No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds

[johnsmith.]

Admit it you miss Mouse!

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

Why does Ruff always disappear when I give my replies to him?

Ruff, can you not dipute what I say?

I believe Ruff is hitting the books researching his replies.




This thread has been an interesting read (at least the global warming debate). I still haven't seen enough evidence to indicate to me that man's impact on global warming has been that significant. That being said, man does have a responsibility to protect and preserve this planet, I fully believe that.

I think what people can't seem to accept is that the world's climate is in constant flux. It's not going to stay the same forever. And as things change, the earth has a way of adapting and changing with it.

Aren't we just between ice ages anyway? In a few thousand years Canada will be covered in ice. When that happens I'm bumping this thread, I promise you that!!

[tlongII]

I believe Ruff is hitting the books researching his replies.




This thread has been an interesting read (at least the global warming debate). I still haven't seen enough evidence to indicate to me that man's impact on global warming has been that significant. That being said, man does have a responsibility to protect and preserve this planet, I fully believe that.

I think what people can't seem to accept is that the world's climate is in constant flux. It's not going to stay the same forever. And as things change, the earth has a way of adapting and changing with it.

Aren't we just between ice ages anyway? In a few thousand years Canada will be covered in ice. When that happens I'm bumping this thread, I promise you that!!

I agree with this. What Ruff doesn't seem to understand is that the Sun's impact on Earth's climate makes man's impact insignificant. It's one of those things that is so obvious that it doesn't require significant research.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Why does Ruff always disappear when I give my replies to him?

Ruff, can you not dipute what I say?

I've explained to you before, I have little interest in debating this on an internet forum because the science is rock solid and because neither of us is going to change our positions. I already explained to you the major holes in your first post. I'll address you second post if you like, but really, what's the point?

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

I agree with this. What Ruff doesn't seem to understand is that the Sun's impact on Earth's climate makes man's impact insignificant. It's one of those things that is so obvious that it doesn't require significant research.

The quan y of insolation impacts upon the planet, no .

The only problem there is that the insolation record does not accord with the warming. There was some correlation earlier this century, but since the 1970s insolation has not tracked with warming.

that you would presume to think that either the world's scientists would simply ignore solar cycles. Solar cycles are part of the research, dumbass.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

I believe Ruff is hitting the books researching his replies.

This thread has been an interesting read (at least the global warming debate). I still haven't seen enough evidence to indicate to me that man's impact on global warming has been that significant. That being said, man does have a responsibility to protect and preserve this planet, I fully believe that.

I think what people can't seem to accept is that the world's climate is in constant flux. It's not going to stay the same forever. And as things change, the earth has a way of adapting and changing with it.

Aren't we just between ice ages anyway? In a few thousand years Canada will be covered in ice. When that happens I'm bumping this thread, I promise you that!!

Ed, of course we know that climate is in constant flux - it is the rate of change that is important, and the rate of change we are seeing is far beyond the background rate.

I'll issue you my standard challenge - go and talk to some scientist about the topic at your local university. Listen to what they have to say, ask questions, read some books, then make up your mind.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Spoken like a true believer...

Those "Climate Scientists" and "major scientific organizations" have d themselves out for grant money and written the "hockey stick" bible. You are a "true believer".

At least those ers that go for a literal translation of the Koran just strap explosives to themselves and kill a few people at a time.

You assholes want to strap explosives to modern society and blow us all back into the "earth friendly" dark ages.

Yeah, there's so much more grant money than there is in fossil fuels!

Sorry, who wants to go back to the Dark Ages? Not I sir. But that is what is sure to happen if we continue to ignore man's impact on the environment (not just climate, all systems) as we have to this point in human history. I, and people like me, are trying to preserve this civilisation by making it sustainable. It's luddites like yourself, interested only in your own material gratification, that are destroying everything with no thought for the future.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

3.6Tt = 982 GtC. Over 200 years, that's a 4.91 GtC annual average. I really doubt that number.

Actually, now that I think about it, I do too - seems high - although it is CO2e, so it includes CO2, CH4, N2O, tropospheric ozone, halocarbons. However, the point remains that atmospheric CO2 concentration has been rising inexorably since we began closely measuring it, and at nearly 390ppm is about 35% higher than it has ever been in recent geological history(~850,000 years) and likely a lot longer.

