See Comments down arrow

Flirting with solar causes of climate change

17 Aug 2022 | Science Notes

From the CO2Science Archive: Background: The authors state at the outset of their provocative new paper that “we know [our italics] that there are terrestrial imprints of the solar cycle,” even when “the implied changes in solar irradiance seem too weak to induce an imprint.” Hence, rather than suggesting that solar activity cannot possibly be responsible for the warming experienced over the course of the 20th century (and thereby fixating on something else, such as the world’s climate alarmists and the IPCC do in stating that CO2 is the primary cause of the warming), they try to discern how such a small solar signal might induce such a large climatic response.

Paper reviewed: Goode, P.R. and Palle, E. 2007. Shortwave forcing of the earth’s climate: Modern and historical variations in the sun’s irradiance and the earth’s reflectance. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 69: 1556-1568.

What was done
Goode and Palle review data that shed light on two important parameters of climate change, namely, solar irradiance and terrestrial reflectance, which together determine the net sunlight absorbed by the earth-ocean-atmosphere system, and which thereby set the stage for the system’s ultimate thermal response to the forcing they provide.

What was learned
In attempting to “illustrate the possibilities of a sun-albedo link,” the two researchers conclude that “reflectance changes like the ones observed during the past two decades, if maintained over longer time periods, are sufficient to explain climate episodes like the ‘Little Ice Age’ without the need for significant solar irradiance variations.” However, they state that their analysis of the problem “cannot be used to argue for a solar cycle dependence.” On the other hand, as they immediately continue, “it is also difficult to dismiss the possibility of a solar-albedo link.”

What it means
Goode and Palle conclude that “regardless of its possible solar ties,” earth’s large-scale reflectance “is a much more variable climate parameter than previously thought and, thus, deserves to be studied in as much detail as changes in the sun’s output or changes in the earth’s atmospheric infrared emission produced by anthropogenic greenhouse gases,” as they note that “long-term records of the earth’s reflectance will provide crucial input for general circulation climate models, and will significantly increase our ability to assess and predict climate change.”

6 comments on “Flirting with solar causes of climate change”

  1. I know that the IPCC dismissed the complaints of 32 scientists who were making the point that papers broaching the notion that the Sun has more to do with GW were not included in the 2021 report. So the above article is very interesting and the notion that the Sun is a big influence is something people are inclined to agree with - it seems logical to most. Surely warming must come form the Sun as well - if not 'instead of' CO2. This gives people like me - those who are trying to educate the brain washed (by 30 years of misinformation) -logically sounding ammunition to attract attention. So could anyone explain in layman's language what the above article actually says giving other references which I can look up and understand. Meanwhile I tried to send you some money but the system would not accept my 'Debit card' so I am going to join soemething called Pay Pal which I assume will work. kepo up the great work. I hope you had a great vacation. For your information, our great BBC is losing viewers at a massive rate and many studies show that it has lost the trust of many people in the UK. At last - common sense is breaking out in my wonderful UK.

  2. Graham - the self-imposed mandate of the IPCC is to assess the risk of human-induced climate change. Any change that is not human-induced or not risky is of no interest to them and will not be published.
    It's a serious mistake to believe that the IPCC is objective or scientific.

  3. Which is why what the IPCC does is often described as "THE science". The definite article (a way of speaking somewhat alien to normal usage among scientists) signals that the norms of science as generally understood are not followed. "THE science" posits man-made CO2 induced global warming as a given and credits selected observations chosen to be consistent with it as proof of it. Proper science, at least of the non-lab environmental sort, starts with observations and considers (a) alternative explanations and (b) includes observations, those both in accord and contrary to a given explanation. In legal lingo it's called the Prosecutor Fallacy - conflating the probability of the evidence given the guilt of the accused with the probability that the accused is guilty given the evidence. Bayes' formula covers the point nicely in probability theory - Prob (G given E) is less than Prob( E given G) and switching the order of probabilities include terms for alternative E's and other potential suspects.

  4. I recall a documentary which may have been titled, "Carbon Night" or "Black Night" ?. It appeared in the years following 9/11 after air travel had been cancelled for several days. It reported that in the US, a scientist had noted that all weather stations reported an increase in temperature. This was attributed to the lack of jet plane produced carbon reflecting solar radiation. The same documentary also presented studies on related topics from Russia and India. I recall that in the case of India, it was cooler where industrial air pollution was higher. Islands owned by India, but far away towards the Antarctic, were used for comparison. I can't recall the subject of the independent Russian study, but results were similar.
    I have been speculating that the reduction of air travel during the mandated shut-downs has caused the recent heat waves. Jets spew CO2 at around 40,000 ft. Is their a reflective radiation component of carbon particles or CO2 ? I tried to search for the documentary a year ago. I must try again after this comment. Conspiracy theory: was this study pulled by the powers that be?

  5. The 9/11 study I that recalled, hypothesized that the higher density of jet plane con trails compared to thin cirrus clouds, apparently caused the more that 1 degree F ( C?) temperature rise all across the US in just a few days. It did not believe CO2 or carbon particles were the cause. I apologize for poor memory in my first blog. I was a registered engineer in three US states and two Canadian provinces, but at age 75 I seem to slip a bit now and again. This finding supports the idea that current computer climate models have poor results since cloud activity is poorly understood. (And we will ignore probably bias for the moment.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *