![climate-reality-leadership-corps-190x240[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/climate-reality-leadership-corps-190x2401.jpg?quality=83)
A person who is actually a climate skeptic (and WUWT regular) applied for and was granted a training slot in Chicago this week. http://climaterealityproject.org/leadership-corps/ and has graduated as one of the 1500 people that attended the event.
For obvious reasons, I can’t reveal the person’s name, but I can reveal the communication I received last night.
The ‘mole’ writes:
I’m now a card-carrying, official Gore-bot.
(I took copious notes)
a) This was a super-liberal “kum-bay-ya” crowd as I predicted. I kept many of my opinions to myself. The event truly did have a “religious cult programming” feel to it, similar to an Amway meeting I attended years ago – carefully timed applause, audience call & response etc. Very bizarre.
b) Al Gore himself went through the entire slide show that we are supposed to use as his “Climate Leaders.” Quite honestly, there is nothing new here, EXCEPT that there is no trace of the “hockey stick” graph that was so central to “An Inconvenient Truth”!! Amazing, considering how central that was to their arguments!
c) Instead, Al lumps data together year-by-year or decade-by-decade to show an ever increasing rise in temps. He poo-pooed measurement inaccuracies, specifically mentioning UHI effects and saying that the scientists determined these were insignificant.
d) A couple graphs stood out – one showed the documented rise in temperature PRECEDES the rise in CO2 which he brushed aside as “typical variation.” The only hockey stick was one that projected atmospheric CO2 over time, jumping up drastically in coming years. I didn’t have time to write units down, but it was a big jump. It could be a realistic rise with China & India bringing new coal plants online, I’d have to check any citations.
e) Al’s presentation was heavy on his new concept of “dirty weather,” see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14/24-hours-of-reality-dirty-weather_n_2130344.html
To summarize, I didn’t see anything new or ground-breaking in this mess. Most slides were BS, typical “this is due to climate, not weather” type stuff we kick around on WUWT all the time. Hurricane Sandy, torrential rains in Pakistan etc.
Personal observations:
a) We skeptics ain’t liked much with them folks. The “d” word (denier) was used liberally, and I queried several participants, some of who were very cool folks, about it. Al Gore and his speakers used “Denier,” “Denial Industry” and other terms I found objectionable. Lousy salesmen, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
b) Nothing new was presented, technically speaking. This thing was “An Inconvenient Truth” redux, with much of the controversial stuff (hockey stick & drowning polar bears) deleted. Al got our message, he doesn’t seem to want to engage folks like us.
c) Al gave some insights into his own choices for low-carbon technologies, with a focus upon photovoltaics & wind power. He doesn’t like BWR nukes and objects because of financial reasons, which I agree with (particularly post-Fukishima). He mentioned that Oak Ridge National Labs in TN is testing a variety of nuclear reactor designs which sound promising (thorium maybe?) but didn’t elaborate.
d) Stuff I’m interested in, like ocean acidification, were only briefly touched upon. Al didn’t discuss the diplomacy challenges of engaging China and India, although he did mention their growing carbon output.
Quick summary:
Al is a polished speaker, and looked trim & in shape. Very impressive command of his speaking material. Decent speakers lined up, including some sustainability folks from private industry. I’m told the health/climate breakout session was terrible & am glad I took a pass on it.
==============================================================
UPDATE: Since many of the Gore followers are arriving here, I welcome you to answer this question that nobody would ask Mr. Gore this week:
If the position and science is so strong, why did Mr. Gore have to fake the results of his experiment in the Climate 101 video (which you may have seen and is still on the climate reality web page).