You misunderstood. Anthropogenic CO2 is only 4% of the flux. A flux that has such a steep slope, it is laughable not to realize something else causes it to remain in the atmosphere.

You mean 4% of the flows, and as someone who understands complex systems you should know that changing a key variable in a complex system by 4% will have wide-reaching effects throughout the system. In this case the system is earth's atmospheric blanket.

So, what else is causing the atmospheric buildup of CO2?

At least you agree there is such a system occurring. I find it difficult for most people to agree this occurs. Now the thing is, about 80% of the sinking of CO2 is near the polar regions where the sea water is colder. It very shortly continues in the Thermohaline circulation to the deeper waters. It is a slow process for the complete circulation, as long as 1600 years, but the sinking is still fact. As early as 200 years, absorbed CO2 is now in the equatorial regions, where the oceans are a net source.

?

The carbon cycle is 1st year undergrad stuff - every scientist knows what it is and how it works. So you admit that your calculations were way off when you included the 39Tt deep ocean sink?

I am saying that 98+% of the CO2 we put in the atmosphere should be absorbed by the oceans. I am saying that equilibrium has changed due to ocean water warming. I am saying that even if we output no CO2, that solar irradiance changes that have increased the ocean warming over these last 400 years have changed the equilibrium.

...and those solar irradiance changes have been addressed in the science. The consensus is that they are responsible for 30-40% of the observed warming. That is widely accepted by the scientific community.

Did you read the article and see the notes where they get their numbers from the IPCC?

Ah, no, the IPCC doesn't do science. You mean they took the numbers from peer-reviewed science that was included in the IPCC report. So, all science included in the IPCC reports (but gathered from hundreds of independent peer-reviewed sources) is corrupted??? C'mon now, you're starting to sound like mouse..

I would say it's hard to quantify a changing system. If you take just the increased average solar irradiance since 1900, realize the oceans cover 71% of the surface, and that they absorb more than 90% of the sun's energy, how can someone not realize that this latent heat not only changes the equation, but has a lag time too. Our solar irradiance has increased by approximately 0.2% since the Maunder Minimum to 2000 (NOAA-Judith Lean 2004). The annual change from 1700 to 2000 is 0.235% and the 11 year average for 1700 to 2000 is 0.196%. This latent energy will continue to change our climate for at least decades and likely for centuries to come.

Keep in mind we calculate temperatures for science in the Kelvin scale. a 0.2% increase for an approximate 288 K adds 0.576 degrees. That alone is more than half the warming claimed since industrialization started. Now the average increase for the 300 years is only an average 0.08%, but when you add 71% x 90% x total annual energy of 174 petawatts for 300 years... If the oceans have retained all this increased energy, then it is about 26.7 petawatts. 15.3% of the annual energy. Now in reality, maybe only half to quarter of this stays latent with the circulation of the oceans, and the rest is shorter term lag in the surface oceans. There is no way mankind has of reducing the warming effect on the earth. Nature has to dissipate this energy herself. This is a major reason she has an elevated temperature. She is doing just that.

A very biased article if you ask me.

Why do they deny the effects of the solar increases starting about 1900? This would definitely account for what they attribute to other unknown things.
Warmer water means more outgassing in the equatorial regions and less absorption in the polar regions. This is simple equilibrium that needs no source. If you agree the oceans have warmed, then you must believe this is true, unless you refute the associated sciences that are well understood.

Yet again you pull out over-simplified numbers to build a case when far more detailed investigation has been published in peer-reviewed journals. The sun is responsible for 30-40% of observed warming, no-one is disputing that. It's the other 60-70% we're worried about.

I'm very surprised you haven't talked about climate sensitivity. That is the one element of the science that I still think needs a lot more work - we need to further define the sensitivity number. Other than that though, the picture drawn by peer-reviewed science is pretty complete for me

See, there's no point to debating this. I have read the peer-reviewed science and find it to be compelling, as have a vast majority of the other scientists on the planet.

The ultimate irony here is that whether you accept AGW or not, our economies are going to have to transition to sustainable energy generation anyway, and quickly, because of depletion of fossil fuel resources! At current consumption rates, we have about 40 years of oil (and that is the conservative figure), 80 years of natural gas and 150-200 years of coal left on the planet, and that's it - and that doesn't account for the vastly increased rates of gas/coal consumptio nthat will occur as the oil runs out.

