How much is the Sun’s influence? An ongoing debate
Center for Environmental Research & Earth Sciences
A diverse expert panel of global scientists finds blaming climate change mostly on greenhouse gas emissions was premature. Their findings contradict the UN IPCC’s conclusion, which the study shows, is grounded in narrow and incomplete data about the Sun’s total solar irradiance.
The paper by 23 experts in the fields of solar physics and of climate science from 14 different countries is published in the peer-reviewed journal Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics (RAA). The paper, which is the most comprehensive to date, carries out an analysis of the 16 most prominent published solar output datasets, including those used by the IPCC.
Scientists come to opposite conclusions recent climate change causes
The researchers compared them to 26 different estimates of Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century (sorted into five categories), including the datasets used by the IPCC. They focused on the Northern Hemisphere since the available data for the early 20th century and earlier is much more limited for the Southern Hemisphere, but their results can be generalized for global temperatures.
The study found that the scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, in the graphs above, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports.
Warming due mostly to natural cycles
In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.
Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modelled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.
“The IPCC is mandated to find a consensus on the causes of climate change. I understand the political usefulness of having a consensus view in that it makes things easier for politicians. However, science doesn’t work by consensus. In fact, science thrives best when scientists are allowed to disagree with each other and to investigate the various reasons for disagreement, says Dr. Ronan Connolly, lead author of the study, at the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES). “I fear that by effectively only considering the datasets and studies that support their chosen narrative, the IPCC have seriously hampered scientific progress into genuinely understanding the causes of recent and future climate change. I am particularly disturbed by their inability to satisfactorily explain the rural temperature trends.”
The 68 page review (18 figures, 2 tables and more than 500 references) explicitly avoided the IPCC’s consensus-driven approach in that the authors agreed to emphasize where dissenting scientific opinions exist as well as where there is scientific agreement. Indeed, each of the co-authors has different scientific opinions on many of the issues discussed, but they agreed for this paper to fairly present the competing arguments among the scientific community for each of these issues, and let the reader make up their own mind. Several co-authors spoke of how this process of objectively reviewing the pros and cons of competing scientific arguments for the paper has given them fresh ideas for their own future research. The authors also spoke of how the IPCC reports would have more scientific validity if the IPCC started to adopt this non-consensus driven approach.
The full citation for the study is:
R. Connolly, W. Soon, M. Connolly, S. Baliunas, J. Berglund, C. J. Butler, R. G. Cionco, A. G. Elias, V. M. Fedorov, H. Harde, G. W. Henry, D. V. Hoyt, O. Humlum, D. R. Legates, S. Luning, N. Scafetta, J.-E. Solheim, L. Szarka, H. van Loon, V. M. Velasco Herrera, R. C. Willson, H. Yan (晏宏) and W. Zhang (2021). How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate. Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, doi: 10.1088/1674–4527/21/6/131.
12 responses to “Two Dozen Top Scientists: IPCC “Premature” Blaming CO2 Emissions…Warming Mostly From Natural Cycles”
This paper will not be discussed at the soon to be Council of the Parties.
Just a guess.
This is the best evidence I’ve seen that CO2 doesn’t cause warming. If you remove water vapor and the urban heat island effect, you simply get no warming.
It looks like the IPCC will promote lockdowns now (given how “successful” they were with COVID-19) in order to fight climate change:
What is really missing is the solar wind, which when stronger like in the early-mid 1970’s and mid 1980’s, drives a colder AMO and multi-year La Nina. Then weaker solar wind states since 1995 have caused a warmer AMO, via the NAO/AO.
I don’t agree with their solar prediction, my empirical model shows this centennial solar minimum impacting only cycles 24 and 25.
The science is obviously not settled.
The sun is the major source of energy & our atmosphere (incl. H2O) is the blanket are together responsible for most of our temperature average. By slowing the energy from escaping, temperature rises until the energy escaping matches the energy coming in so we reach a higher temperature. If incoming energy reduces or heat is lost faster, the global temperature will slowly decrease until it reaches a new equilibrium. (ideal thermodynamics they all agree on)
Tides & many other natural factors influence local weather variation day to day & year to year. The natural variation should oscillate between a lower & upper limit on the short time scale, affected by volcanoes & oceans in the 2 to 15yr spans. And they assume solar output, earths tilt, changes in geology, changes of land use, CO2 & other gasses affect the much longer time spans of 30 to 1000’s of years.
So once you work out the 100% natural average and the natural variations/cycles we then have the unnatural influences which explains the little bit on top. If you filled a 1L jug with 0.9L 100% pure water, if human influence adds 0.1L of flavouring then humans are not responsible for the 0.9L but the final 0.1L we added makes a big difference to how it tastes. Even if we added 1mL more than it evaporates each day then we can eventually make it overflow. So they may say we’re not responsible for 98% of natural CO2 but it’s the accumulation of the 2% that makes a huge difference in the future.
The fact is, we don’t know what normal is and neither does the climate. Climates have varied greatly in the past & we cannot assume that the long term variations suddenly stopped being natural. The IPCC models don’t seem to replicate natural negative feedbacks nor natural variations over decades & centuries inline with geological & recorded histories. The models imitate natural variation but requires them to average this over longer time periods to claim the average is within an expected range. They generate a data sequence that has all 52 cards from the deck but the order doesn’t match the sequence in the 2nd deck shuffled by nature. They statistically look similar, a poor imitation that fails to be accurate.
So when is a change natural vs unnatural? How much of a change natural vs unnatural? Some love to blame 100% of a climate event on a single cause, some even blame 100% causation of 100% of events but it could be 2% of 50%, or 5% of 20%. If we assume the human causation of x% then the rest (100% minus x%) must be natural. We can’t measure either of them directly & the multiple factors have too many unknowns or wide error ranges. They are not simple 1+1=2 equations. It seems the assumptions determine the results instead of empirical data.
So now we are left with examples of 2 opposing views, either could be right or the truth is somewhere between them or outside their limits. The science is obviously not settled.
I miss the solar brightening that have given us less clouds and more sun all since 1980.
It could have an effect on the global heat.
Global dimming due to aerosols after volcanic eruptions are well know and the effect on global temperatures notable.
Clean air act is heating the globe?
Strange they should decide to switch horses just as the stream starts to get cooler. Hope they can swim.
Nice to see some real science
The AGW conjecture is based on only partial science and is full of holes. For example, the AGW conjecture depends upon the existence of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere with LWIR absorption bands. The AGW conjecture claims that CO2 in particular is a heat trapping gas but the AGW conjecture neglects the fact that with gases all good absorbers are also good radiators. If left alone, all LWIR photons that CO2 absorbs are also radiated away for a net energy gain of zero. The so called greenhouse gases do not trap heat. A real greenhouse is not kept warm because of the action of a radiant greenhouse effect. Instead it is a convective greenhouse effect that keeps a greenhouse warm. So too on Earth where instead of glass we have the heat capacity of the atmosphere and gravity that provides a convective greenhouse effect that accounts for all of the observed insulating effects of the Earth’s atmosphere. A radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s atmosphere, or on any planet in the solar system with a thick atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect is nothing but science fiction so hence the AGW conjecture is nothing but science fiction as well.
The energy entering earth does not have to equal the energy exiting earth – that is a false assumption.
[…] Two Dozen Top Scientists: IPCC “Premature” Blaming CO2 Emissions…Warming Mostly Fr… […]
“How much is the Sun’s influence? An ongoing debate.” 100% – debate over. Turn off the sun and the earth will freeze… prove me wrong.