Dr Soon brings up more issues with GCM Models

Link to PDF File


In my field, the physics of the Sun, the IPCC asserts against all evidence that the Sun has little influence on climate change. This represents neither a consensus nor an authoritative review of the subject. My own summary of the latest science and evidence on the Sun’s influence on the climate comes to quite opposite conclusions (Soon and Lüning 2013).


Of the 38 co-authors and 3 review editors of the IPCC’s solar sub-chapter (chapter 8 by Myhre et al. 2013), only one is an expert on solar physics.  Perhaps not surprisingly, then, the subchapter is shot through with critical errors and serious misrepresentations.


These include:

Ø Misleading discussion of the Sun’s radiative forcing;

o The IPCC authors’ formulation of the Sun and climate relation in terms of the idealized radiative forcing and feedback scenario missed a great opportunity to highlight the primary importance of the nonlinear dynamics for the evolution of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun which produces unique and non-repeatable changes in the seasonal distribution of incoming sunlight.


Ø Concealment of problems in determining absolute total solar irradiance;

o The IPCC authors failed to alert readers to the fact that great uncertainty in measuring the level and variation in total solar irradiation still exist, to the extent that estimates from several measurements differ by as much as 5 to 10 Wm–2. The uncertainty is so great that we cannot have confidence in any climatic signals from rising atmospheric CO2.


Ø Cherry-picking of the total solar irradiance dataset;5     

o The IPCC authors largely ignored at least two other datasets that can be shown to be of better quality.                                                                                                                                                                   


Ø Outdated and biased selection of references;     

o The IPCC authors failed, for example, to cite potentially important sun-climate connection paper by Soon and Legates (2013) which provides disconfirming evidence against the role of atmospheric CO2 for recent climate change.                                                                                                                                                                                    


 Ø Insufficient understanding of the problems involved in reconstructing total solar irradiance by the method described in Steinhilber et al. (2009, 2012);

o Steinhilber et al’s method of reconstruction is of very poor, if not incorrect, quality but it is being promoted by IPCC authors to be the best results for historical values of total solar irradiance.


Ø Misplaced reliance on synthetic 11-year solar cycles;

o There is no known measurements to suggest the existence of the 11year-like solar cycles in the Sun irradiance variation for all historical time. Because the IPCC authors proposed that all paleoclimate modeling group to assume such a cycle in their climate models, their conclusion can create artificial results and misleading conclusions on decadal variations in the actual climate system.


Ø Ignorance of Fontenla et al. (2011), the best paper on physical modeling of Sun’s irradiance at all wavelengths;

o The IPCC authors neither cite Fontenla et al. (20111), nor do they include the important conclusion from Fontenla et al. (2011) that accurate knowledge and information on solar UV irradiance is important for a physical modeling of the relationship between the stratosphere and troposphere. 


Ø Misrepresentation of solar magnetic field measurements by Livingston and Penn at the U.S. National Solar Observatory; and Livingston and Penn clearly suggest that their solar magnetic field observation may be extrapolated to yield a highly weaken Sun in the near future, but IPCC authors misrepresented the fact by suggesting only a minor effect.


Ø Erroneous and unqualified rejection of the study of Sun-like stars.

o The IPCC authors incorrectly claimed that the study of sun-like stars is not important for any physical facts about our Sun. Their rejection is based on the illogical assumption that useful knowledge about the Sun cannot be obtained from observation of other stars. 


The IPCC draws attention to the estimated inter-annual variability of the Sun’s radiative forcing as being merely several twentieths of a Watt per square meter, but overlooks the 90 Wm–2 change that occurs in total solar irradiance from its maximum to its minimum distance from Earth. The relative importance of seasonal insolation on historical climate change can be readily demonstrated.


During the warm Eemian interglacial period 130,000 to 110,000 years ago, the amplitude of the seasonal insolation was 2 to 3 times larger than today because the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit was 4% greater.  Even if one wished to assume no difference in intrinsic, non-orbital component of solar irradiance between the Eemian warm period and the current or Holocene warm period, the importance of the relatively large seasonal insolation during the Eemian period in explaining the drastically warmer climate that then prevailed is consistent with many high quality paleoclimate records. 


What cannot be ignored is the persistent and systematic failure of computer climate model simulations cited by the IPCC to represent and simulate the full dynamics of the seasonal evolution of climate. Cronin (2014) recently highlighted the fact that even the simple question of what average solar zenith angle to use in climate models is not resolved and that the incorrect representation of solar zenith angle can lead to a surplus of solar radiation of 7 to 20  Wm–2  in the global energy budget.


Section for a video or follow-on commenth2>

We should revisit occasionally what the proper role of government is.   As the constitution was a good sense of direction, we need a core set of principles to add in order to deal with the future.


So many want to engineer society, remove risk, assist certain groups, rather than let individuals thrive and raise communities.  Why?


Is Democracy where we all "get it good and hard" or is it the best means to a free society?


Should we roll with the special interests, or make the government achieve its proper role, what is that role, and how to do this?


When do deficits and governments become too large?


Government is becoming more elitist while trying to sell corrections to problems it created, what makes this possible?


Could include a pic

This could also be inserted into the field above, or erased


Currently as a society, we are having a most difficult time discussing political issues.  What is driving this?   And why a rebirth in political culture would be a good thing.


Market Economy

Are "markets" dead as some would conjecture? Or is free enterprise what got us here?


Economic Theories

At the heart of economics there are several possible economic schools of thought, the essence of these schools of thought and how they relate to our lives.


Add Comments


Powered by Disqus