Even without the climate crisis, things have to change, and quickly, if we are to avoid a massive global economic meltdown when oil supply tightens, since EVERYTHING is dripping in oil - the food you eat, the house you live in, the clothes on your back, the consumer goods you take for granted, etc. - all of it required the consumption of large quan ies of oil. To keep the current model going we need to find a renewable transport fuel capable of replacing 85,000,000 barrels of oil PER DAY. Where exactly is that coming from?

The whole world is in denial - just like the GFC, we have been living beyond our environmental means for 50 years now, and the debt continues to grow. The Piper will be paid, and unless we get smart about it now it's going to be ugly.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Actually, I should note that that 30-40% warming due to the sun that I mentioned is an old number, and I should have defined that it applied from 1850-1980. More recent studies of the last 3 decades have shown that the sun is unlikely to have contributed anything like that to recent warming, and that since the 1980s the sun has in facted COOLED whilst temperature has continued to rise.

[balli]

Not to interject myself into what appears to be yet another epic GW debate-

As anecdote though, I just got back from walking the dog and I smell like a ing campfire. As the most epic GW thread ever said- Global Warming or Not, Doesn't Matter... not as long as this keeps happening to my lungs and city:

[CosmicCowboy]

ing over educated idiots. Your "computer models" can't even tell us what the weather will do 10 days from now and you expect me to believe it can tell us what it will do 100 years from now? What a ing joke.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...arts-here.html

[balli]

ing over educated idiots. Your "computer models" can't even tell us what the weather will do 10 days from now and you expect me to believe it can tell us what it will do 100 years from now? What a ing joke.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...arts-here.html

That's not the issue. If you're asking me. cc looks at the pic above his post and goes:

meh, not a problem... That couldn't posssibly cause any negative consequences.

I don't give a what scientist's 'computer models' say. Using my own eyes and nose works just fine.

[101A]

That's not the issue. If you're asking me. cc looks at the pic above his post and goes:

meh, not a problem... That couldn't posssibly cause any negative consequences.

I don't give a what scientist's 'computer models' say. Using my own eyes and nose works just fine.

Good luck with that.

CO2 - Odorless AND Colorless.

No one is disputing whether pollution sucks or not; the debate, in large part, is if CO2 is, in fact, pollution.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

Ed, of course we know that climate is in constant flux - it is the rate of change that is important, and the rate of change we are seeing is far beyond the background rate.

I'll issue you my standard challenge - go and talk to some scientist about the topic at your local university. Listen to what they have to say, ask questions, read some books, then make up your mind.

Ruff, I haven't climbed into the subject to the degree a lot of you have, I'll give you that. But I was actually pretty convinced that man was the major factor in influencing global warming, up until the the time I actually started going through the literature a little bit. Now that I've done a fair amount of personal research on the subject I'm not convinced that our impact is that substantial.

That being said, I fully believe that we have to do all we can to protect the earth. It's a responsibility mankind is charged with and we have to take it seriously. I worry when people use the argument that man's impact on the environment is minimal as an excuse to do something destructive to the planet.

On the flipside, I also worry about people trying to use scare tactics to try to make people more environmentally conscious. But I suppose if that approach is successful in creating a more environmentally responsible world, then the end justifies the means.

[Blue Jew]

The problem with this debate if you agree with a certain poster your an idiot and have no consideration for this earth and your the main reason this earth is in the shape it is.

If you agree with Ruff? Your a tree hugging who needs to join Oprah's book club. So I basically avoid Global warming and abortion debates.

I do know one thing if you actually can say with a straight face that man has no effect at all on this planet then your one of the most thick headed fools around.

So you guys knock yourself out on this debate just don't talk about NASA,the age of the earth,or evolution I may have to interact...provided Phyzix is not around.

[balli]

Good luck with that.

CO2 - Odorless AND Colorless.

No one is disputing whether pollution sucks or not; the debate, in large part, is if CO2 is, in fact, pollution.

I'm well aware what the debate is about. I just don't care. That's why I stated that my initial take was anecdote. If it takes lies abut co2 to get soot out of the air? Fine by me. Lie away Al Gore. I just don't want people's F-250's or coal fired power plants pumping particulate into my lungs. Whatever that particulate might be, co2 or otherwise.

