Open thread 43

A new open thread.


  1. #1 Chris O'Neill
    March 3, 2010


    What is certain is that I will not continue to participate on this..

    Promises promises.

  2. #2 jakerman
    March 3, 2010


    Am I [a troll]( in your eyes for [asking you](

    >SBV I repeat, What exactly do you think this data contradicts in AGW? Isn’t that your key claim, that you’ve smashed AGW with this data? If it is you should be able to explain how.

    or am I lying for stating:

    >SB is flashing charts around claiming they disprove AGW, but when asked directly and simply how they contradict AGW, SB is unwilling to clarify how or why the data do so.

    Would you answer my question if I reworded my summary to:

    *SB is flashing charts around claiming they disprove **the IPCCs core statements on** AGW, but when asked directly and simply how they contradict the **IPCC’s core statements on** AGW, SB is unwilling to clarify how or why the data do so.*

    If you think I’ve been unfair I will make this clarification, but will you back your wild claims with the explanation required. You seem very determined to avoid doing so. Or perhaps you need to clarify your wild claims, maybe you do not dispute the IPCCs core statements and I have completely misinterpreted your wild comments.

    Either way your further explanation is need if you are to persist with your current wild claims. Such as this unsupported bunk:

    >*“Human activity has probably caused a tiny amount of beneficial warming. There is nothing even remotely unusual about current temperatures. Burning hydrocarbons as fuel will never cause catastrophic climate change.”*

  3. #3 Jeff Harvey
    March 3, 2010

    Bernard accurately sums up SBVOR when he says that few, if any credible scientists would refer to themselves as “trained environmental scientists”. This suggests that SBVOR went to some second rate college and got a diploma. It does not mean he is a scientist. For the record, SBVOR, could you give me a list of your peer-reviewed publications in the scientific literature. This will tell me how qualified you are, apart from your hollow pontificating.

    Further damning evidence comes from the information I provided in my last post, but which SBVOR predictably ignored. Anyone who claims that we are living in a period of C02 famine is metaphorically speaking out of their rear oriface. Such a gormless remark shows a complete inability to understand the importance of scale in biotic and abiotic processes. The planet’s recent evolutionary history has been based on certain ambient levels of C02, which are now increasing linearly due the human combustion of fossil fuels. They are increasing at rates exceeding those in perhaps many millions of years, and this will certainly have consequences on the functioning of complex adaptive systems through attendant effects on climate and ecophysiological parameters. Any “trained environmental scientist” would recognize this and would therefore exhibit profound caution as to the outcome of the current human ‘experiment’. But not our resident ‘trained environmental scientist’ SBVOR, who spews gobbeldegook here that is as transparant as glass.

    As I said above, SBVOR wears his right wing, liberatarian, anti-government idealogical heart on his sleeve (look at the stuff on his web site to be precise). Most of it is a rant against public health care, Obama and the Democratic Party (which is a joke in my eyes given the fact that the two main parties in the US are almost political clones). Climate change denial fits into SBVORs political compass like a glove. And for him to have the audacity to call me and Tim Lambert ‘propagandists’. Oh, the irony.

  4. #4 Bernard J.
    March 3, 2010

    …my answer is found right here (along with fully substantiated answers to all your other equally grade school level questions).

    So [this]( is your response?! Seriously?!

    My questions aren’t “grade school level”: they are structured simply so that nincompoops such as yourself might understand the gist and respond to the same, without fluff, guff, or garbage.

    However, it seems that even this simplicity sailed over your head – the answers that you proffer are themselves certainly grade school, at the most…

    Never one to shirk from a challenge, I dared to enter the steaming pile of crap that you call “science” and that you offered as your answer, and I selected a link at random – the one I hit was quaintly titled “Debunking Surface Temperature Measurements”: I won’t dignify it with a link.

    And lo, I saw there a graph titled “Sun and Ocean Cycles Versus Temperatures”, and thereupon I saw two fitted “trendlines” of at least fourth order, and verily, I was visited with a profound understanding of the depth of your Stupid.

    After all, the mathematical inappropriateness of trend-fitting -mangling -misrepresentation using high order polynomials has been [well]( and [truly]( dissected and refuted previously on Deltoid. The fact that you roll up many months later using such rubbish, and pretending that you are capable of basic analysis, is in itself an instant disqualification of your putative capacity to engage in any scientific discourse.

    The rest of your crap is just as ridiculously unsupported, but seriously, if you truly believe in it, provide a précis of your answers to [my questions]( and we’ll tease them apart in detail – and you’ll be given references to real peer-reviewed, properly conducted, scientific work.

    Come on you great big trained Environmental Scientist – show us what you have.

  5. #5 jakerman
    March 3, 2010

    Jeff after reading your last post on SBs claimed qualifications I checked out SBs odd little claim that:

    >*I refute [...]AGW hysteria — including gross exaggerations of likely impacts as well as utterly unsubstantiated claims as to what portion of recent warming is due to AGW — a position I share with 76% of meteorologists.*

    Looking at [SB source]( shows SBs is actually referring to TV Weather casters like Watts and Coleman. And that SBs 76% is actually 50% who respond negative to the following IPCC conclusion: *“Most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced.”* I assume SB gets his 76% by adding the 25% who respond neutral and throwing in one for rounding.

    My local weather caster is Jane. Jane started out on ‘Fat Cat and Friends’ when I was a wee kiddy. I wonder what she thinks? On the other hand my local Senior Meteorologist at the BOM raised my awareness as to the importance of the high risk of AGW.

  6. #6 Bernard J.
    March 3, 2010


    It seems that one of your little hobby-horses is the relationship between increasing atmospheric CO2 and increasing global temperature. Or rather, that it is the fact that said relationship does not exhibit an R2 value of 1.00: apparently (according to your imputation) the increase in temperature must follow the same pattern of increase as atmospheric CO2, and the fact that it doesn’t repudiates anthropogenic global warming.

    Fine. Then answer me this…

    Assume for a moment that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, as science (you know, that thing that you claim to be trained in) has repeatedly and absolutely consistently shown for well over a hundred years. That means that it will affect the temperature of the planet as its atmospheric concentration increases. Hang on, hang on – bear with me for a moment…

    Assume too that the climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 is as the IPCC indicates. Assume also that the physics of heat capacities operates as science predicts, and that liquid water moves in currents according to the best understanding of oceanography.

    Let’s assume also that the output of the sun has an impact upon the temperature of the planet. Yes, I know that’s a radical idea, but humour me. Oh, and whilst we’re making so many assumptions, let’s throw in orbital wobbles, tilts, cycles, and other things Milankovitch.

