I am working on a little more detailed post, but have to remind a few people on other blogs that it is not that simple. Some think its just the unsuspected conductive impact, Some just the sun and others that the mainstream scientists just screwed up. It is not just one thing and it is not just that simple.
The appearent conductive impact in the Antarctic is a part of the puzzle and an unexpected part certainly. The impact of the ends of the solar spectrum change is not as unexpected, with the new information on UV, but the near infrared is just as important. It is the change in the solar atmsphere and surface absorption ratio, not just the change in one or the other. What would be a minor impact is amplified, but not enough on its own to be the driver of climate change beyond roughly 0.15 degrees. It is not just the slightly greater than expected non-uniformity in CO2 mixing, but that plays a role as well. Synchronization with natural variability also is involved.
So there is not much simple about the system, just interesting larger than expected variations in known issues that still require a boost, just not as much.
While I am working on organizing things, the post, "Therefore Water Absorbs Almost No Sunlight" may be intersting as far as the solar UV and shorter short wave is concerned. That is only a small portion of the total solar absorbed but in a very important layer, below the 30 meter thermosline and to a point below the 100 meter thermocline. Most of that post was based on Woods Hole research.
Putting things together starts with, Another Shot at Explaining the Atmospheric Effect. Most of the diffence I am getting with the sensitivity to CO2 is due to the initial eatimate of the total radiant portion of the atmospheric effect being over estimate by 1 to 2 degrees with the initial albedo assumption of 30% at the surface. That appears to not have been a very good assumption.
For the insomniacs in the crowd, The Energy Budget of the Polar Atmosphere in MERRA is a nice light read. There are pretty significant descrepancies that more than cover the conductive issue I am trying to quantify. The devil is in the details, but adapting the equation should shed some light on the issue. Poor satellite coverage is not helping at all. There is a significant lead in surface change over down welling change though that is interesting.