So yeah, co2, GW, none of that matters to me in any capacity other than the fact that co2 is inexorably linked to pollution. Whether it's actually pollution or not doesn't matter. It's routinely emitted with the soot and other that is. Thereby, the endgame is the same. Cut down on carbon, you cut down on smog as a bi-product.

Whatever it takes to clean up our air, I don't care, the ends justify the means.

[Wild Cobra]

I've explained to you before, I have little interest in debating this on an internet forum because the science is rock solid and because neither of us is going to change our positions. I already explained to you the major holes in your first post. I'll address you second post if you like, but really, what's the point?

But your explainations were wrong.

[Wild Cobra]

The quan y of insolation impacts upon the planet, no .

The only problem there is that the insolation record does not accord with the warming. There was some correlation earlier this century, but since the 1970s insolation has not tracked with warming.

that you would presume to think that either the world's scientists would simply ignore solar cycles. Solar cycles are part of the research, dumbass.

Have you ever heard me use insolation dumbass? I have said that science is wrong! You have to consider the global energy. Not specific areas like 65N insolation.

Problem with you edjucated assholes, is you cannot think past what you are educated to think. Then on top of that, just because one aspect does not explain something doen't give you lcense to throw out the other aspects of it.

Insolation controling warming. A ing joke. It only explains how harsh or mild the seasons will be, not the total earth energy. I say eccentricity is the key. Consider kepler's Law, and how long the earth spends at greater than and less than everage distance from the sun. At a low eccentriciy, the sun spend a little more time farther than 1 AU than it does at less than 1 AU. As the eccentrity rises, the sun spends notably more time at more than 1 AU than it does at less than 1 AU. If all other factors remaining the same, we will continue to have warming for the next 26,000 years, when we reach mimimum eccentricity. This is a 400,000 year cycle.

As for total irradiance, the earth has tracked real well for irradiance vs, temperature with few exceptions. that 1970+ is one of them, but there are short term variations, and 20-30 years is a joke to consider. Besides, there are explainations for that that are plausible.

[Wild Cobra]

390ppm is about 35% higher than it has ever been in recent geological history(~850,000 years) and likely a lot longer.

Sure, but have you ever looked at how long the data points are past a few thousand years? Dr. Glassman estimates only a 5% chance of seeing a 50 year CO2 level past what we have today because of how far apart the data ponts are.

You mean 4% of the flows, and as someone who understands complex systems you should know that changing a key variable in a complex system by 4% will have wide-reaching effects throughout the system. In this case the system is earth's atmospheric blanket.

Flow and flux are the same. Flux is defined as the amount that flows through a unit area per unit time. We have a given time of one year we have been talking about, and as a percentage, well, time isn't so important.

So, what else is causing the atmospheric buildup of CO2?

The ability of the ocean to absorb given types of gasses as the temperature changes. It takes a very small tempearture increase for the ocean's equilibrium with the atmosphere to change, causing it to expell gas.

Thing is, with the warming of the oecans, we would still have nearly as hogh of CO2 levels if we didn't add any. If the ocean didn't increase in temperature, it would absorb more than 98% of the CO2 we release.

The carbon cycle is 1st year undergrad stuff - every scientist knows what it is and how it works. So you admit that your calculations were way off when you included the 39Tt deep ocean sink?

No. They may alter the calculations some, but since the ocean circulates, CO2 is still being brought to the deeper oceans.

...and those solar irradiance changes have been addressed in the science. The consensus is that they are responsible for 30-40% of the observed warming. That is widely accepted by the scientific community.

Consensus...

That alone proves you are not a worthy scientist.

Science is not done by concensus.

WTF... "30-40% of the observed warming" Observed warnming. How in can you attribute "observed" to solar when there are so many factors. It is simple energy calculations, one of the easiest aspects on the geosciences to understand.

I guess you would believe the world was flat too is you lived in the past.

Remember, correlation does not equal causation.

Ah, no, the IPCC doesn't do science. You mean they took the numbers from peer-reviewed science that was included in the IPCC report. So, all science included in the IPCC reports (but gathered from hundreds of independent peer-reviewed sources) is corrupted??? C'mon now, you're starting to sound like mouse..