    Aw heck, as we’re making assumptions left, right, and centre, how about we revisit that little one about ocean currents and mix it up a bit with wind and stuff, and include El Niño, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and sundry other such cycles.

    But why stop there? Let’s go the whole hog and throw in aerosols, whether volcanic, or from incomplete biomass and fossil fuel combustion.

    You enjoy cosmic rays in your stew? Well, I’m not so sure that I do, but hey, we’ll add it to the pot.

    What else is on the shelf? Some nice changement d’albedo? A sprinkle of multiple feedings-back? A dash of non-water thermal inertia – it does have a different zest compared with the oceanic heat capacities that we added from the packet of physical oceanography that we opened earlier.

    I’m sure that there are other ingredients that we could add, but we can always season to taste later…

    So, with all of this bubbling in the pot, can you explain in straightforward, science-based terms, how closely global temperature should follow the trajectory of atmospheric CO2, and how much wiggleroom one would expect, when all of these other ingredients are simmering in the same temperature stew?

    And how does your answer compare with the actual signal seen in the contemporary planetary record – when all factors affecting temperature are taken into consideration?

  7. #7 jakerman
    March 3, 2010

    To reuse SBV fine little quote:

    >*“those who have the science on their side argue the science, those who do not have the science on their side attack the messenger [[calling them names as a transparent tactic to avoid answering questions](]”.*

  8. #8 Dave
    March 3, 2010

    [Transcript]( of evidence given to the Parliamentary sub-committe on Science & Technology on the CRU email theft.

    Love how Nigel Lawson gets to call the hockey stick fraudulent unchallenged…

  9. #9 Bud
    March 3, 2010

    Fred Pearce does another [hatchet job on Phil Jones]( It’s starting to look personal.

  10. #10 Dave55
    March 4, 2010

    Decided to post a comment on the Jonathon Holmes piece over at The Drum:
    Got this reply from a “JohnM” which I thought was interesting:

    You say “… there is no new science ‘refuting’ what is stated in the IPCC AR4, Garnaut or Stern reports …”

    That’s the most mendacious claim I have seen here in a long time.

    1 – papers have been published that refute the IPCC’s “science”; I know because my peer-reviewed paper was published last year.

    2 – The IPCC’s evidence for man-made warming is flimsy. It reduces down to “because my inaccurate computer software told me so”, so why should anyone accept nonsense like that. Garnaut and Stern just sai dthe science was too difficult for them and said they believed the IPCC.

    Why would a person remain anonymous if they had a peer reviewed paper that refuted the IPCC’s science? Why not provide a reference? Sheesh – you can’t even get half-realistic sock puppets these days …

  11. #11 Lotharsson
    March 4, 2010

    Dave55, there were some beauties buried in that thread. I have been commenting on the others instead, but was sorely tempted to respond to the reply to a comment about Dawkins talking about evolution. It’s too good to excerpt, so I quote in entirety.

    Swallow anything you’re in the process of drinking NOW.

    Oh please Dave! you are kidding aren’t you? Dawkins an expert? I think you’ll find many of his colleagues won’t privately share that opinion. The climate change debate has finally highlighted the other great deception of Science, macro evolution i.e. one species evolving into an entirely different species. Not natural selection mind you, but the big brother that nobody has actually met, but of course exists, he’s just down the shop getting…something! For decades any Scientist who questions the evolutionary paradigm and/or even suggests intelligent design in any living thing is treated exactly the same way the climategate scientists treated their colleagues. There are two major organizations in Australia filled with Scientists who daily, comprehensively and emphatically pull evolutionary theory apart plank by plank. These are Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International, now before we have all the sniggers and clever comments, how about some of you actually read their scientific material. For this very reason it is Dawkins and his ilk who are refusing to publicly debate them, not the other way round. If ABC was not biased they would have put Dawkins on head to head with Dr. Jonathan Sarfati.

  12. #12 Lotharsson
    March 4, 2010

    Why not provide a reference?

    Jo Nova’s article said towards the end we must not ignore the empirical evidence…and then made a set of empirical claims refuting AGW unsupported by any references. They’ve been added now – Lindzen 2009, Spencer 2007 and something from Spencer in 2008.

    Pointing out to various denialists that they are ignoring the empirical evidence in violation of Ms Nova’s instructions is … interesting.

  13. #13 Dave55
    March 4, 2010


    Yeah I saw that – it was in response to my comment!. Wasn’t sure how I would respond thou – LMFAO, FMD and other abbreviations came to mind. Rational argument with someone like that is just a waste of time.

    Couldn’t be bothered reading Jo Nova’s piece. The drivel in the responses to Jonathon Holmes’ piece got me too frustrated and I probably would have gone Postal if I’d read the stuff that would have flocked to Nova’s piece.

    One thing I always find amazing is how the the ‘sceptics’ are sceptical of any papers which support CC theory but are blindingly accepting of tripe like that dished up by Lindzen et al. This blind faith in anything but CC is why deniers is the most appropriate term for them, simply because they deny what is supported by empirical evidence.

  14. #14 el gordo
    March 4, 2010

    To avoid FOI requests the MOD has begun destroying all new UFO reports within a month of getting them.

  15. #15 Lotharsson
    March 4, 2010

    To avoid FOI requests the MOD has begun destroying all new UFO reports within a month of getting them.

    Ah, they’ve caught up to commercial practices that have been standard for over a decade.

  16. #16 el gordo
    March 4, 2010

    So this is becoming standard practice?

  17. #17 el gordo
    March 4, 2010

    Pity, it’s a low probability, high impact event.

  18. #18 Lotharsson
    March 4, 2010

    Jo Nova is now really pushing “there’s no hotspot in the radiosonde data”, which to some of her followers “a la Popper” refutes the whole AGW enchilada (or at least makes climate sensitivity really low), or something along those lines. I remember looking at that a couple of years ago but I’ve forgotten everything I knew about that at one time.

    I have no insight on why no-one takes Spencer’s negative feedback from clouds seriously either, but Nova seems to think it also proves low climate sensitivity.

  19. #19 t_p_hamilton
    March 4, 2010

    el gordo relates this :”Chip Knappenberger’s thinks only a third of the warming in the 20th Century was due to human GHG emissions. ”

    Is that from his advocacy science theory or free-market energy theory?

  20. #20 Katharine
    March 4, 2010


    SBVOR, you say you’re a trained environmental scientist.

    What do you study for a living?

    Because you certainly aren’t a climatologist if you’re that dense about statistics and about basic climate science – for one, warming trends differ around the world, but the global warming trend adds up to warming.

