Imagine thinking that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate (IPCC) is an actual legitimate scientific organization and seeing this diagram:

“Woah” you think to yourself. “Look at what humans have done!”

Notice, there is one natural factor: “Solar Irradiance”. But what they don’t tell you is that this is solar variation at the top of the atmosphere!

What’s been going on at the bottom of the atmosphere for 7 decades?

And then you realize what kind of a blatant fraud the IPCC really is.

3 W/m2 over ~70 years or 4 W/m2 over ~35 years completely wipes away their nonsense.

But facts won’t stop them from playing their little game of blaming those they want to punish, sad to say.

Enjoy 🙂 -Zoe

Alternate View

Code

```# Zoe Phin, 2022/06/23
# File: ncep.sh
# Output: netsol.png

require() { sudo apt-get install -y gnuplot python3-xarray python3-netcdf4; }
extract() { echo "import xarray as x; import numpy as n
a=6378.137; e=1-6356.752**2/a**2; r=n.pi/180
d = x.open_dataset('ncep.nc')['nswrs']
by_lat=(a*r)**2*(1-e)*n.cos(r*d.lat)/(1-e*n.sin(r*d.lat)**2)**2
for m in d.weighted(by_lat).mean({'lon','lat'}):
print(m.values)" | python3 -u | awk '!/nan/{print 1948+NR/12+1/24" "\$1}' | tee sol.mon
}
plot() {
cat sol.mon | yoy 12 > sol.yoy
paste sol.mon sol.yoy > sol.csv
echo "set term png size 740,540
set key outside top center horizontal
set grid xtics ytics
set xrange [1947:2023]
set format y '%.1f'
set ytics 1
plot 'sol.csv' u 1:3 t 'NCEP/NCAR Net Solar (W/m²) - 12mo CMA' w l lw 2 lc rgb 'orange'
" | gnuplot > netsol.png
}
yoy() { awk '{printf "%s ",\$2}' | awk -vp=\$1 '{ h=p/2;
for (i=0;i<h;i++) print ""
for (i=h;i<=NF-h;i++) { s=0
for (j=i-h+1;j<=i+h;j++) s+=\$j/p
printf "%8.6f\n", s
} }'
}
```

https://phzoe.com

1. Daniel Gruenberg says:

0.05% CO2 effect is nothing compared to water vapor. I would be interested to see if we could parse out the water vapor effect vs. the CO2 effect. IPCC models contain a huge assumption that water vapor concentration is linked to CO2 and that is the basis for the runaway warming.

Like

1. The vast bulk of more net solar will be absorbed by water vapor. The IPCC’s premise is everything is controlled by humans except TOA solar. Doesn’t matter to them what reality is, they construct a false reality by reverse engineering everything that happened naturally and saying humans did it.

Liked by 1 person

2. Max Polo says:

Thanks Zoe ! So interesting as usual. This result seems to suggest that all the warming since the eighties is due to the net sun … how does this fit with your previous result (“What caused 40 years of GW”) i.e. 18% sun 82% geothermal (1.4 W/m2 solar vs 6.7 W/m2 geothermal) ?

Like

1. My “geothermal” is an opaque mix of real geothermal, stored solarthermal, ocean circulation changes etc. It comes from below the surface. Here I do not look at longwave radiation changes. Those changes are large and NOBODY accounts for them. Even warmists don’t claim a 8-9 W/m^2 increase from GHGs. I needed to plug the gap. Some of that gap may be radiation budget errors or change in methods. Don’t know. Does anyone? Looked for it. Haven’t seen it.

Liked by 1 person

3. Bernd says:

Hi Zoe, very interesting! But why are the values of the y-axis negative?

Liked by 1 person

1. That’s their data. For some reason they show upwelling minus downwelling, rather than the usual opposite.

Like

4. Tom Dayton says:

If as you wrote, your first graph of net solar shows upwelling at surface minus downwelling at surface, then 0 means perfect reflection–100% albedo, 0 energy absorbed by the surface. Negative means less than perfect reflection–less than 100% albedo, greater than 0 energy absorbed by the surface. The trend since about 1980 has been less negative–trending from negative toward 0. That means the trend has been toward *less* energy absorbed by the surface, because either albedo has been increasing, or downwelling has been decreasing, or both. So that trend contributes to cooling, not warming.

Like

1. Now that you mention it, they must have done something else. In any case, I posted an alternate view to show that net solar has increased.

Like

1. Tom Dayton says:

If that alternate view is of the same variable but merely with rescaling of the y axis, then it too shows cooling. Please post a link to the official explanation of that variable.

Like

1. No, it’s an anomaly measurement. And no, positive doesn’t mean cooling. Surface solar brightening is a fact, widely published. Also see my “6 Decades of Solar …”

Like

2. Tom Dayton says:

Expressing that variable as an anomaly does not flip it’s direction, so if it was showing a cooling influence then as an anomaly it still is showing a cooling influence. If it is not really showing cooling then you posted graphs of a variable whose meaning is unclear. It is incumbent on you to support your interpretation.

Like

1. Becoming less negative is a warming. The anomaly is a warming. What do I care about the scale when I already know the direction? I don’t bother with trivial things.

Like

3. Tom Dayton says:

Yes, surface brightening is well known, contrary to your original post’s claim that “they” are ignoring it. In fact there is a large literature. Part of brightening is forced by reduction of reflective anthropogenic aerosols since passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970. Other parts of brightening and dimming are interactions of aerosols with clouds, which also are subjects of a large research literature. If the variables you plotted really are net surface shortwave, then they show a combo of brightening and albedo. Albedo has both forced and fed back components, both of which are long studied. Downwelling also has both forced and fed back components, long studied. The two graphs at the top of your post show only forcings, not feedbacks. Your post is not the least bit revelatory.

Like

1. “Part of brightening is forced by reduction of reflective anthropogenic aerosols since passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970.”

And what part would that be? They seem to claim all.

The very fact that you think that real forcings are feedback, and fake forcings are all resulting from humans … shows that you’re kind of a biased fool.

So what do you really believe? You think humans enabled more sun to reach the surface? That’s the new greenhouse gas theory?

Like

2. Nonsense.

“the change in surface solar radiation is expected to be much more than the net radiative forcing from global brightening.”

LMAO

You are a fool. Don’t you see what they do? All changes in surface longwave IS explained by changes in shortwave reaching the surface. They then distribute that shortwave among all the EFFECTS, and then claim they are the cause. Their “radiative forcings” chart use insolation at TOA, not at surface – so they could hide the obvious.

In order for GHG warming to be true, there would have to be longwave radiation changes at surface GREATER than shortwave. But there is none! Shortwave explains all!

Not only does shortwave explain it all, but it’s cyclical. This current peak is only marginally larger than that of ~1960 – which suggests our historic temp record prior to satellite age is probably flawed.

And as you can see skepticalscience can’t explain why this peak is only slightly larger than 1960. All of their man-made attributions make no sense to 1960. This was before many environmental legislation.

Bottom line: They are desperately trying to say that humans caused changes to clouds, aerosols, etc so as to provide all the surface energy that GHGs didn’t.

Don’t post garbage that I’ve already went a meta level above.

Like

1. Well, it’s not a persistent globewide effort for decades, that’s for sure.

I don’t how much this interferes, but doubtfully anything significant?

Like

5. CD Marshall says:

Do you even post here anymore?

Like

1. Taking a break. Mr Putin and Resident Biden created instability in my business. Business first. Will return. Thanks for noticing.

Like

6. CD Marshall says:

I’m glad you’re okay at least. 🙂

Liked by 1 person