Global warming is so politicised, even the peer review claims are innacurate, and even fraudulant at times. The current thoughts have now been incorrectly taught for decades, so peer review will most often yield incorrect findings.

Yet again you pull out over-simplified numbers to build a case when far more detailed investigation has been published in peer-reviewed journals. The sun is responsible for 30-40% of observed warming, no-one is disputing that. It's the other 60-70% we're worried about.

Well, I would day the sun is responsible for 0.57 degrees of the 0.85 degrees of warming. Soot on ice responsible for at least another 0.15 C leaving 0.13 C or less for greenhouse gas increases. But then, that's what my math says.

I'm very surprised you haven't talked about climate sensitivity. That is the one element of the science that I still think needs a lot more work - we need to further define the sensitivity number. Other than that though, the picture drawn by peer-reviewed science is pretty complete for me

How would you define it?

See, there's no point to debating this. I have read the peer-reviewed science and find it to be compelling, as have a vast majority of the other scientists on the planet.

Notice how most these peer review works use the same sources?

The ultimate irony here is that whether you accept AGW or not, our economies are going to have to transition to sustainable energy generation anyway, and quickly, because of depletion of fossil fuel resources!

We will never run out of fossile fuel. It will get more expensive as we find it harder to obtain, and this will become a natural transition. Pushing the transition is only harmful to the economy.

At current consumption rates, we have about 40 years of oil (and that is the conservative figure), 80 years of natural gas and 150-200 years of coal left on the planet, and that's it - and that doesn't account for the vastly increased rates of gas/coal consumptio nthat will occur as the oil runs out.

Updated figures say otherwise.

Even without the climate crisis, things have to change, and quickly, if we are to avoid a massive global economic meltdown when oil supply tightens, since EVERYTHING is dripping in oil - the food you eat, the house you live in, the clothes on your back, the consumer goods you take for granted, etc. - all of it required the consumption of large quan ies of oil. To keep the current model going we need to find a renewable transport fuel capable of replacing 85,000,000 barrels of oil PER DAY. Where exactly is that coming from?

My God man...

Why are you so authoritarian? Don't you think that supply and demand pricing will create the industries to do what you and you like-mided authoritarians want to impose on all of us?

Let it occur naturally for God's sake.

The whole world is in denial - just like the GFC, we have been living beyond our environmental means for 50 years now, and the debt continues to grow. The Piper will be paid, and unless we get smart about it now it's going to be ugly.

I disagree.

[Wild Cobra]

Actually, I should note that that 30-40% warming due to the sun that I mentioned is an old number, and I should have defined that it applied from 1850-1980. More recent studies of the last 3 decades have shown that the sun is unlikely to have contributed anything like that to recent warming, and that since the 1980s the sun has in facted COOLED whilst temperature has continued to rise.

So?

I'm talking about from Maunder Minimum to present day, removing the short term variations.

[Wild Cobra]

Good luck with that.

CO2 - Odorless AND Colorless.

No one is disputing whether pollution sucks or not; the debate, in large part, is if CO2 is, in fact, pollution.

No kidding. Smog is a different beast than CO2. I agree with environmental regulations to eliminate smog. Just not CO2.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Good luck with that.

CO2 - Odorless AND Colorless.

No one is disputing whether pollution sucks or not; the debate, in large part, is if CO2 is, in fact, pollution.

No, that is not the debate. The debate is whether the level of CO2 that is being added to the carbon cycle by humans is detrimentally affecting earth's systems.

Ruff, I haven't climbed into the subject to the degree a lot of you have, I'll give you that. But I was actually pretty convinced that man was the major factor in influencing global warming, up until the the time I actually started going through the literature a little bit. Now that I've done a fair amount of personal research on the subject I'm not convinced that our impact is that substantial.

That being said, I fully believe that we have to do all we can to protect the earth. It's a responsibility mankind is charged with and we have to take it seriously. I worry when people use the argument that man's impact on the environment is minimal as an excuse to do something destructive to the planet.

On the flipside, I also worry about people trying to use scare tactics to try to make people more environmentally conscious. But I suppose if that approach is successful in creating a more environmentally responsible world, then the end justifies the means.

I'd be interested to see the evidence that swayed you the other way, Ed.