  21. #21 Former Skeptic
    March 4, 2010

    At least some reporters in the Grauniad are doing their job right:

    “Evidence from a respected scientific body to a parliamentary inquiry examining the behaviour of climate-change scientists, was drawn from an energy industry consultant who argues that global warming is a religion, the Guardian can reveal…

    “The Guardian has established that the institute prepared its evidence, which was highly critical of the CRU scientists, after inviting views from Peter Gill, an IOP official who is head of a company in Surrey called Crestport Services.”

  22. #22 Steve Short
    March 5, 2010

    According to Pinker (2005), surface solar irradiance increased by 0.16 W/m^2/year over the 18 year period 1983 – 2001 or 2.88 W/m^2 over the entire period. This was a period of claimed significant anthropogenic global warming.

    This change in surface solar irradiance over 1983 – 2001 is almost exactly 1.2% of the mean total surface solar irradiance of recent decades of 238.9 W/m^2 (K, T & F, 2009).

    According to NASA, mean global cloud cover declined from about 0.677 (67.7%) in 1983 to about 0.644 (64.4%) in 2001 or a decline of 0.033 (3.3%). The 27 year mean global cloud cover 1983 – 2008 is about 0.664 (66.4%) (all NASA data)

    The average Bond Albedo (A) of recent decades has been almost exactly 0.300, hence 1 – A = 0.700

    It is possible to estimate the relationship between albedo and total cloud cover about the average global cloud cover and it is described by the simple relationship:

    Albedo (A) = 0.250C + 0.134 where C = cloud cover. The 0.134 term presumably represents the surface SW reflection.

    For example; A = 0.300 = 0.25 x 0.664 + 0.134

    This means that in 1983; A = 0.25 x 0.677 + 0.134 = 0.303


    in 2001; A = 0.25 x 0.644 + 0.134 = 0.295

    Thus in 1983; 1 – A = 1 – 0.303 = 0.697

    and in 2001; 1 – A = 1 – 0.295 = 0.705

    Therefore, between 1983 and 2001, the known reduction in the Earth’s albedo A as measured by NASA would have increased solar irradiance by 200 x [(0.705 – 0.697)/(0.705 + 0.695)]% = 200 x (0.008/1.402)% = 1.1%

    This estimate of 1.1% increase in solar irradiance from cloud cover reduction over the 18 year period 1983 – 2001 is very close to the 1.2% increase in solar irradiance measured by Pinker for the same period.

    Within the precision of the available data and this exercise, it may therefore be concluded that it is highly likely that Pinker’s finding was due to an almost exactly functionally equivalent decrease in Earth’s Bond albedo over the same period resulting from global cloud cover reduction.

    Hence surface warming over that period may be reasonably attributed to that effect.

  23. #23 jakerman
    March 5, 2010

    [Pinker found]( a downward trend is surface solar irradience from start point 1983 to 1990, then a stronger upward trend to 2001.

    >*We observed an overall increase in S from 1983 to 2001 at a rate of 0.16 watts per square meter (0.10%) per year; this change is a combination of a decrease until about 1990, followed by a sustained increase.*

    What was the temperature [signal response]( to this so switch? [Not so much](, and that is despite a super El Nino in 1998 to push up the trend.

    And solar driven forcing would produce more warming in days than nights. And solar forcing would not produce produce stratospheric cooling.

    Remember that Pinker tried to correct Monckton’s conflation of surface radiation with radiative forcing at the tropopause. Wild ([cited by Lambert]( explains why:

    >*The decadal changes in SSR found in the dimming/brightening literature are at first sight often unrealistically large from a radiative forcing viewpoint, as, e.g., presented by IPCC [2007]. Therein, radiative forcings altering solar radiation between preindustrial (year 1750) and present day are on the order of minus 1-2 W m−2 on a global average, while some of the surface-based estimates show similar or larger changes already within a decade [...]*

    > *Indeed, under the assumption of a climate sensitivity of 0.5-1°C per W m−2 radiative forcing as suggested by current climate models, a change of several W m−2 decade−1 as inferred from surface observations would imply enormous decadal variations in surface temperature which are not observed. However, one should be aware that **the radiative forcing concept as used in the IPCC reports applies to changes at the tropopause, which cannot be directly compared to changes at the surface**.*

    Why? Because:

    >*Scattering and absorbing processes in the atmosphere are additive with respect to their effects on SSR at the surface, but may be opposed at the tropopause. Scattering aerosols enhance the reflectance of solar radiation back to space and reduce the solar flux to the surface. Absorbing aerosols also reduce the solar flux to the surface, but at the same time may reduce the reflectance back to space, opposed to the effects from scattering aerosols at the tropopause.*

    >*Therefore, surface changes can expected to be larger than tropopause changes, and consequently are also not necessarily representative for (tropopause) radiative forcing estimates (this would only be valid in a purely scattering atmosphere). SSR change estimates based on surface observations should therefore not be used to challenge the IPCC radiative forcings [Liepert et al., 2007], even if these SSR changes would be free of biases from upscaling the surface point observations to global numbers.*

  24. #24 Steve Short
    March 6, 2010

    Yeah, …..Wild …. and extreme woolly.

  25. #25 Tim Lambert
    March 6, 2010

    Shorter Steve Short: clouds don’t block long wave radiation.

  26. #26 TrueSceptic
    March 6, 2010

    106 Bernard,

    As close to perfect as you can get! :-)

  27. #27 Steve Short
    March 6, 2010

    Tim Tambert

    I never said they did and don’t believe it myself. That is simplistic straw man nonsense. One of your specialities?

    However, I certainly don’t deny that as SH increases the transmission of LW IR BOA => TOA decreases (i.e. LW IR tau increases). Even most AGW wallies should know that -it is a fundamental of their raison d’etre.

    It just so happens that under those circumstances cloud cover also broadly increases – especially low cloud.

    As you live in Sydney you are presumably sweltering in the high humidity under a dense late summer cloud cover right now!

    It is also possible to use cloud cover as a crude proxy for SH in simple 1-D models.

  28. #28 cohenite
    March 7, 2010

    “clouds don’t block long wave radiation”. Eh? Could you elaborate?

  29. #29 Chris O'Neill
    March 7, 2010

    “clouds don’t block long wave radiation”. Eh? Could you elaborate?

    I presume that’s what the longer Steve Sort was.