You can see the experiment recreated here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/
For the few of you brave enough, thanks for taking the time to answer that question – Anthony
Latitude:
You don’t even realize it’s all computer games, every bit of it, every prediction, every past reconstruction, every replication….it’s all computer games
and the computer games have not been right about one single thing….nothing, nada, zippo
######################
Human changes are included in the models and excluded from the models. When excluded, the models show that the earth would be mildly cooling over time. With the human influence, they proceed to simulate the warming we are in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change#.22Fingerprint.22_studies
For example, when climate model simulations of the last century include all of the major influences on climate, both human-induced and natural, they can reproduce many important features of observed climate change patterns. When human influences are removed from the model experiments, results suggest that the surface of the Earth would actually have cooled slightly over the last 50 years (see graph, opposite). The clear message from fingerprint studies is that the observed warming over the last half-century cannot be explained by natural factors, and is instead caused primarily by human factors.[7]
renewableguy says:
August 3, 2013 at 4:38 pm
You wrote: “Human changes are included in the models and excluded from the models. When excluded, the models show that the earth would be mildly cooling over time. With the human influence, they proceed to simulate the warming we are in.”
Sorry dude, I hate to break it to you so badly, but whether the ‘human changes’ are included or not, it’s still just a model.
Babsy says:
August 3, 2013 at 4:44 pm
renewableguy says:
August 3, 2013 at 4:38 pm
You wrote: “Human changes are included in the models and excluded from the models. When excluded, the models show that the earth would be mildly cooling over time. With the human influence, they proceed to simulate the warming we are in.”
Sorry dude, I hate to break it to you so badly, but whether the ‘human changes’ are included or not, it’s still just a model.
#########################
The models get the trends correct, then the cooling and warming are good indicators. This is one of the human fingerprints
With the human influence, they proceed to simulate the warming we are in.
====
Are you from another planet?….
The computer games have failed at every prediction they have made….
lattitude
With the human influence, they proceed to simulate the warming we are in.
====
Are you from another planet?….
The computer games have failed at every prediction they have made….
###########
There Is such a thing as close enough. NOt perfect but it works. A higher accuracy is achieved with co2 than without. Without human co2 the models are much more inaccurate.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
There are two major questions in climate modeling – can they accurately reproduce the past (hindcasting) and can they successfully predict the future? To answer the first question, here is a summary of the IPCC model results of surface temperature from the 1800 without taking rising CO2 levels into account. Noone has created a general circulation model that can explain climate’s behaviour over the past century without CO2 warming..
One word: Unsustainable. (HEY! You’re the ‘renewable guy’!!!!!)
Here we just use SNAP cards or fund Solyndras … say, didn’t we bail Europe (incl Germany) out in, oh, say, the 40’s?
.
jim
One word: Unsustainable. (HEY! You’re the ‘renewable guy’!!!!!)
Here we just use SNAP cards or fund Solyndras … say, didn’t we bail Europe (incl Germany) out in, oh, say, the 40′s?
######################
Germany Is quite successful along with the UK now built the largest offshore wind park in the world.. In Minnesota there is 25 more times energy potential in wind than the grid usage they have. Most of the grid can be RE.
renewableguy:
germany has nearly the highest prices for electricity in europe.
http://www.energy.eu/ 0.26 euros per kwh. in usd, that’s 0.33 cents – oh, only just 3 times the usa price you say? why might that be, you wonder?
could it be due to the cultish pursuit of the least efficient enegy production possible?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
they are waking up, though- and that’s why they are building more coal fired plants:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/08/31/germany-insane-or-just-plain-stupid/
there’s not a single thing you have said that isn’t regurgitated from the warmunist church.
and not a single thing you’ve said that bears a correspondence with reality. how dare you pollute the planet with your very breath. are you insane or just plain stupid?
are you trying to prove it’s not an XOR function?
renewableguy:
germany has nearly the highest prices for electricity in europe.
http://www.energy.eu/ 0.26 euros per kwh. in usd, that’s 0.33 cents – oh, only just 3 times the usa price you say? why might that be, you wonder?
####################
They are also the strongest economy in Europe.
I have followed the articles found here, the comments and the links. They are all very interesting. However I have found nothing greater than humans short recorded history to influence my thoughts on the “global warming” or “climate change” hysteria. It was 1100 years ago that Eric the Red sailed to Greenland with his family and found Greenland. An area with a good climate and rich soil. The winters were not too harsh and farming was excellent! His son Lief Ericsson went further and found Vinland (Newfoundland). A wonderful area covered with grape vines and more rich soil and mild winters. As the decades and centuries past these areas fell to climate change and became colder and more hostile to man. Today Greenlands’ near 10 month winter makes agricultural sustainability more than difficult. All this historical climate change without the aid nor malfeasance of man. Shy of an asteroid hitting the earth or a nuclear or volcanic winter, I will be more concerned with “weather” than climate change. When Greenland becomes green again, call me.
