sea Ice coverage in the summer, which is a source of global warming feedback.<br /><br />The summer season is the most significant for global warming feedback analysis, because that is when the incident solar intensity is greatest, the days are longest and albedo changes are going to have the largest effect on global warming feedback through Arctic Sea Ice decreases. So Eschenbach was wrong to call focus on change in summer reflectivity in the AGU press release cherry picking. <br /><br />Of course it is clear from the graphs that Eschenbach analyses, that outside of the summer season, there is little very reflected radiation in the first place, and the change in reflected radiation in the other 9 months of the year going to be close to zero. So what Eschenbach is doing is diluting the decrease in summer reflected radiation, by effectively adding the zero changes in the rest of the year and pointing out that the changes over the course of the year are about a factor of 4 smaller. Any one with a knowledge of the basics physics could have seen that without the elaborate analysis the Eschenbach did. Of course for Eschenbach and Watts, any sort of flim flam is OK if it diverts attention from the point made by the AGU press release that summer Arctic sea ice is declining. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-72342167910476254752014-12-21T01:47:27.341+11:002014-12-21T01:47:27.341+11:00Sou, Thanks, but I agree it won't help. Howev...Sou, Thanks, but I agree it won't help. However it might interest for him to realize that his warm comfy home at 21 °C is bombarding his skin with 425 W/m^2 of thermal energy according to S-B with emissivity at unity. Of course, his skin surface temperature at 34 °C puts out 505 W/m^2, so his body contributes a net 80 W/m^2 to the ambient environment. Which is why he doesn't end up looking like a slab of beef on the barbie.<br /><br />While I have no moral compunctions about him Darwining himself in the name of science, the potential legal hassles compel me to suggest he limit this experimental protocol to the thought sort:<br /><br />1) Strip naked.<br />2) Go outside on a 0 °C day.<br />3) Try to figure out the difference between 505 and 316 W/m^2 before succumbing to hypothermia.<br /><br />That is all.Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-13546380174941158412014-12-21T01:07:44.449+11:002014-12-21T01:07:44.449+11:00Great work, Brandon. Your lovely charts should con...Great work, Brandon. Your lovely charts should convince Mack, but I doubt it. He'll probably argue that the instruments are wonky or something :(Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-20810914749610953612014-12-21T01:01:13.985+11:002014-12-21T01:01:13.985+11:00PS Mack wouldn't understand this, because he c...PS Mack wouldn't understand this, because he can't tell the difference between longwave and shortwave radiation, or the difference between radiation over the entire earth and radiation at any particular place on earth. Anyway, he got me curious about how longwave varies over a day. I found this paper, which measured diurnal variation of longwave radiation at the surface in Brazil, if anyone is interested. Look at Figure 3.<br /><br />http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0102-77862011000300010&script=sci_arttextSouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-89939832894742884512014-12-21T00:57:46.292+11:002014-12-21T00:57:46.292+11:00Oh look, someone else who doesn't understand n...Oh look, someone else who doesn't understand net flux, and who can't be arsed to look at the observational evidence against his deliberate ignorance. About the coolest thing Willis Eschenbach has ever written about is the SURFAD network: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/index.html<br /><br />That time he actually did some decent analysis and it was more than a bit amusing to watch the WUWT peanut gallery roundly ignoring what one of their own was telling them.<br /><br />For giggles I took the annual and monthly mean fluxes for four SURFRAD stations and compared them against the same means for CERES EBAF surface fluxes:<br /><br />https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1C2T0pQeiaSdVUtLTE4TlhCdTg<br /><br />Trenberth's cartoon holds up rather well to my naive back-of-napkin simple averages.Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-28558439615895094212014-12-21T00:48:36.468+11:002014-12-21T00:48:36.468+11:00"Well Sou, you can believe that there's a..."Well Sou, you can believe that there's about 324w/sq.m of "backradiation" beating down from the atmosphere all night"<br /><br />belief? there are actual measurements of downwelling infrared taken with pyrgeometers that show the atmosphere does indeed radiate infrared towards the earth's surface. it's as real as sunlight.