  30. #30 Mattb
    March 7, 2010

    Not that it debunks steve short, but I note he has received an email from the Lord Monckton thanking him for his valuable contribution. From Jo Nova’s site ““Dear Dr. Short, – Many thanks for your very kind and helpful analysis. I am copying it to my co-author Dr. Joseph Boston, who is at present finalizing what we hope will be a robust determination of the change in surface radiative flux attributable to the decline in cloud cover from 1983-2001. – Monckton of Brenchley””

  31. #31 cohers aide
    March 7, 2010


    >*”clouds don’t block long wave radiation”. Eh? Could you elaborate?*

    Steve Short:

    >*This estimate of 1.1% increase in solar irradiance from cloud cover reduction over the 18 year period 1983 – 2001 is very close to the 1.2% increase in solar irradiance measured by Pinker for the same period.*

    >*[...]it may therefore be concluded that it is highly likely that Pinker’s finding was due to an almost exactly functionally equivalent decrease in Earth’s Bond albedo over the same period resulting from global cloud cover reduction.*

    >*Hence surface warming over that period may be reasonably attributed to that effect.*

    Shorter short:

    SW forcing at the **surface** equals **Net** forcing at the the **tropopause**.

  32. #32 cohenite
    March 7, 2010

    This is not very helpful; as Steve observed Pinker found a decrease in the rate of SW at TOA which was almost identical to the rate of increase in SW at the surface; this has nothing to do with the Wild paper; the extra SW at TOA had to go somewhere; it wasn’t scattered or reflected by aerosols because the rate of decrease in SW at TOA, which is the difference between the incoming/outgoing SW, was matched by the SW at BOA [in the tropics, Fig 4]; that is, it went to the surface; the mechanism for this is most likely the decrease in cloud cover. As my aide says: “SW forcing at the surface equals Net forcing at the the tropopause.” The net forcing for SW at TOA was at a rate of 0.17W/m2 for the Pinker period in the tropics.

    Clouds do block longwave;

    How else could cloud forcing be calculated, as Pinker noted?

  33. #33 Steve Short
    March 7, 2010

    No, SW forcing at the surface dominates net forcing at the surface.

    It is well known that:

    (surface) SW CRF at BOA ~ -0.8 – -1.0 W/m^2/% cloud


    surface LW CRF at BOA ~+0.6 W/m^2/% cloud cover

    Therefore net SW forcing at BOA ~ -0.2 – -0.4 W/m^/% cloud cover

    End of story.

    Another straw man by a silly Lambertian acolyte. Yawn.

  34. #34 Steve Short
    March 7, 2010

    Not that SW (and LW) cloud-related radiative forcing at various altitudes is not a very fascinating subject. It sure is!

    Strange isn’t it how we KEEP hearing about how the ‘science is settled’ and there is a ‘consensus’ and all the denialist scumbags should just go away and die when the LEVEL OF RESEARCH TO FIND OUT WHAT IS REALLY HAPPENING HAS NEVER BEEN SO HIGH:

  35. #35 cohers aide
    March 7, 2010

    Shorter cohnite: *Clouds do block longwave I must ask short to include that in his calculations.*

    Another shorter cohnite: *TOA tropics (20N- 20S) equals TOA global (90N- 90S).*

    Short Short: You are knocking over a straw man by to pointing out the many errors and fallacies in my claims that “*Hence surface warming over that period may be reasonably attributed to that effect [change is surface SW].*

    Shorter shorter Short: **Short’s claim that** “*Hence surface warming over that period may be reasonably attributed to that effect [change is surface SW]* **is a strawman**.

  36. #36 Kool Aide
    March 7, 2010

    Incohers aide

  37. #37 cohers aide
    March 7, 2010

    Shorter cohenite:

    >Short’s claims that: *Hence surface warming over that period may be reasonably attributed to that effect [change is surface SW].*

    Made by Short failure to calculate tropospheric forcing; has nothting to do with Wild’s statement that:

    >*the radiative forcing concept as used in the IPCC reports applies to changes at the tropopause, which cannot be directly compared to changes at the surface.*

  38. #38 Steve Short
    March 8, 2010

    MattB this afternoon on Jo Nova thread ‘Lambert, victim of his own spin?’:

    “Yes Steve I wish I had an email from the good Lord showing how smart I am.”

    My reply:

    We can very easily fix that problem. I hereby issue you with a technical challenge which I will also post on Deltoid for you (or any of the other AGW wallies) to take me up on.

    I propose to set you two, highly relevant test problems and then to provide the answers for each, without revealing the working of my calculations.

    It is up to you to solve the same problems (mathematically), provide your answers and thus verify/state that I am right or I am wrong. If you verify my answer you do not need to reveal the logic of your calculation.

    If you don’t verify my answer then we both have to reveal/justify our method of calculation. Fair enough?

    Problem #1: If we were to agree that the best estimate of the global mean Bond albedo of the last decade is 0.298 as stated by Trenberth, Fasulo and Kiehl, 2009, then what would be the mean global surface temperature change for an upwards shift in global mean Bond albedo to (say) 0.302?

    I assert the surface temperature change would be -0.20±0.01 K (error at ~± 1 s.d.)

    Problem #2: If we were to agree that the best estimate of the global mean cloud cover over the last 27 years is 66.38% as stated by NASA, 2010, then what would be the mean global surface temperature change for a shift in mean global mean cloud cover to (say) 67.38%?

    I assert the surface temperature change would be -0.13±0.02 K (error at ~± 1 s.d.)

    Ball’s in your court, Mr. Smartguy.

  39. #39 John
    March 8, 2010

    Steve is actually progressing into fairytale trolldom now.

    “Answer me these questions three and you may cross the bridge!”

  40. #40 Steve Short
    March 8, 2010

    The 1st who can’t get it up boldly squeaks…

  41. #41 MattB
    March 8, 2010

    John, since I have young kids I know that the fairytale would be:
    “Answer me these questions three and across the bridge you soon shall be!”

  42. #42 Steve Short
    March 8, 2010

    Well then, clearly MattB can can get it up! Nothing stopping him now….

  43. #43 Steve Short
    March 8, 2010

    OK MattB wimps out after lecturing the mob at Jo Nova for many days and nights – now we find out he can’t do any math – or basic French either – it’s dommage not domage m’sieur.

    Still, he will be eternally remembered for coining that delightful new word: DILLUSIONAL.

    Anyone else wanna have crack. Inco? True Septic? Tim Tam? Bernaaaard?

  44. #44 Tim Lambert
    March 8, 2010

    Steve, your questions are confused.

    Number 1 Ignores the effect of clouds on long wave radiation as multiple people have pointed out to you now.

    Number 2: Ignores the fact that cloud forcing can be positive or negative depending on the clouds.