PS: in the meantime I will resist any governments’ tax initiatives that will claim to “save the world” if only they have more of my hard earned dollars! Right now economic slavery to government is a larger concern! But that’s a different web page. 😉
Jeff Glassman says:
August 2, 2013 at 6:13 pm
I see how you understand Bacon.
You misunderstand both Sedgwick & Darwin. Sedgwick recognized that what he & others called “development” had occurred. It is an incontestable observation of the fossil record. He however attributed the phenomenon to successive acts of creation. He objected to “transmutation”, ie the evolution of new species from old.
Previous attempts to explain “development”, is what would now be called the observed fact of evolution, by entirely naturalistic means had not been satisfactory, such as Lamarck’s inheritance of acquired characteristics. By discovering natural selection, Darwin & Wallace succeeded where their predecessors had failed.
Science has since discovered other means by which evolution occurs, aided by comprehending the processes of inheritance, cytology, population genetics & microbiology. Natural selection is as far removed from the contemporary absurdly, laughably anti-scientific doctrine of “Intelligent Design” as is possible. One reason he delayed publishing over 20 years after his insight in 1837 was because he knew natural selection obviated the need for Design. Darwin regretted adding the eloquent but misleading final paragraph to editions two through six of Origins, as he did elsewhere in the book using “creation”, loaded with religious significance, instead of the neutral, precise & more scientific term “appearance”. He also understood that readers might conflate the appearance of life with the origin of species, as to this day do even smart people like Ben Stein.
The models get the trends correct, then the cooling and warming are good indicators. This is one of the human fingerprints
===
you are from another planet….
The computer games did not get the trends correct….they couldn’t even hidecast correct
Latitude
you are from another planet….
The computer games did not get the trends correct….they couldn’t even hidecast correct
###########################
http://www.skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc-temp-projections-accurate.html
There Is such a thing as close enough.
====
LOL……you’re hopeless
Latitude
If its 50% or 90% right, there is a difference. I would go with the 90% correct.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc-temp-projections-accurate.html
Contrarian stands on climate plugged in are completely. And yet the IPCC is much more accurate. This is a clear indicator of contrarians stances are pretty far off.
renewableguy says:
August 3, 2013 at 5:39 pm
You wrote: “The models get the trends correct, then the cooling and warming are good indicators. This is one of the human fingerprints”
Don’t you mean “if” the models get the trends correct? You don’t seem to be able to grasp that there’s no experimental data to confirm the model. If the data doesn’t match the model, then the model is wrong.
Babsy
Don’t you mean “if” the models get the trends correct? You don’t seem to be able to grasp that there’s no experimental data to confirm the model. If the data doesn’t match the model, then the model is wrong.
#####################
We have the temperature record. The IPCC is fairly accurate.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc-temp-projections-accurate.html
the computer games in use now were initially developed in the late 1980’s…they have been constantly “improved” since then…..and still managed to get half of their predictions on temperature dead wrong…CO2 or no CO2….human or no human
17 years of no warming
Latitude
the computer games in use now were initially developed in the late 1980′s…they have been constantly “improved” since then…..and still managed to get half of their predictions on temperature dead wrong…CO2 or no CO2….human or no human
17 years of no warming
############################
At 14 years 6 out of 8 temperature sets show a warming trend with high uncertainty.
At 19 years 8 out of 8 temperature set show a warming trend with much lower uncertainty.