But your explainations were wrong.

Oh really? They weren't as good as your first-year undergrad over-simplified calculations which ignore the subtlties of the systems involved? Your explanations are better than the cannon of peer-reviewed science observed by thousands of scientists. Um, okay then.

Have you ever heard me use insolation dumbass? I have said that science is wrong! You have to consider the global energy. Not specific areas like 65N insolation.

Problem with you edjucated assholes, is you cannot think past what you are educated to think. Then on top of that, just because one aspect does not explain something doen't give you lcense to throw out the other aspects of it.

Insolation controling warming. A ing joke. It only explains how harsh or mild the seasons will be, not the total earth energy. I say eccentricity is the key. Consider kepler's Law, and how long the earth spends at greater than and less than everage distance from the sun. At a low eccentriciy, the sun spend a little more time farther than 1 AU than it does at less than 1 AU. As the eccentrity rises, the sun spends notably more time at more than 1 AU than it does at less than 1 AU. If all other factors remaining the same, we will continue to have warming for the next 26,000 years, when we reach mimimum eccentricity. This is a 400,000 year cycle.

As for total irradiance, the earth has tracked real well for irradiance vs, temperature with few exceptions. that 1970+ is one of them, but there are short term variations, and 20-30 years is a joke to consider. Besides, there are explainations for that that are plausible.

My comment about insolation was in relation to tlong asserting that I and the rest of the world's scientists have forgotten to account for the sun. Global energy balance is exactly what you need to consider, where did I say otherwise? Global energy balance is what is affected by thickening the atmosphere's GHG blanket.

I am well aware of Milankovitch cycles and their interaction with glacial-interglacial cycles - they are the hammer, and CO2/methane the gunpowder, that transitions the planet from glacial to inter-glacial. And?

[Wild Cobra]

I am well aware of Milankovitch cycles and their interaction with glacial-interglacial cycles - they are the hammer, and CO2/methane the gunpowder, that transitions the planet from glacial to inter-glacial. And?

Theory without much merit. Eccentricity far better explains gross thermal energy. Simple inverse square law for energy from the sun. 65N insolation only explains norther hemisphere direct suface heat. Obliquity and precession have no place other than predicting how harsh the seasons are.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

I'm not going to bother replying to your other post except to say there's no point debating this stuff here, as I've already said. I present what SCIENCE, that is the great scientists of the world have found, you present a hotch-potch of oversimplified nonsense and arguments you've taken from junkscience.org and the like. I challenge anyone who cares about the subject to talk to EXPERTS (that is, climate scientists) about the matter and read broadly. Come to your own conclusions.

As for Peakoil, "we will never run out of fossil fuels"? Ha! Are you not aware that they are a finite resource? Where are your "revised figures" coming from? The IEA has downgraded its forecast of peak oil supply each year this decade. We haven't discovered a supergiant field in over 30 years. We've discovered 1 barrel for every 6 we've used this decade. That is called TERMINAL DECLINE. And then you call me authoritarian for not believing the market is the final solution for everything... the market is not looking 10-20 years ahead, it is looking at the bottom line today and for the next year or two. When the oil starts to dry up, due to the nature of extraction curves, we will need to shift very rapidly to new fuels... you think the world can shift over a billion vehicles from oil to another few source in a few years? No freaking way. We need decades to transition to a new fuel for transport, and the market won't force that to happen until the shock is already underway. Markets aren't very good at planning, they react.

Anyway, this, it's a waste of my time and energy, and yours, let's go and doing something more productive, eh?

[Wild Cobra]

Oh really? They weren't as good as your first-year undergrad over-simplified calculations which ignore the subtlties of the systems involved? Your explanations are better than the cannon of peer-reviewed science observed by thousands of scientists. Um, okay then.

Yes, I made a mistake on value, but the theory I mention is not in dispute. It is proven known science. The problem with this "peer reviewed by thousands" is that climatology is taught wrong to begin with. Erroneous input = erroneous output.

My comment about insolation was in relation to tlong asserting that I and the rest of the world's scientists have forgotten to account for the sun. Global energy balance is exactly what you need to consider, where did I say otherwise? Global energy balance is what is affected by thickening the atmosphere's GHG blanket.

I understand that. However, Insolation is the study of a single affected area. Not the whole global picture.