  45. #45 Steve Short
    March 8, 2010

    I’ll express it more simply so the proposed problems are very easy to understand:

    (1) What would be the predicted mean global surface temperature change (+ or -, take your pick) for an upwards shift in global mean Bond albedo from (say) 0.298 to (say) 0.302?

    (2)What would be the predicted mean global surface temperature change (+ or -, take your pick) for an upwards shift in global mean total cloud cover from (say) 66.38% to (say) 67.38?

    Surely somewhere in this collection of self-proclaimed experts there is at least someone who can solve these simple tasks (without resort to dissembling)?

  46. #46 MattB
    March 8, 2010

    Steve – its maths not math.

  47. #47 Steve Short
    March 8, 2010


  48. #48 mattB
    March 8, 2010

    BTW Steve over at Nova I’ve been hounding regarding the absurd interpretation of Pinker’s comments to Deltoid that “it can pass” relates to Monckton’s overall “work” regarding cloud forcing. Simple English language comprehension stuff. Your response is smoke and mirrors random maths/physics questions that are by the by. I’ll consider your questions when you concede some English comprehension. Nova makes a big point defending Monckton, has it pointed out clearly that that position is indefensible, and the response from the flying monkeys is to back up the clearly incorrect interpretation, claim “it doesn’t matter”, is “nitpicky” or to confuse things with random maths questions (incidentally you can hardly groan after introducing a whole post to correct a typo in a foreign language I studied 21 years ago).

    The claim it is nitpicky may or may not be true, but Nova thought it important enough to defend Monckton so my reading of that is it is important to her at least.

  49. #49 jakerman
    March 8, 2010

    The questions also ignores:

    1) the fact that most of the last 50 years has experienced global dimming (Romanou et al 2007) and that recent reversal (1990 to 2000) of that trend is unmasking suppressed GHG forcing ([Wild 2007](

    >*solar dimming was effective in masking greenhouse warming, but only up to the 1980s, when dimming gradually transformed into brightening. Since then, the uncovered greenhouse effect has revealed its full dimension, as manifested in a rapid temperature rise (+0.38°C/decade over land since mid-1980s). Recent solar brightening cannot supersede the greenhouse effect as main cause of global warming, since land temperatures increased by 0.8°C from 1960 to 2000, even though solar brightening did not fully outweigh solar dimming within this period.*

    [Diurnal Temp Range AR4](

    2) *In the global mean sense the surface adjusts to changes in downward solar flux instantaneously by reducing [or conversely increasing] the upward fluxes of longwave.* (Romanou et al 2007)

    >*While there is a large increase in the greenhouse effect from increasing greenhouse gases and water vapor (as a feedback), this is offset to a large degree by a decreasing greenhouse effect from reducing cloud cover and increasing radiative emissions from higher temperatures.* (Trenberth and Fasullo 2009)

    3) However the modeled trend is for decreasing clouds as a positive feedback. The follow extracts from (Trenberth and Fasullo 2009):

    >fewer clouds [...] allow more radiation to escape from lower and warmer parts of the atmosphere and surface. Decreasing cloud amount also increases absorbed solar radiation (ASR) [...]. **These changes represent a feedback and not a forcing, however.***

    >*In most models, the late 21st century planetary imbalance is not dominated by the ice-albedo effect, but rather stems from changes in clouds and aerosols. From 1950 to 2000, increases in sulfate aerosols decrease the ASR by increasing reflected solar radiation (RSR), and this is slightly offset by a modest decrease in clouds. In regions of decreasing sea ice, clouds tend to increase, partially offsetting the surface albedo change.*

    >*integrated all sky ASR anomalies become positive by 2040 owing mainly to decreasing cloud amount and this continues throughout the 21st century [...] The net effect is a huge change in LW CRF [Cloud Radiative Forcing], but a modest change in OLR [Outgoing Longwave Radition] [...] There is substantial SW CRF although the increase in SW heating is bigger, and ASR dominates Rt* [Rt= Net Radition = ASR-OLR]

    So after a century of growing enhanced greenhouse forcing I hope that cloud feedback are not about to kick in a big way.

  50. #50 Steve Short
    March 8, 2010

    It is so, so very easy to harvest and quote shitloads of stuff off the Net.

    Sure some of it is relevant. But I don’t really give a double damn how much wriggling around, sophistry, smoke blowing out your asses etc you might want to indulge yourself in.

    This is not a forum for lawyers…..(;-)

    I spent 11 years in an an Oz Federal Govt. research agency and 3 years in a Swiss one; ~100 peer reviewed papers and book chapters. So I know what it is to do pure science research and crack my nuts over empirical or theoretical problems. Some times your math (!) skills are up to it, sometimes not. Yet it’s always fun BTW.

    Humility is good. Hubris is bad (and there is shitloads here BTW)

    So, basically, in a nutshell, seems I can pose two very simple questions here and none of you can do the calcs to provide an answer you are prepared to defend (within reasonable errors for the exercise) on the basis of your understanding – even of say mainstream stuff like Trenberth et al etc., etc.

    Right? Right?

    Anyone here not actually a science loser?

  51. #51 Bernard J.
    March 8, 2010

    [Steve Short](

    I demand that you release your code and all of your emails, so that I can ‘replicate’ your calculations.

  52. #52 Steve Short
    March 8, 2010

    You show me yours and I’ll show you mine, Bernaaaard.

  53. #53 Jeff Harvey
    March 8, 2010

    Steve Short,

    How many of your peer-reviewed publications were in the field of climate science?

    As someone with about the same number of publications as you, working in the field of population ecology, I was wondering how much of your intellectual pontificating is backed up in the relevant journals? Or are you restricted to web sites to dish out your so-called expertise? By the way, while we are at the level of comparing academic credentials, how many citations does your work have on the WOS?

    You see, the data trails for the sceptics goes quickly quite cold. Sure, they strut their stuff on their web logs, but this is not the same thing.

  54. #54 Bernard J.
    March 8, 2010

    Steve Short.

    Contrary to the irony of my previous comment, I actually trawled through my memory and recalled an equation I used several years ago. Using a black body assumption of unitary emissivity, a value of 5778 K for Ts, 696300000 m for R, 149600000000 m for D, and your Bond albedo values, I came up with -0.36 K where you “assert” -0.20 K.

    Now, I am a biologist and not a physicist, so my recollection of the equation that I used may be wanting, and my knowledge of modifiers is definitely limited, but neither is the point.

    The point is that I did not rely on your ‘code’ to arrive at my figure. I used my own equations, subject to several assumptions, and I found the data to input. In this manner I truly, if incorrectly, replicated your process of calculation, rather than screaming for the information so that I could duplicate it.

