Replies

Based on somewhat exhaustive Web research, the accepted direct radiative forcing from doubled CO2 is ~0.9 C.

Since the forcing from doubled CO2 is about 1.5 watts per square meter surface thermal flux at the surface according to UN/IPCC global climate modelers. That would be about 0.9C climate sensitivity per 1.5 watts per square meter change in thermal forcings.

Re-cycling of Infra-Red Energy

According to Dr Hugh Ellsaesser's IPCC submission, "The direct increase in radiative heating of the lower atmosphere (tropopause level) due to doubling CO2 is 4 wm^-2. At the surface it is 0.5 - 1.5 wm^-2". Schlesinger & Mitchell (1985), estimated this surface flux at 2 wm^-2. Thus, depending on the model, or modeler, the estimates for increased surface flux following a CO2 doubling, varies between +0.5 and +2 wm^-2. An above-averaged figure of +1.5 wm^-2will be assumed here for purposes of analysis and comparison.

The observed variation of lower level cloud cover effects a 1.4 watt per meter change in surface thermal flux across a five year period of 2% clearly as a result of cosmic ray modulation.

The UN/IPCC assigns 1.5 watts to CO2 doubling rather than lower cloud cover variation which it presumes to be zero change in its models.

Hmm doesn't leave much in the Earth's radiative balance for CO2 increases, taking into account the effects of changing solar activity throughout the period since the industrial revolution does it?

Looks like the UN/IPCC modelers have a lot of reprogramming adjusting for solar activity effects on cloud cover to rebalance the thermal factors to me.

AG, two things. One, there are no "UN/IPCC modelers". I don't know if you're using this phrase out of habit or continuing to use it just to annoy me. Two, Ellsaesser is not a "UN/IPCC modeler", nor is he a Contributing IPCC author. His submission (as far as I can determine) was an unsolicited comment. My interpretation is based on this:

An Independent Review of the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report

My guess is that the late John Daly quotes from something Ellsaesser sent him.

The UN/IPCC assigns 1.5 watts to CO2 doubling rather than lower cloud cover variation which it presumes to be zero change in its models.

Not from what I can determine. Ellsaesser's submission does this.

Hmm doesn't leave much in the Earth's radiative balance for CO2 increases, taking into account the effects of changing solar activity throughout the period since the industrial revolution does it? ... Looks like the UN/IPCC modelers have a lot of reprogramming adjusting for solar activity effects on cloud cover to rebalance the thermal factors to me.

Your logical conclusion here is based on an inaccurate starting premise (i.e., the IPCC has not published what you are asserting it has published), and therefore the conclusion is not supported.