<br /><br />cabcAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-15900506969242622282014-12-21T00:48:25.451+11:002014-12-21T00:48:25.451+11:00Mack, I can tell you haven't even looked at th...Mack, I can tell you haven't even looked at the page I referred you to. That's because it referred to energy budgets not just the one from Drs Trenberth, John T. Fasullo, and Jeffrey Kiehl from 2009, but also the one from Drs Kiehl and Trenberth from 2007; one from NASA based on Norman Loeb et al (2009) and Trenberth, Fasullo and Kiehl (2009). <br /><br />And then there's the energy budget diagram used in AR5, which is the one I was talking about and which wasn't from any of those. It was from the 2012 paper by Martin Wild, Doris Folini, Christoph Schär, Norman Loeb, Ellsworth G. Dutton, and Gert König-Langlo. Not a Kevin Trenberth in sight.<br /><br />The fact that you didn't read my previous comment, where I wrote that solar radiation here can reach 1360 Watts/m^2 in mid-summer, quite a bit more than 161 W/m^2, tells me you have a very short attention span, can't digest information and/or don't have the wit to do so.<br /><br />The fact that you cannot distinguish between solar radiation at a particular location at a particular time of day with particular weather conditions, and the solar radiation averaged over the whole world, tells me you have no head for numbers. Not even very simple primary school level arithmetic.<br /><br />Why you suddenly bring in the "themosphere" (sic) I don't know.<br /><br />Finally, the fact that you are a hard-core physics denier tells me there is really no point in responding any further after this. As Marco reminded me, <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/08/sack-australias-biggest-laughing-stock.html?showComment=1408255406453#c7341576828585930347" rel="nofollow">you are a flat earther as well</a>. <br /><br />The comments so far will be sufficient to inform any lurkers who might be wanting to find out about radiation; and sufficient to let everyone know what a silly duffer is the person who posts as "Mack".Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-64166490741212319502014-12-21T00:21:32.369+11:002014-12-21T00:21:32.369+11:00Well Sou, you can believe that there's about 3...Well Sou, you can believe that there's about 324w/sq.m of "backradiation" beating down from the atmosphere all night...(according to Trenberth's looney Earth Energy budget cartoons) keeping you warm. (actually keeping you bloody hot considering you've only got 161 w/sq.m. from the sun during the day), but I'll stick to the real world and ignore climastrologists who've artificially terminated the Earth's atmosphere at the tropopause, Loeb et al 2009, either that they don't want to think much further than the clouds because that's where the climate is...but more likely they don't want to consider the themosphere because it buggers up their nice little "greenhouse" theory completely. <br /> Macknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-17765183432026257772014-12-20T23:42:44.506+11:002014-12-20T23:42:44.506+11:00MWS, indeed it is the same Mack. He is also the fl...MWS, indeed it is the same Mack. He is also the flat earther from some time back on this blog.<br /><br />Completely impossible to educate, as he has decided the scientists are wrong and therefore must be wrong (no, not a mistake, I really meant to write that). Hence his inability to provide a direct reference and he thus has to do with a vague and thus incorrect handwaving reference.Marconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-52997051367707932282014-12-20T23:22:11.826+11:002014-12-20T23:22:11.826+11:00Jammy, he was referring to the chart that Everett ...Jammy, he was referring to the chart that Everett put up, which was for a completely different period, only 31 years - 1980 to 2011, compared to Mack's AR4 reference, which was from 1750 to 2005 or 255 years. Big difference.<br /><br />Everett's AR5 chart - not equivalent to Mack's: <br />http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig8-20.jpg<br /><br />Mack's AR4 chart - not equivalent:<br />http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure-ts-5.jpeg<br /><br />Latest AR5 chart that would be equivalent to Mack's:<br />http://hotwhopper.com/Charts/IPCCAR5Fig8-17.pngSouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-46225249132614486942014-12-20T23:13:14.155+11:002014-12-20T23:13:14.155+11:00"... I only referenced the IPCC AR4 and AR5 ....<i>"... I only referenced the IPCC AR4 and AR5 ..."</i><br /><br />Mack<br /><br />So, on what do you base your statement "drop to 0.75watts/sq.m in the AR5"?<br /><br />You cannot just brush off a request for a reference. As far as I can see you have only given one table reference for AR4. <br /><br />What is your reference? 3rd request ...<br /><br /><br />Jammy Dodgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08360437479098314946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-37916319533125804702014-12-20T23:10:52.703+11:002014-12-20T23:10:52.703+11:00I'll add, that in June on a sunny day, solar r...I'll add, that in June on a sunny day, solar radiation at the surface here is lucky to get to 600 W/m^2 at its peak. On an overcast day it may not even reach 100 W/m^2 at its peak.