Free thinking - help needed...........


There is something wrong with Radiative Forcing, but I don't know what yet.

If you calculate 2.29 w/m2 then this effect is not enough to warm the oceans

and melt ice at the rate that is a fact today. Then 23 w/m2 is needed


Have the scientists used climate sensitivity=3 to derive Radiative Forcing ?



Even with Radiative Forcing, one can sense an error that is an unimaginable factor of 10


climate sensitivity=3 = error -> 36 = correct (factor 12 error )


Radiative Forcing 2.29=error -> 23=right (factor 10 error )


Or there are thought errors here.




Radiative Forcing

In a forecast where the temperature increases in the future, that energy must come from

imbalance, the so-called "Radiative Forcing".






We calculate the surface area of the Earth, as a slice seen from the Sun, and multiply by W/m2

This effect primarily warms the oceans.

There, we know the volume and we can estimate the amount

of stagnant bottom water that is not heated.


In the calculator you can see that Climate Sensitivity=3 (as claimed by the IPCC) so the time constant RC

must be 25 years for the IPCC worldview to be consistent with NASA.

Both of these figures are wrong.


One can test Climate Sensitivity=40 which requires RC=720 years . Then there is harmony in the long run

(VOSTOK) This is a weighty argument.


More detectives are needed to solve this. Radiative forcing may become a

evidential breakthrough.



Here's what climate.gov says (NOAA The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration USA)


You can estimate and check Radiative Forcing another way too: by looking at how fast the Earth is warming.

NASA actually talks about how fast the earth is warming and this is last 5 years dTy= 0.032 C/year (=fact)

The only heat that can warm the oceans is the heat that comes through Radiative Forcing.

That is the imbalance in the atmosphere that comes from the greenhouse gases

According to NOAA, it is more than 2.29 W/m2 and the Earth is always absorbing this heat around the clock. From the sun's point of view, it is a flat disk with a radius of 637 miles

Now converting everything to m and kg, the calculation of Radiative Forcing looks like this:

EarthRadius m = er= 6 371 000

Ocean mass kg = okg= 1 386 000 000 000 000 000 000 000

Temp Change per year = dTy=0.032

Specific Heat Water J/kg*deg = sHW=4200

cF=okg* dTy*sHW / (pi* er^2 * 365*24*60 ) =46 w/m2


NOAA calculates 2.29 but it takes 46 w/m2 just to warm the oceans. Then more is needed to melt the polar ice at the current rate.

But ice is such a small part of the energy requirement that this factor can probably be ignored.

Assuming that half the ocean is bottom water which absorbs no heat, cF is 23 w/m2

If cF is 2.29 or 23 w/m2 ???? climate experts can take many more factors into account and make a more accurate calculation using this method.

In this way we are probably also approaching a point where we can dial in RC (the time constant between CO2 and real temp ) by looking at the energy balance with respect to the oceans. With a correct value of RC and a correct NASA curve 1960-2020, we lock in the climate sensitivity with great precision. (???)

The calculator shows this relationship very clearly. Nothing would be more important for climate work than getting the correct figures on


Radiative Forcing

Climate Sensitivity



Then the whole picture is solved and then climate policy is solved.

Keep in mind: scientists were shocked that the permafrost thawed 70 years earlier than predicted.

This suggests that the current basis of calculation is wrong.

When will we get a true climate picture which in turn will lead to true innovations ?

It is all about precise mathematics, knowledge and creativity.


To schools, universities or climate enthusiasts who want to look at this.

Join us and solve these issues ! I don't have the answers and there may be miscalculations here.


This data will then be lifted up to the "Deep Seas" chapter, possibly in a javascript based calculator

so that all parameters can be changed.