    So now we have a circumstance where we have a difference in a number. At this point we should compare notes, discuss differences in procedure, and resolve the discrepancy.

    Just as the many serial pests who have dogged Jones, and many other climatologists, should have done in the first place – had they actually bothered to replicate the work that they so freely criticised.

    Of course, if you’re really just trying to get you own “email from the good Lord showing how smart [you are]“, as [your response to MattB]( seems to indicate, then this little exercise in who can pick the best equation and drop in a few numbers for a bit of primary school arithmetic is simply an exercise in juvenile pants-dropping.

    And if perchance you are actually trying to make a point about arcane nuances in radiative physics, then why the fʊck ([h/t Chris O'Neill]( are you asking people who had nothing to do with your original exchange at Nova’s? I like to ask questions of people myself, but I don’t go around telling random people, who have not been involved in the subject matter that I am raising, that they can’t get it up. I have never claimed expertise in radiation physics, so why did you [bother to drag me]( into your little piss-on-the-fence-post exercise in the first place? I haven’t even commented on your particular posts, here on Deltoid, as far as I know, so what’s your deal?

    I have of course made general disparaging remarks about the poor standard of scientific understanding at the New Bog, but if this is your way of exacting retribution it is a bizarre non sequitur strategy for putting whatever your point is, across.

  55. #55 Steve Short
    March 8, 2010

    Happy to note that my publications were not in the field of climate science but in isotope geochemistry and hydrogeology. I never claimed they were. My point was that I know what it is to struggle with solving scientific problems with mathematical modeling etc. BTW I also have two patents – one a nice little earner. But that’s all.

    So have you too come along just to blow smoke out your ass and indulge in a bit of recreational ad hom-ing?

    No cojones?

  56. #56 MattB
    March 8, 2010

    Bernard I think I was annoying Steve at Nova’s, and he thought he could come her and expose me for my lack of radiative physics knowledge at my fingertips… thinking that I somehow would be aghast at being exposed in front of my mates at Deltoid. But sadly for Steve I rarely post here and tend to fully acknowledge that I have no particular technical expertise to boast of.. certainly not so an extent that showing i couldn’t work through some random calc would cause me any concern at all.

    I apologised a week or so ago for causing you to visit that site… now I must apologise for bringing it here:)

    My main point stands though – being how do Steve’s two questions fit in to a debate about deliberate misinterpretation of Pinker’s words “it can pass”. Answer- they don’t.

  57. #57 Bernard J.
    March 8, 2010

    Steve Short.

    You might want to check your keyboard – your ‘a’ button appears to be sticky.

    Either that or you’re a 12 year old school boy…

    I’ve already given you my ‘raw data’. If you can’t figure out which equation I chose to use, I’m happy to tell you that too, but really, what is your point? I care bugger all for your interest in albedo – why did you bring me into this in the first place?

    If you have an issue with another poster(s) here, why are you not taking it up with them?

  58. #58 Bernard J.
    March 8, 2010

    Oh, and Steve Short…

    You really need to see someone about your unhealthy fixation with other people’s reproductive organs.

  59. #59 P. Lewis
    March 8, 2010

    Re Steve Short’s questions.

    Is his maths correct? Quite probably, otherwise he’d not have entered into this little game he’s trying to play. Yes, these may be interesting undergrad questions on application of basic formulas in some meteorology or climate science course, but in reality, even if the figures are mathematically correct, what do the answers prove? Not a lot in the great scheme of things AGW. And certainly not something that is unknown by workers in this field.

    Steve Short’s repeated questions, which in fact were identical to his original questions, still made no reference to Tim’s point about his question 1. Steve Short’s questions also take no cognisance of the fact that though albedo changes due to cloud cover changes may (or may not exclusively) be going in one direction, albedo changes due to, for example, snow and ice cover changes (in all its forms) are going in the other direction.

    Steve Short’s question 2 makes no allowance for the fact that clouds can lead to both negative and positive effects on temperature. And depending on what types of cloud are formed, and when (e.g. day versus night), then the effects could well cancel over, say, a diurnal period (thus possibly ameliorating slightly any long-term effect based purely on the quoted percentage increase). Moreover, increased cloud cover goes hand in hand with increased relative humidity (t’other way around more likely), which, as pseudosceptics are wont often to relate, means the increased presence of that most potent GHG H2O vapour*. Also, whilst cloud cover may well have increased and its negative effect on radiative forcing marginally been more negative, the opposite will be true for, for example, CO2 and CH4 changes in the interim. And the increased presence of contrails, that human “manufactured” cloud form, from increased air traffic volumes will have what effect on radiative forcing? Minimal but positive wasn’t it, someone?

    (*Notwithstanding that small changes in relative humidity in dry areas could lead to increased cloud cover in those areas and ameliorate the increasing CO2 effect. Again known/appreciated by workers in the field.)

  60. #60 Katharine
    March 8, 2010

    Mr. Short:

    Which agency, and what did you do?

    Also, you need science to understand this, which makes you the loser and just as bad as, say, creobots.

  61. #61 Jeff Harvey
    March 8, 2010

    Steve Short,

    I am not a mathematician, nor am I a climate scientist. But if your expertise is all that it is cracked up to be, why aren’t you publishing your stuff where it counts – on the pages of PNAS, Science, Nature, any number of climate-related journals etc.? Your problem is that you act as if you are some kind of expert in the field, but there is little, apart from your own pontificating here and on a few contrarian blogs, to prove it.

    I found the web site of your employer anyway, and there appears to be little in the way to indicate that your calculations are going to change the course of science.
    P. Lewis nails it above. I think most of us here know the game that you are trying to play – much the same as was Ian Plimer’s game with George Monbiot. What is your grander point? Do you not think that climate scientists – you know, the one’s doing the research the last time I looked – have not spent considerable time calculating the net effects of cloud cover on the planet’s albedo? Has this not been factored into the climate models with respect to negative and positive feedbacks?

    If you want to play the intellectual snob game then that is fine by me; I can give you all kinds of biologiucal indicators showing that the world is warming and warming very rapidly.

    Lastly, I could find only 22 articles by you on the WOS with a grand total of 441 citations in your name. Where are the rest?

  62. #62 P. Lewis
    March 8, 2010

    Katharine @ #160, Steve Short is here. No great secret: he linked himself earlier in this thread.