This is telling me that there is a really high certainty we are going to continue warming.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
…………………………….1998t…to.2012…………………… 1993 to 2012
giss Trend: 0.95 ±1.61 °C/century (2σ)……..….Trend:1.88 ±1.07 °C/century (2σ)
NOAA Trend: 0.43 ±1.49 °C/century (2σ)………Trend:1.45 ±1.02 °C/century (2σ)
hadcrut v3 Trend: -0.05 ±1.55 °C/century (2σ)Trend:1.32 ±1.14 °C/century (2σ)
hadcrut v4 Trend: 0.83 ±1.72 °C/century (2σ)..Trend:1.78 ±1.11 °C/century (2σ
Best land Trend: 1.59 ±3.84 °C/century (2σ)….Trend:3.24 ±2.26 °C/century (2σ)
NOAA Land Trend: 1.24 ±2.52 °C/century (2σ).Trend:2.86 ±1.60 °C/century (2σ)
rss Trend: -0.41 ±2.73 °C/century (2σ)…………..Trend:1.22 ±1.76 °C/century (2σ)
UAH Trend: 0.54 ±2.89 °C/century (2σ)………….Trend:1.83 ±1.79 °C/century (2σ)
don’t link to something over a year old…that everyone has seen…please try to stay current
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/06/climate-modeling-epic-fail-spencer-the-day-of-reckoning-has-arrived/
If its 50% or 90% right, there is a difference. I would go with the 90% correct.
====
it’s 100% fail…..computer games..human or not, CO2 or not…..predicted a consistent “forcing” and consistent rise in temps
Latitude :
it’s 100% fail…..computer games..human or not, CO2 or not…..predicted a consistent “forcing” and consistent rise in temps
###################
Your perception of AGW is inaccurate. There is an average out of balance at the top of the atmosphere due to increased co2 forcing. Combined with natural variations there is variation in the temperature record but slowly increasing over time.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47
Contrarians like the blue lines and climate reality folks are looking at the red line. Long term the temperature record shows warming mixed in with natural variation.
renewable guy says:
“There Is such a thing as close enough.”
The problem is not one of being ‘close enough’. The problem with GCMs [computer climate models] is that not one of them predicted the stopping of global warming beginning a decade and a half ago. Not one of them predicted that. The problem is that they were ALL 100% wrong. All of them.
You are arguing with everyone here, and worse yet, you are using the pseudo-science blog Skeptical Science as your “authority”?? That really takes the cake!
It’s Saturday night — and you’re still writing blog comments from your moim’s basement? There’s more to life than the climate nonsense you’re posting. Get out. Try to have some fun for a change, because you’re not convincing anyone here with your nonsense.
dbstealey:
Try to have some fun for a change, because you’re not convincing anyone here with your nonsense.
##############
I agree no one here is going to be convinced:)
But who is closer. Contrarians or climate reality folks. It is very clear where the reality of climate is understood.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc-temp-projections-accurate.html
We have the temperature record. The IPCC is fairly accurate.
=====
You’ve been had Bambi….
They lined up temps and projections at 1990….to hide how bad it was
…do you realize that means they couldn’t have hindcasted the models to tune them?
Latitude:
You’ve been had Bambi….
They lined up temps and projections at 1990….to hide how bad it was
…do you realize that means they couldn’t have hindcasted the models to tune them?
###################
Very creative.
renewableguy says:
August 3, 2013 at 2:25 pm
Gail Combs says:
However it would be tough to make water into a bogeyman so CO2 was chosen instead even though it is a flea compared to water’s elephant.
############################
The knowledge of the relationship of co2 to water is very extensive. H2O is a very short lived atmospheric gas while co2 is lasts for centuries in the atmosphere….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh, Good Grief! Try selling that bupkis to someone who is not a caver and a chemist. Rain absorbs the CO2 in the atmosphere and forms a weak solution of carbonic acid. This acidic water dissolves limestone and forms caves. Every time it rains CO2 is washed out of the atmosphere and thunderheads can build to heights of 70,000 feet. The height of the storms is controlled by the height of the troposphere.
The Oceans absorb and emit CO2 according to Henry’s Law and the preferential precipitation of calcium carbonate. Green plants on land and at sea will grab any CO2 in their vicinity and drag the ambient CO2 down to ~ 200 to 300 ppm
(This was a C3 plant that can not drag the CO2 levels down as far as C4 plants)
From farmers who have no reason to lie:
On top of that CO2 is not ‘Well Mixed’ in the atmosphere.