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-41707637371568911742014-12-20T22:49:37.231+11:002014-12-20T22:49:37.231+11:00Mack, did nothing sink in? Did you not understand ...Mack, did nothing sink in? Did you not understand <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/12/wondering-willis-eschenbach-looks-for.html?showComment=1419068157584#c4798865867245690542" rel="nofollow">what I</a> and <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/12/wondering-willis-eschenbach-looks-for.html?showComment=1419065732924#c3154794235709205771" rel="nofollow">others</a> wrote? It's your brain that has trouble "functioning", not anyone else's here. You may have referenced charts but you don't understand what you referenced. You're unable to interpret them.<br /><br />I'll put on my mentor or schoolmarm hat and suggest that next time you are tempted to put your fingers to the keyboard and write nonsense and click "publish", <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/01/unbalanced-at-wuwt-earths-energy-budget.html" rel="nofollow">follow links</a> you're offered and read them. Ask questions if you don't understand - if you realise that you don't understand that is. If you are at the limits (or beyond, as in this case) then just read and learn. Don't go showing off your ignorance. We're all embarrassed for you, even though you aren't. (Read <a href="http://psych.colorado.edu/~vanboven/teaching/p7536_heurbias/p7536_readings/kruger_dunning.pdf" rel="nofollow">Dunning and Kruger</a>.)<br /><br />To explain - and using the energy budget chart I <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/01/unbalanced-at-wuwt-earths-energy-budget.html" rel="nofollow">linked to</a> before (from the <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml" rel="nofollow">IPCC</a> and <a href="http://www.iac.ethz.ch/doc/publications/Wild_etal_GlobalEnergyBalance_ClimDyn2012.pdf" rel="nofollow">Wild12</a> (Norman Loeb whose work we are meant to be discussing, is a co-author). At the top of the atmosphere, the solar radiation is around 340 W/m^2. About 76 W/m^2 is reflected by clouds before it ever gets to the surface and another 24 is reflected from the surface without being absorbed. That leaves around 240 W/m^2. About 79 W/m^2 is absorbed in the atmosphere before reaching the surface. That leaves about 161 W/m^2 to be absorbed at the surface. (I'm wondering if you're forgetting that half the earth is in darkness at any one time.)<br /><br />Now where I am in Australia, about the most solar radiation that we'll ever receive at the surface is somewhere around 1360 W/m^2 at around 3 o'clock in the afternoon in summer. Combined with long wave radiation on a hot day, a bit of corrugated iron can easily get hot enough to fry an egg. At night we get none at all. On a sunny day in February, we'll get around 600 W/m^2 at around 9:30 am, maybe getting up to 1300 W/m^2 at 3:00 pm and dropping back to around 400 W/m^2 at around 6:00 pm, then after the sun sets, there'll be none until the next day.<br /><br />It does appear that you understand a little bit about radiation (you know it can cook eggs), but not nearly enough to engage in a discussion on the subject on a climate blog. Or not in the way you are, with your scoffing at people who are experts in the field and at commenters here who know much more about it than you do. Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-22071013572369731022014-12-20T22:30:38.086+11:002014-12-20T22:30:38.086+11:00MWS, all too many I'm afraid. I speak figurat...MWS, all too many I'm afraid. I speak figuratively of course.Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-52292188892432503942014-12-20T22:07:26.141+11:002014-12-20T22:07:26.141+11:00If it is the same "Mack" who plagued Del...If it is the same "Mack" who plagued Deltoid for years, you shouldn't waste your valuable time ... of course, there may be more than one "Mack" on the internet.MWSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-63354425172260685582014-12-20T22:05:12.405+11:002014-12-20T22:05:12.405+11:00Well Marco and Jammy dodger I only referenced the ...Well Marco and Jammy dodger I only referenced the IPCC AR4 and AR5 tripe, so there's my reference... work it out from those 2 tables, if you both can share a functioning brain together.<br />You've got your numbers all wrong again Sou....Now bear with me for a moment...forget about what you've read and listen....You say..like Trenberth, that the incoming solar radiation at the TOA is about 340w/sq.m.. ..then by means of geometry of the light on a round ball, it translates down to about 161w/sq.m at the Earth's surface.....your figure...there it is in black and white. 161w/sq.m. at the Earth's surface. Think about this 161w/sq.m. it's actually meant to be an average over the surface, so there will be values above and below, but this is about the middle. So we're talking about the sun shining down on 1 sq.m. heating the ground. Being an Aussie you would have a fair idea how hot that ground would get Sou. If you would place a fairly thick 1sq.m metal plate on the ground and paint it black (not necessarily..but just for good measure), how hot do you think it would get? Hot enough to fry eggs on?