  63. #63 jakerman
    March 8, 2010

    Steve short:
    >*So, basically, in a nutshell, seems I can pose two very simple questions*

    *If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.*

    — Thomas Pynchon (Gravity’s Rainbow)

    Short continues:
    >*Sure some of it is relevant. But I don’t really give a double damn how much wriggling around, sophistry, smoke blowing out your asses etc you might want to indulge yourself in.*

    Steve you will of course now explain which is relevant and which is the other, or like the lawyer traits you dislike will you simply leave it as a general smear over everything and nothing in particular?

    I notice you have [finished your mowing]( but not yet rebutted Wild. Rather than addressing the implications of Wild you instead chose to hide your working calcs. Dear me, what would Climate Audit say? Answer: Probably nothing.

    So go on Steve, ignore the problems with your question, you go on and publish your calcs and claims, we’ll be here to read them.

  64. #64 cohenite
    March 8, 2010

    Very good jakerman; raising the tone and injecting layers of irony into this ‘debate’; GV is of course the definitive statement of meaningless erudition and consequent paranoic dread, a fitting metaphor for either the modern condition or AGW theory or both since AGW aims to supplant all other value.

    As I said earlier Wild does not answer Pinker; the increase in SW at BOA is a fact and must have come from somewhere and, once and for all, fig 4 dealing with equivalent TOA decline and BOA increase in SW flux is not misleading because it deals with just the tropics; the tropics are where most of the energy comes and leaves the Earth; it is also where the mythical, lamented THS is predicted but declines to be; that there is an equivalence in TOA rate of decline of outgoing SW and BOA increasing SW seems, when matched with the indisputable decline in clouds, to provide a good explanation for temperature increases over the period. As for your observation that the period of 1983-2001 featured a small decrease in Surface SW between 1983-1993 and therefore a temperature signature cannot be correlated with SW; in fact the temp increase between 1983-1993 is 0.12C and between 1983-2001, 0.26C.

  65. #65 cohers aide
    March 8, 2010

    shorter cohers:

    >Let me practice the lawyer sophistry that Steve Short claims to detest; let me prentend Wild’s point was inconsistent with Pinker’s. This of course will aide distraction from fact that the point highlighted from both Pinker and Wild is their agreement that it is an error to conflate Surface SSR with the (topropheric) forcing employed by the IPCC.

    Another shorter cohers:

    >*Let me show you how I calculate the warming from unmaking surpressed GHG forcing (from previous dimming). Confounding variables? What confounding variables?*

    Another shorter cohers:

    >*1993 = 1990 if it gives prefered results.*

    Another shorter cohnite:

    >*change in TOA global = change in TOA tropics*

    Another cohers:

    >*GV is of course the definitive statement of meaningless erudition and consequent paranoic dread, a fitting metaphor for the modern condition* of sophistry and bluster exemplyfied by excessive use and **abuse of acronyms.**

  66. #66 cohenite
    March 8, 2010

    I wish my aide would read the Pinker paper and Monckton clarification; in the latter Pinker quotes the IPCC report:

    “In addition, the satelliteobserved
    increase in surface radiation noted by Pinker et al. (2005) occured primarily over
    ocean, whereas the increase observed by Wild et al. (2005) was restricted to land stations”

    In fact Pinker found that ‘S’ over land was decreasing at the same time it was increasing over the oceans; there was no land based increase in ‘S’ found by Pinker, a notable and profound difference with Wild. Pinker also says this:

    “The CO2 “radiative forcing” value that Mr. Christopher Monckton is quoting
    refers to the impact on the Earth’s Radiative balance as described above. The numbers
    that we quote in our paper represent the change in surface SW due to changes in the
    atmosphere (clouds, water vapor, aerosols). These two numbers cannot be compared at
    their face value. To the best of my understanding this is the source of the

    In fact Monckton was not mixing and matching TOA and BOA flux but erroneously described cloud forcing as being only the top of cloud reflection of SW whereas, as Pinker later explains, it is Fnet (cloud) = FSW (cloud) + FLW (cloud). So there are 2 concepts running around here; TOA/BOA flux and cloud forcing; cloud forcing is negative as Steve has noted and this shows;

    The relevance of TOA flux to BOA flux was dealt with by Pinker in the tropics [ and I have argued the pertinence of that above] and she correlated this with earthshine measurements for the SW period which showed “A steady decrease in Earth’s reflectance from 1984 to 2000 was shown, with a strong drop during the 1990′s. During 2001 to 2003…[there was] a reversal of the decline.” Since, unlike Wild, Pinker found a strong ‘S’ increase over ocean with a small decline over land the aerosol dimming contribution must be smaller than the cloud contribution; that being the case the TOA/BOA flux connection is determined by cloud cover; as Pinker observes; “clouds are the major modulators of the solar radiation that reaches the surface.”

  67. #67 cohers aide
    March 8, 2010

    >*In fact Pinker found that ‘S’ over land was decreasing at the same time it was increasing over the oceans; there was no land based increase in ‘S’ found by Pinker, a notable and profound difference with Wild.*

    In the Wild quote he was summarising dozens of studies including Pinker’s, you raise a red herring claim to distract from Monckton’s error.

    Ready for cohenite’s next trick, here it is:

    >*In fact Monckton was not mixing and matching TOA and BOA flux*

    Is that so Cohenite?


    >*I had kindly done the calculation on the basis that the change in surface radiance mentioned in the Pinker paper would be the same at top of atmosphere, from which a climate-sensitivity calculation using the UN’s method follows. However, since Pinker insists that it is the surface radiance that her paper addresses, one must of course use the Stefan-Boltzmann radiative-transfer equation to evaluate the temperature change*

    Anthony Cox and his Lawyer’s sophistry.

    Pinker points out that Monckton was conflating Surface Solar Radiation (S or SSR) with the IPCC measures of forcing, which are net change in forcing at the tropospuase. Pinker called Monckton on it and Wild’s paper details the reasons this is in error.

  68. #68 cohenite
    March 8, 2010

    Verballed; I specifically distinguished TOA/BOA and the cloud forcing mistake by Monckton; and I was talking about Pinker and Wild the dozens of other “summarised papers”; as to sophistry, the recognition of traits in others is most expertly done by those possessing those traits and the degree of recognition is in proportion to the degree of the trait possessed.

  69. #69 cohers aide
    March 8, 2010

    Cohers you verbal yourself:

    >*In fact Monckton was not mixing and matching TOA and BOA flux [coher's misrepresention [as demonstrated](] but erroneously described cloud forcing as being only the top of cloud reflection of SW whereas, as Pinker later explains, it is Fnet (cloud) = FSW (cloud) + FLW (cloud).*

    Cohers, offering up one error is not excuse for denying another of Monckton’s errors.