And then there are the Japanese satellite images.
http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2012/12/img/20121203_ibuki_05_e.gif
Gail Combs :
Hmm and yet the concentrations continue to climb. It is an interesting read, but if rain washes it out, why does the concentration keep going up?
Richard Alley who is a registered Republican gave a great lecture on co2 the thermostat of the earth. Water vapor is expected to increase 7% for every 1*C temperature climbs. That is why there are republicans saying it is time for a carbon tax.
You’re going to completely ignore this….aren’t you
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/06/climate-modeling-epic-fail-spencer-the-day-of-reckoning-has-arrived/
Latitude::::
In my opinion, the day of reckoning has arrived. The modellers and the IPCC have willingly ignored the evidence for low climate sensitivity for many years, despite the fact that some of us have shown that simply confusing cause and effect when examining cloud and temperature variations can totally mislead you on cloud feedbacks (e.g. Spencer & Braswell, 2010).
##########################
Low climate sensitivity is what the contrarians are hoping for. Its not a 10 thank god, but its honing in around 3 or slightly lower from the next 100 years point of view. For the next several hundred years it gets higher. Hansen has it around 4.5.
This scientist is a conservative who goes with the science. Spencer is a scientist who writes to please his masters. I have read many a criticism of his work in his papers.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-1.html
_Jim says: @ur momisugly August 3, 2013 at 5:15 pm
… say, didn’t we bail Europe (incl Germany) out in, oh, say, the 40′s?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually it was a heck of a lot more recent than that.
Remember the Bank Bailouts most US citizens were against?
Remember how the FED refused to tell Congress what was done with the tax payer money?
As far as Germany and its renewables they are running into trouble.
A power systems engineer commented on WUWT:
“Letting non-professionals get involved in the power grid is like giving the keys to the family car and a bottle of whiskey to a 14 year old boy and his pals. If the renewables were viable, we’d adopt them by the train-load and build them so fast your head would spin.”
Well Germany is now running into the reality the power systems engineer was talking about.
Gail Combs :
We will know if this works when these timelines play out. As problems get ironed out, even more can open up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany#Renewable_energy_targets
German government announced the following new ambitious energy targets:[12]
Renewable electricity – 35% by 2020, 50% by 2030, 65% by 2040, and 80% by 2050
Renewable energy – 18% by 2020, 30% by 2030, and 60% by 2050
Energy efficiency – Cutting the total energy consumption by 20% from 2008 by 2020 and 50% less by 2050
Total electricity consumption – 10% below 2008 level by 2020 and 25% less by 2050
“renewableguy” makes lots of assertions:
If you plug in contrarian projections based on their talking points, the IPCC wins hands down.
Wrong, and wrong, and wrong, and wrong. Did I mention you were wrong? You were wrong. Yes, folks, renewableguy is wrong, wrong, wrong. Wrong, wrong, WRONG.
I could post more charts showing how wrong the IPCC has been. But I would only post them if someone else asked, because ‘renewableguy’s’ mind is made up and closed tighter than a drumskin. He says:
The dominant mechanisms (to which recent climate change has been attributed) are anthropogenic, i.e., the result of human activity.
Another false assertion. There is no verifiable, testable scientific evidence showing that anthropogenic CO2 has any measurable effect on global temperature. None. There simply is no such evidence. And:
There is a differentiation between Younger Dryas and Todays warming.
Yet another assertion. Just because an incredible blog like SkS makes an assertion, it does not mean anything without verifiable, testable scientific evidence to back it up. Once again: there is no testable, empirical evidence showing any measurable ‘human fingerprint of global warming’. You can believe that nonsense, or you can demand testable scientific evidence. That is the difference between a True Believer, and an honest scientist. And:
“…co2 is the thermostat of the earth.”
Says who? That is just another baseless assertion. Global warming has stayed on the same long term trend line for hundreds of years — whether CO2 was low, or high. There has been no acceleration in global warming [in fact, global warming stopped about 16 years ago]. Thus, CO2 has no measurable effect on global temperature. QED
H2O is a very short lived atmospheric gas while co2 is lasts for centuries in the atmosphere.
