Replies

The computations you make above only point out the problems with using strict blackbody approximations for Earth. They don't prove in any way that the .2% of increased irradiance is likely to be wholly responsible for the temperature changes

My computations pointed out the opposite, that 0.2% of increased irradiance is NOT responsible for any serious amount of temperature change. And that therefore you are right in two ways, the black body model is vastly oversimplified and that the albedo and other changes are much more important.

The page you linked to that equates the 0.2% increase with a 0.2% increase in temperature is junk. I'm still not sure why you pointed to that in post 159, you have proven beyond a doubt that you know it's not true.

My computations pointed out the opposite, that 0.2% of increased irradiance is NOT responsible for any serious amount of temperature change.

You are correct, in fact Lean series used in in #159 is an adhoc reconstruction having it ultimate roots in ¹⁰Be isotope abundance and sunspot number taken as proxies for solar activity and arbitrarily scaled to current satellite measures of solar irradiance.

Actually the measure is more of solar activity in general, and more properly a function of coronal magnetic flux than it is of irradiance or thermal flux.

One would be better off to use magnetic flux scaling, the genesis of the measure, instead of pretending it is a measure of irradiance, which it is not:

A Doubling of the Sun's Coronal Magnetic Field during the Last 100 Years
M. Lockwood, R. Stamper, and M.N. Wild
NATURE Vol. 399, 3 June 1999. Pages 437-439
http://wdcc1.stp.rl.ac.uk/wdcc1/papers/nature.html

Cover:

The total solar magnetic flux emanating through the coronal source sphere⁸, F_s, derived from the geomagnetic aa data for 1868-1996 (black line bounding grey shading) and the values from the interplanetary observations for 1964-1996 (blue line). The variation of the annual means of the sunspot number <R> is shown by the area shaded purple. The magnetic flux in the solar corona has risen by 40% since 1964 and by a factor of 2.3 since 1901.

That would lead to less confusion in regards solar activity connections to climate and global surface temperatures, as the solar activity connection is much more than one of merely radiative transfer physics.