The Canadian group, Friends of Science, has supplied me with much of the fodder for my articles and the latest, “Solar Influence on Climate“, is one of the best yet in an email from their Dr. Albert Jacobs. Thank you Albert. It is not because it is a block buster of revelations, although there is a lot of excellent science included, but more because of what wasn’t even mentioned. We are talking 53 pages, including a large reference list, and it was obviously intended to be all-inclusive on the topic which was the Sun and its effect on our climate. The problem was that there were several authors that would adhere to something close to the IPCC line and, as determined by the reference authors, several papers that were written by idealogues. I won’t define a who’s who but a review of the list and references in this article may give some clues.
Here was the introduction:
This is the title of a 53 page Summary article by Lesley Gray, Jörg Beer and 13 others which surveys many of the solar variation aspects and their connections with Climate on Earth. While this is mostly from the point of view of the IPCC, there are several sceptics among the fifteen authors and one can read a lot more in this paper than the careful conclusions would indicate. Surprisingly, the many authors that deal with Solar Inertial Movement from Fairbridge to the present are absent, nor is there any mention of the innovative work by the late Timo Niroma in the 11 tightly packed pages of references. This may make this work more restricted than desirable.(contributed by Dr Peter Ziegler)
To begin with, I learned about faculae. Faculae answer a long standing question regarding sunspots, which are generally cooler spots on the Sun, being indicative of high solar activity and warmer times on Earth. Conversely, fewer sunspots mean cooler for us. This is basic but why would cold spots generate more heat. The answer is faculae are more frequent with increased sunspot activity. Although faculae are smaller and not readily identifiable with normal equipment, they are hotter than average areas of the Sun. So the more sunspots, the more you get faculae and the net is hotter. And visa versa. So now it all makes sense!
The next point in the paper that I would like to address is the following passage:
Model simulations of twentieth century climate that include all the major, known forcings (solar, volcanoes,GHGs, aerosols, and ozone), together with the detection attribution techniques based on observed patterns, have shown that most of the global warming in the first half of the twentieth century was natural in origin, and much of this can be attributed to an increase in solar forcing.
This has been stated before and it is one way of saying that we had warming and cooling (they didn’t mention any of the cooling) and they could hardly say otherwise since there was no significant human effect apparent because there was no human effect. Had they tried to make this claim, it would have been baseless. But then they make the following pronouncement:
Results for the past 20 years continue to indicate that solar forcing is playing at most a weak role in current global temperature trends [Lockwood and Fröhlich, 2007]. There have been controversial suggestions of much larger solar control of global temperatures[Friis Christensen and Lassen, 1991; Svensmark and Friis Christensen, 1997], but these have been severely criticized on the basis of their statistical approach.
The same Sun is having a weaker role on our climate after 4.5 billion years.There is also no mention of the cooling of the 60’s and 70’s. Did the human “forcing” reverse itself during this period and reduce global temperature? I think not. With so much valuable technical information packed into this paper it is almost criminal to append this nonsense. It is somewhat revealing, as well as being entirely hilarious, that the controversial “suggestions” have been severely criticized for “fill in the blank”. The IPCC followers always criticize anything that flies in the face of their “reality”. Nevertheless we would have not had the rest of this article without this superfluous information.
The paper does acknowledge there is a relation between Solar UV radiation and the climate on Earth. They refer to it as:
The most mature Sun climate mechanism at this time involves the direct effect of the observed variation in solar UV radiation affecting stratospheric ozone, leading to associated temperature variations. The resulting temperature gradients lead to changes in the zonal wind, which, in turn, changes planetary wave–mean flow interactions.
I have no problem with this statement and I doubt any of you will have a problem with it either assuming you have an opinion. The IPCC’s 4th assessment report says approximately the same thing but downplays its significance. This article even showed the IPCC chart that shows the solar influence (irradiance)as one of miniscule effect. It is smaller than all the other forcings with the exception of water vapor from methane. Earth’s heat source, according to this article, has next to no effect on the climatic variability. Sorry, but that is hogwash! And of that they are well aware.
There is some discussion on the Galactic Cosmic Ray effect on climate. There is a correlation mentioned between GCR’s and Total Solar Irradiance (TSI). I did not see any mention that the Sun’s reversing magnetic field on alternate solar cycles is responsible for this but I wouldn’t expect this from this article given its bias. There was also a discussion of GCR’s,GCR nucleated lower cloud cover and climate. Did not see any really diffinative statement on this very real effect. Where Piers Corbyn, long-range solar-Lunar weather forecaster, might object to this statement is the modulation of the solar wind by the GCR’s is quite dependent on the Solar magnetic field changes. The solar wind effect is orders of magnitude larger than GCR’s. Far from being a minor insignificant factor in climate variation, Piers would, I am sure, categorize this as a major climate “forcing”. I put “forcing” in quotes since it is an IPCC invention and not adopted by what I would call real climate specialists.My opinion. An interesting statement in the article is:
Much of the evidence for solar influence on climate presented in section 3 relies on simple statistical associations, such as correlation coefficients, which suggest a link but are not sufficient to indicate any causal mechanism. In addition, there is substantial internal variability in the climate system, and the observed record is only one realization of the possible responses. This presents a substantial challenge when trying to test mechanism hypotheses.
So, “the observed record is only one realization of the possible responses”. Sorry but what else is there besides observed data. Oh yes! They must be referring to the possible unlikely outcomes represented by the mathematical models that have been unable to explain what we are observing on planet Earth. As the CRU email folks commented, “and it is a travesty” that we can’t explain the cooling.
There is much in this paper that falls outside the IPCC line and appears to be fairly treated. But what do I know? The most obvious gaffs are when something conflicts with commonly used IPCC talking points. Much of the rest is not so politically necessarily biased. It is worth a read. As the note From Albert mentions, there is no mention of the Fairbridge/Mackey effect ala the epitrochoidal rotation of the Sun driven by the Jovian planets angular momentum. Additionally there is not one mention of Dr. Landscheidt who, with his large hands/small fingers analogy of the predictable solar variation, predicted such things as the 2007 cooling which we all observed and are observing. He was correct on predicting some el Nino’s based on the Sun’s parameters. Yes, he missed one. SO??? He was a pioneer in the solar field. He deserved to be a little wrong. El Nino events, far from being arguments against solar influence are actually of solar origin. The most effective argument against this paper is the battle of the season predictions from the IPCC influenced UK MET office and Piers Corbyn, of Weatheraction.com. The MET office, basing its predictions on IPCC doctrine and models has been 100% wrong and completely opposite to those of Piers Corbyn, using Solar Lunar weather prediction methods for the past 5 winter – summer seasons. Piers-5, Met office-0. I am not much of a better but I would take those odds anytime. To quote the bumper sticker on my vehicles, “It’s the S U N, Stupid! Not the S U V”.
An addendum to this blog entry: I have just received a solar-lunar based forecast for the holiday season for the US and there will likely be some bad travel conditions in our neck of the woods. Sorry I can’t be specific, at Piers Corbyn’s request, but he has agreed to come out with a somewhat more specific free forecast in time to protect the public from the worst effects.