Wrong again! The residence time for CO2 is only about 5 – 10 years. And the residence time of H2O does not matter, because it is always ≈1% to ≈4% of the atmosphere.
‘renewableguy’ is wrong about almost everything. But that is the expected result, when your “authority” is a cartoonist’s propaganda blog.
dbstealey
Positive feedbacks are stronger and outnumber the negative feedbacks. Spencer argues for low climate sensitivity, but yet the deck is stacked against what he is saying. That is what science is about. As much as can be these are what are in the climate models.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback
1 Positive
1.1 Carbon cycle feedbacks
1.1.1 Arctic methane release
1.1.1.1 Methane release from melting permafrost peat bogs
1.1.1.2 Methane release from hydrates
1.1.2 Abrupt increases in atmospheric methane
1.1.3 Decomposition
1.1.4 Peat decomposition
1.1.5 Rainforest drying
1.1.6 Forest fires
1.1.7 Desertification
1.1.8 CO2 in the oceans
1.1.9 Modelling results
1.1.9.1 Implications for climate policy
1.2 Cloud feedback
1.3 Gas release
1.4 Ice-albedo feedback
1.5 Water vapor feedback
2 Negative
2.1 Carbon cycle
2.1.1 Le Chatelier’s principle
2.1.2 Chemical weathering
2.1.3 Net Primary Productivity
2.2 Lapse rate
2.3 Blackbody radiation
lol – i remember the word ‘deprogramming’ which came about from the toxic proselytizing of the ‘children of god’
now it’s the ‘children of gore’
welcome to the premier deprogramming site on the net, noobledude.
rotsa ruck.
renewableguy says: @ur momisugly August 3, 2013 at 2:37 pm
….Germany has benefitted the little with their feed in tarrifs. They are now up to 25% renewable energy and are schedueled to easily hit 35% by 2020. They have employed 350,000 people in their green industry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
At What Cost?
In the USA
Energy-backed firms award bonuses, file bankruptcy – Huffington Post
Tracking President Obama’s Green Energy Failures A listing of bankrupt or failing green corporations.
renewableguy did not read a thing I wrote. How could he, when he was busy responding to someone else? Check the time stamps. Thus, as I stated: his mind is made up and closed tight. He parrots nonsense as fact.
But for the benefit of anyone else reading his nonsense, note that he merely cuts and pastes a bunch of Wikipedia crap, as if that gives him legitimacy. It doesn’t.
The ‘feedback’ canard is used to try and cover up the plain fact that the “carbon” scare has been falsified by the real world. As the link I posted showed [but that renewableguy did not click on], global warming has been on the same long-term rising trend line for hundreds of years. That trend has not accelerated, thus the 40% rise in CO2 cannot be having any measurable effect.
renewableguy is long on his baseless assertions, and his cut ‘n’ paste — but very short on logic. He obviously cannot follow the train of logical thought that I laid out for his edification. Why not? Answer: because his mind is made up, and closed tight. He don’t need no steenking facts.
renewableguy says:
“Hmm and yet the concentrations continue to climb. It is an interesting read, but if rain washes it out, why does the concentration keep going up?”
Wow. Wrong AGAIN! How long can renewableguy’s streak last??
You’re batting 0.000, renewableguy! Where do you get your ‘facts’? Pseudo-skeptical Pseudo-science, the cartoonist’s propaganda blog?
And make a note, RG: IANAR, but being a Republican has nothing to do with honest science. Truth is truth, buster. That’s something you need to learn.
What I could never understand is why anyone in their right mind would be worried about “Global Warming’ given we are sitting in the middle of an ice age and the ‘Solar Forcing’ (Lord I hate that term) has dropped ~ 35W/m2 since the Holocene optimum and the value is sitting pretty darn close to the same value as seen during the Wisconsin glaciation.
GRAPH
As far as a ‘Green house effect’ goes all it does is modify the temperature making days cooler and nights warmer. (Based on actual data) Some how everyone seems to forget the effect of ‘Green house gases’ on incoming sunlight during the day….