IPCC Global Warming Reports Underestimated Role of Sun in Warming: Study
By Paul Homewood
Reports on global warming issued by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) underestimate the role of the Sun in the warming process while falsely laying blame on human beings, according to a study published last month.
In 2021, Ronan Connolly, a scientist at the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Science (CERES), and his colleagues published a review raising concerns about multiple reports issued by the IPCC. The IPCC reports concluded that global warming since the mid-20th century was essentially human-driven, dismissing natural causes behind the process. The 2021 review was disputed in a 2022 article by two climate researchers who claimed that the review was “flawed,” that it “should not be treated as credible,” and that the IPCC’s decision to rule out solar activity as a major driver behind climate change “remains intact.”
In a Sept. 27 study published in IOP Science, a team of 20 climate researchers led by Mr. Connolly sought to debunk the 2022 article and reaffirm the 2021 review. It found that the IPCC may have “substantially underestimated the role of the Sun in global warming,” according to a recent post by CERES.
The 2021 review noted that the IPCC reports had two major flaws:
- For their analysis, the IPCC reports used global surface temperature data that was “contaminated by urban warming biases,” meaning that only temperature records from urban regions were considered. Urban areas tend to be warmer than the countryside due to human activity and various structures. Though urban areas only represent a small percentage of land, these places make up the majority of thermometer records used in estimating global temperatures.
- The IPCC reports used only a small data set from a large pool of data related to Total Solar Irradiance (TSI), which measures the radiant energy emitted by the sun falling on Earth’s atmosphere. And this small data set used by IPCC mostly came to two conclusions—there have been very few TSI changes over the past centuries or that TSI has slightly decreased since the 1950s.
By analyzing data showing a rise in temperatures in urban regions and little to no change in Total Solar Irradiance, the IPCC reports blamed human activity for global warming, dismissing the sun’s role in the process.
Full story here.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
You only need to read the charter of the IPCC. The “results” are predetermined.
Exactly; the IPCC (and UNFCC) terms of reference take AGW as a given and looks for observations that are consistent with that predetermined position. This turns normal science on its head. This begins with the observations then judges alternative hypotheses according to their consistency with those observations.
This reversal of the roles of evidence and hypothesis is termed the “Prosecutors Fallacy” in which the prosecuting counsel conflates the probability of the evidence given the guilt of the defendant with the probability of the guilt of the defendant given the evidence (omitting thereby counter evidence and the possibility of other perpetrators). We all know examples of those omissions In the climate change field such as changes that precede causes and natural variability.
This topsy-turvy way of seeing the world carries through to the convoluted manner of expressing conclusions, for example about changes in the frequency of extreme weather events. They cannot come straight out and say the evidence doesn’t support such changes (as would be the natural conclusion form conventionally conducted science) but are forced to hedge it around with obfuscations hinting that the evidence is there but not yet quite strong enough.
To that extent this posting and the original article confuse the issue by implying the IPCC should have considered solar variation as an alternative cause. Scientifically, of course, it should have, but that’s not what it was told to do.
Exactly; the IPCC (and UNFCC) terms of reference take AGW as a given and looks for observations that are consistent with that predetermined position. This turns normal science on its head. This begins with the observations then judges alternative hypotheses according to their consistency with those observations.
This reversal of the roles of evidence and hypothesis is termed the “Prosecutors Fallacy” in which the prosecuting counsel conflates the probability of the evidence given the guilt of the defendant with the probability of the guilt of the defendant given the evidence (omitting thereby counter evidence and the possibility of other perpetrators). We all know examples of those omissions In the climate change field such as changes that precede causes and natural variability.
This topsy-turvy way of seeing the world carries through to the convoluted manner of expressing conclusions, for example about changes in the frequency of extreme weather events. They cannot come straight out and say the evidence doesn’t support such changes (as would be the natural conclusion form conventionally conducted science) but are forced to hedge it around with obfuscations hinting that the evidence is there but not yet quite strong enough.
To that extent this posting and the original article confuse the issue by implying the IPCC should have considered solar variation as an alternative cause. Scientifically, of course, it should have, but that’s not what it was told to do.
The IPPC’s analysis ‘explains’ all of the warming, so there cannot be other warming factors which have been ignored. Should other warming factors be discovered the IPPC explanation must be faulty, at least in part.
The Sea Of Marmara is warming at twice the average rate, and similar anomolies are apparent in various water bodies such as Lake Tanganyika, the Black Sea, the Eastern Mediterranean etc. It might be instructive to quantify that warming as it may be significant. I suspect from observation and first principles that it may be the result of oil, surfactant and nutrient pollution.
Not AGW. APW, Anthropogenic Pollution Warming.
JF
Weather stations were never set up to provide data to create a global temperature. They were to provide information for people on where they lived hence being in towns and cities. Likewise at airfields and airports, and especially jet fighter bases, they are there to provide information for pilots.
Do you suppose that cleaner air increases the intensity of the sun? When getting off the ‘plane in Tasmania many years ago I was amazed by the clear visibility and the intensity of the sun when compared with the northern hemisphere. It was suggested by the locals that most of the coal and oil burning industries of the world were north of the equator hence cleaner air.
The fact that the UN’s IPCC has ignored population growth makes their other claims that it is all to do with CO2 as a nonsense. The bulk of the world’s population live either side of the equator but is moving gradually northwards where it requires extra heat in winter because of the northern cold. Most of the southern hemisphere is water and it also contains a large continent that is inhospitable to human life.
Thomas Carr and the locals in Tasmania were correct. Industry is largely in the northern hemisphere where jobs are needed for an increasing population.
I thought our problem with the IPCC report was that it ONLY considered population growth as the driver – what does the “A” in AGW mean otherwise – and ignored other drivers.
Another grand solar minimum is on its way, local councils better get some snow ploughs & gritters bought (not battery ones though)