    >*the recognition of traits in others is most expertly done by those possessing those traits and the degree of recognition is in proportion to the degree of the trait possessed.*

    You’re now verballing Steve Short. But this is only half the story. Dealing with the cohers types who indulge in sophistry gives one experience in spotting it.

    Cohers writes:

    >*I was talking about Pinker and Wild the dozens of other “summarised papers”*

    You might have been, but if you were, you were doing so to change the subject and distract from the Monckton errors. Cohers you pretened that Wild needed to answer Pinker yet the quotes re Monckton were in agreement. One pointed out Monckton’s error (conflating Surface Solar Radiation with the IPCC measures of forcing) and Wild’s quote details the reasons why that conflation is an error.

  70. #70 cohenite
    March 8, 2010

    There you have it; the Pinker paper does not support the Wild conclusion about TOA/BOA flux incompatibility; imo.

  71. #71 cohers aide
    March 9, 2010


    >*There you have it; the Pinker paper does not support the Wild conclusion about TOA/BOA flux incompatibility; imo.*

    There you have “it”, that is if “it” is empty unsupported opinion as a distraction, yes. And not a defense of Monckton’s error, as called by Pinker (and Pinkers call explained by Wild). Yes that is what was thrown up by Cohenite in his screen of sophistry.

    How well supported is cohenite’s opinion? Well the Wild quotes don’t even make a conclusion nor even a statement about “*TOA/BOA flux incompatibility*”.

    Pinker and Wild both point out the error in the BOA/Tropopause flux conflation.

    Cohenite, an apt representative of Moncktion, seems immune to understanding the the points he and Monckton get wrong.

  72. #72 Lotharsson
    March 9, 2010

    In fact Monckton was not mixing and matching TOA and BOA flux but erroneously described cloud forcing as being only the top of cloud reflection of SW whereas, as Pinker later explains, it is Fnet (cloud) = FSW (cloud) + FLW (cloud).

    The paragraph immediately prior to this in your comment either refutes the claim that Monckton was referring to Fnet(cloud) as defined by Pinker or shows it to STILL be a serious error. If you don’t see why, then perhaps you should consider giving up lawyering. If you *already* know why but said it anyway…well, I’ll leave that up to individual readers to determine.

  73. #73 Steve Short
    March 10, 2010

    I’m flying in and out of remote mine sites in another country at present so am having great difficulty accessing the Net but here is a reply I’ve just sent off to a polite person who sent me a personal email (noting I don’t hide behind an avatar name and my email address, web site and academic qualifications are freely accessible as Katherine pointed-out).

    Dear Steve

    I very much appreciated your analysis comparing surface solar irradiance with cloud cover over the period 1983-2001. I was trying to double-check your calculation, but haven’t been able to locate all of the data and formulae you used. I’d be very grateful if you would find a few moments to point me in the right direction.

    [1] When you mention K, T and F 2009, I assume you mean Is this right? If so, how have you extracted the total surface solar irradiance from here?

    [2] I haven’t been able to locate the source for the NASA cloud cover data you mention. Do you have a URL for this data?

    [3] I also haven’t located the source for the albedo formula, A = 0.250C + 0.134. Could you suggest a reference for this as well?

    I hope you don’t mind me quizzing you like this, and thank you very much in advance for your help.

    Kindest regards,


    To answer your questions:

    (1) Yes I do mean Trenberth, Fasullo and Kiehl, 2009: Earths Global Energy Budget. As I’m sure you know, total surface solar irradiance is quoted therein (Table 2b and Figure 1) as = net surface solar 161.2 + surface reflected 23.1 = 184.3 (noting the surface reflected will be included in the albedo-reflected). I had mistakenly quoted the average (238.9) of the Absorbed Solar Radiation (ASR; 239.4) and Outwards Longwave Radiation (238.5) i.e. 238.9 rather than the net surface solar. I will probably issue a correction to Benny when I can find a moment although this doesn’t alter the overall gist of my argument at all as I was trying to show that the % change in total surface solar irradiancewhich Pinker measured more or less matched the change in % (1 – Albedo).

    (2) URL for the NASA cloud data is

    Note the long term mean cloud cover given therein is 66.38%

    (3) The albedo stuff is very interesting. Here you will find data for albedo over the ISCCP-FD data period March 2000 – May 2004 which Trenberth et al., 2009 referred-to:

    This shows that ISCCP-FD got albedos between around 99.6% and 100.0% of the long term average albedo over that period (but note the error bars). If the average albedo in this period is 0.2986 (=101.9/341.3) as Trenberth et al claim then the long term average albedo is about 0.2986/0.998 = 0.2992.

    We can easily check the range of mean global cloud covers which applied over that March 2000 – March 2004. I blew up the plot at the NASA web page a bit and got about 65.1% around March 2000 and about 66.1 around May 2004. For a nominal long term albedo of 0.299 this enabled me to make a rough estimate of how one could vary albedo with cloud cover over relatively small variations in albedo and cloud cover.

    Thus was derived the simple algorithm I used. It does not appear in the literature.

    But I might add that provided one is dealing with small variations about the mean long term albedo of 0.299 and mean long term cloud cover of 66.38% it really doesn’t matter much what simple algorithm one may come up with to fit those small variations.

    In retrospect I possibly should have fixed the constant term (0.134) to 0.067 which Trenberth et al. identify as the surface component of SW albedo i.e. 23.1/341.3 = 0.067. Then the algorithm should have been Albedo (A) = 0.35C + 0.067 where C = cloud cover.

    So let’s do that and find out what happens.

    For example, this would mean that in 1983; 1-A = 0.35×0.677+0.067 = 0.304 and

    in 2001; 1-A = 0.35×0.644+0.067 = 0.292

    Thus in 1983; 1 – A = 1 – 0.304 = 0.696

    and in 2001; 1 – A = 1 – 0.292 = 0.708

    Therefore, between 1983 and 2001, the known reduction in the Earth’s albedo A as measured by NASA would have increased effective surface solar irradiance (which partially warms the surface) by 200 x [(0.708 – 0.696)/(0.708 + 0.696)]% = 200 x (0.012/1.404)% = 1.7%

    Note that there is only ~161 W/m^2 of SW heating the surface rather than the ~184 W/m^2 (23 W/m^2 being reflected) then 0.017 x 161 = 2.7 W/m^2 is actually the effective warming the surface. However 2.7 W/m^ = 1.5% of the 184 W/m^2 which is still very close to Pinker’s 1.2%.

    I hope this is an adequate response.

    Best regards