<br />I think so in Oz. Now think of the electrical wattage it requires to heat the element of your stove. hot enough to fry an egg on.... What? you're looking in the 1000's of watts range, eh Sou ...and watts are watts whether electrical or solar. and this is for just a miserable little circular piece of metal atop the stove. So what sort of wattage do you think would be required to heat a 1 sq.m. metal plate hot enough to fry eggs on Sou?<br />That's what happens in reality Sou. Burns your feet. Burns your hands on the steering wheel of the car. The reality is that the average solar incoming is 340w/sq.m at the Earth's surface and Trenberth and all the rest have fucked up big time. Macknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-76472978963094962832014-12-20T21:28:16.604+11:002014-12-20T21:28:16.604+11:00Every Aussie knows that the ice in the esky will m...Every Aussie knows that the ice in the esky will mostly melt by morning. This can only happen due to heat or energy getting in through the eskies walls. <br />Only an idiot will say their esky has not warmed up! I have seen seasoned drinkers denying the warmth of their tinnies. <br />Denial is a human trait where we just make up stuff.<br />As for simple models of the Arctic I just gave you one. <br />We are in deep trouble as the situation is far worse than the worst predictions.<br />We have just identified with experimental proof that Dark Energy and Dark Matter is about 96% of the Universe. The numpties would say scientists know nothing. <br />My retort is we do not stop asking questions. The numpties are floundering in their total ignorance.<br />I find Sou's blog quite entertaining as she demolishes the morons and idiots with surgical precision. <br />I put in my whack where I can. Bert<br />Bert from Elthamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-63648439600318246502014-12-20T20:59:22.679+11:002014-12-20T20:59:22.679+11:00Sou, I was having better luck making sense out of ...Sou, I was having better luck making sense out of TOA data. It totally makes sense the surface would be more difficult to work out. Again thanks for the citation.<br /><br />Mack, knowing what one doesn't know, especially in the form of being aware of one's own limitations, is the best way to actually learn something. It helped me a great deal to try, and fail, in my various analyses to get good results because now when I go read all that goes into getting a sensible answer I have far better basis for understanding what the pros have done.Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-42788638328320403712014-12-20T20:48:17.695+11:002014-12-20T20:48:17.695+11:00I meant to link again to Everett's chart of ra...I meant to link again to Everett's chart of radiative forcing from 1980 to 2011, in my long-ish comment above. Here it is:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig8-20.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig8-20.jpg</a>Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-30396087306708895062014-12-20T20:40:01.579+11:002014-12-20T20:40:01.579+11:00"but can't these intelligent clowns make ...<i>"but can't these intelligent clowns make up their minds....no"</i><br /><br />That is not how science works Mack. You accept propositions in the light of the evidence that change and evolve as new evidence and understanding become available. You do not "make up your mind" depending on your biases and stick with it whatever information changes. Though you have obviously made up your mind. Perhaps you should reflect who has the more clown like appearance - you or the IPCC who change their position depending on the information available. <br /><br />I cannot actually make out what you are trying to say Mack. Something about flashlights? Perhaps if you provided a reference as Marco requests it might become clearer. <br /><br /><br />Jammy Dodgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08360437479098314946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-31131168019319019062014-12-20T20:39:29.815+11:002014-12-20T20:39:29.815+11:00Crossed with Marco, who was much more succinct tha...Crossed with Marco, who was much more succinct than I was :)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-47988658672456905422014-12-20T20:35:57.584+11:002014-12-20T20:35:57.584+11:00Mack, I don't know if you really don't und...Mack, I don't know if you really don't understand or if you are playing dumb. You are writing about something different to this article. The article is about absorbed SW radiation at the surface in the Arctic in summer. You are writing about <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/01/unbalanced-at-wuwt-earths-energy-budget.html" rel="nofollow">the global energy budget</a>. . <br /><br />You still have it wrong when you talk about the change in radiative forcing. No, it's not the *change* in radiative forcing. Your <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure-ts-5.jpeg" rel="nofollow">AR4 chart</a> *is* radiative forcing, which is itself defined as a *change* in net irradiance. <br /><br />Your numbers are wrong too. You wrote that "net radiative forcing for the sun is in the vicinity of 342w/sq.m on the Earth's surface". It's not. That's not the net radiative forcing and it's not at the surface. It is the <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/01/unbalanced-at-wuwt-earths-energy-budget.html" rel="nofollow">total incoming solar radiation (not radiative forcing) at the top of atmosphere</a> (not the surface), which is a different measure. Total SW at the surface from solar <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/01/unbalanced-at-wuwt-earths-energy-budget.html" rel="nofollow">is around 161 W/m^2</a> (and at the top of atmosphere it's around 340 W/m^2 and in the troposphere around 185 W/m^2).<br /><br />As for your "drop" - you are comparing apples and oranges. The <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure-ts-5.jpeg" rel="nofollow">chart you showed</a> is from 1750 to 2005 - 255 years, a much longer period than the chart that Everett showed. Fig 8.20 that Everett showed is from 1980 to 2011, only 31 years. So it shows the effect of all the extra CO2 added to the air over that 31 year period. <br /><br />What you should have done is compare your Fig TS-5 from AR4 with <a href="http://hotwhopper.com/Charts/IPCCAR5Fig8-17.png" rel="nofollow">Figure 8.17 from AR5</a>. <a href="http://hotwhopper.com/Charts/IPCCAR5Fig8-17.png" rel="nofollow">Figure 8.17</a> shows the radiative forcing from 1750 to 2011, and CO2 is around 1.7 W/m^2 over that longer period. Solar is around 0.05 W/m^2.<br /><br />From <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure-ts-5.jpeg" rel="nofollow">your AR4 chart</a>, between 1750 and 2005 the solar forcing was around 0.12 W/m^2. That 0.12 W/m^2 is the radiative forcing contribution from solar for the period of the chart - 255 years.<br /><br />In Everett's chart it decreased between 1980 and 2011 by a smidgen - over 31 years.<br /><br />From the <a href="http://hotwhopper.com/Charts/IPCCAR5Fig8-17.png" rel="nofollow">AR5 Figure 8.7</a>, between 1750 and 2011 (261 years), the solar forcing was around 0.05 W/m^2, a slight drop reflecting the lower solar irradiance over the recent solar cycle.<br /><br />The "intelligent clowns" know what they are doing. It's you, Mack, who is one very confused denier. (There's nothing wrong with not understanding all this stuff. What is silly of you is to think that the experts "don't know nuffin".)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-31547942357092057712014-12-20T19:55:32.924+11:002014-12-20T19:55:32.924+11:00"The "forcing" from CO2 in the AR4 ..."The "forcing" from CO2 in the AR4 is 1.66watts/sq.m. and bugger me if it doesn't drop to 0.75watts/sq.m in the AR5"<br /><br />Reference please!<br /><br />But no, wait, allow me:<br />Table 8.2 in Ar5 puts CO2 forcing at 1.82 W m^2 in 2011, 1.66 in 2005.<br /><br />Bugger me, the more CO2 we pump into the earth's atmosphere, the LARGER "forcing" from CO2 there is ??? Who knew?Marconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-31714399748266607162014-12-20T18:46:44.561+11:002014-12-20T18:46:44.561+11:00OK yes that AR4 is 7 yrs "out of date".,...OK yes that AR4 is 7 yrs "out of date"., so we must use the new improved version. The old AR4 contained figures which were already worked out for you and were in plain sight.. The blatant lunacy of 0.12 watts/sq.m from the sun was just too obvious. ...even intelligent people could see that. Then Sou is trying to tell us that it's just the "change" in radiative forcing. Well, you could fudge that up by saying that the TSI has fallen over the 7 yrs, which it has , but the bullshit really starts when you try and say from these tables that this is a "change" in the "radiative forcing"which also includes all these gases. A change from what to what for these gases? Truth is,all these figures are not a "change" in radiative forcing. They are a net radiative forcing. and the net radiative forcing for the sun is in the vicinity of 342w/sq.m on the Earth's surface.. <br />The "forcing" from CO2 in the AR4 is 1.66watts/sq.m. and bugger me if it doesn't drop to 0.75watts/sq.m in the AR5, ...7yrs. later. Well yeees , the more and more we pump CO2 into the Earth's atmosphere, the LESS "forcing" from CO2 there is ??? Great news ! but can't these intelligent clowns make up their minds....no, methinks they regugitate any tripe their computers will spew out.,and we just take it as gospel. Macknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-37513244728513612992014-12-20T16:15:42.665+11:002014-12-20T16:15:42.665+11:00And in case Mack missed it - in Everett's comm...And in case Mack missed it - in Everett's comment and mine - his chart is radiative forcing, which shows the *change* re solar and other forcing agents, not the *total* incoming solar radiation.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.com