I’ve decided to do a summary of the science at home here on this site which I hope the readers can understand.

Firstly, there is the huge fundamental mistake made by every scientific institute on this planet……and that is the mistake of thinking (calculating) that the solar radiation arriving at the TOA (Top of the Atmosphere) is about 340 watts/sq.m. as depicted in Trenberth’s looney Earth Energy Budget Diagrams, .. when it is in fact the reality of about 1360 watts/sq.m. This is argued here.. https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2020/04/climate-rebuttals-to-crack-the-activist-grip-on-our-mind/#comment-1567848 with a bit of follow up … https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2020/04/academic-tells-us-to-use-maori-stars-for-planning/#comment-1567909

The fact that it is 1360 watts/sq.m. solar radiation at the TOA ..is derived by orbital mechanics and calculus (the Earth going round the Sun) …. calculated, as well as being the measured reality….so that the solar radiation at the TOA is non-directional covering the whole globe at the TOA., something like an outer shell. … a bulk load.

An analogy would be the Sun constantly spraying out radiation like a paint sprayer, with a variable (flickering, waxing and waning) ejection system, and the radiation received at the TOA is the thickness of that coating of the paint received over one year.

It is 1360 watts/sq.m. solar radiation at the TOA… it is measured, real and must remain as just that.

Next we want to know what that means for the solar radiation arriving at the real Earth’s surface…..but, with that horrendous mistake, ie. 1360 watts/sq.m. solar….not 340 watts/sq.m.; we’re already aware that there is only a slim chance there could be a “greenhouse effect”.

My understanding is that the surface of the Earth we stand on, receives solar radiation of about 320 watts/sq.m..

How do we get that? Well, again by orbital mechanics and calculus we get the “inner shell” (at about 5ft. off the ground where we have the Stevenson screens,) …of about 340 watts/sq.m…..but which, by mathematical coincidence, is exactly the same as the geometric “attenuation” of the solar rays. ie divide in 1/2 for day/night attenuation then 1/2 again for the Earth’s curvature. ie divide by 4. So that is the geometric “attenuation” without accounting for the atmospheric attenuation. There was this (unintentional) confusion by Dr Roy Spencer who pointed this out in his reply to me here.. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/time-for-the-slayers-to-put-up-or-shut-up/#comment-78670

Then there is this bloke, Rick who got himself terribly confused (probably my fault) with his confrontation with me ,from this comment and the thread down, where all of this is covered… https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2021/02/science-says-change-the-weather-and-break-the-countrys-heart/#comment-1582504

My understanding is that the atmospheric solar attenuation is about 20 watts/sq.m. The atmosphere attenuates by either absorption or reflection (albedo is just a fancy name for reflection) This will bring you down to the about 320 watts/sq.m. at the Earth’s surface.

Take the 320 watts/sq.m and slot it into the Stefan-Boltzmann equation but using an Earth’s measured total emissivity of 0.82 , which was explained to me by Nasif Nahle back in 2011, here, https://jennifermarohasy.com/2011/04/radiative-transfer-according-to-agw-a-note-from-neutrino/#comment-480389 and you come out with about 15 deg C… which is the Global Average Temperature…what instruments at the Earth’s surface measure.

Therefore …..NO “GREENHOUSE EFFECT”.