The IPCC Climate Report Scandal
The report is not scheduled for release until September 2013. Reviewers signed a non-disclosure agreement to keep it confidential. Alec Rawls violated that agreement.
Skeptics of human-caused global warming jumped all over the report. Rawls himself claimed the report contains a “game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing”.
An immediate rebuttal to the Rawls claim was publish in the widely read journal NewScientist.
“Leaked IPCC report reaffirms dangerous climate change“
– Michael Marshall Editorial, NewScientist-Environment, 12/14/2012
In the rebuttal Marshall specifically refutes Rawls claims there was any IPCC admission that solar variability may be responsible for current global warming. He is right. There isn’t.
However, there is one tiny little problem with Marshall’s rebuttal…
The VERY FIRST data set this author look at in the newly released IPCC report confirms that both the IPCC and Marshall need to go back to the drawing board when it comes to solar variability and its influence on current climate change.
TSI – Total Solar Irradiance
The IPCC data set is titled “Table 8.SM.1: Reconstruction of Total Solar Irradiance (W m–2) from Vieira et al. (2011)” and found in “Chapter 8: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing“
In Chapter 8, the IPCC report contains a very boring looking table of reconstructed average solar energy output by year from 1745 through 2011 from Vieira et al. (2011). It’s expressed in watts per square meter. It is support data for the IPCC’s categorical conclusion that pretty much 100% of current observed global warming is human-caused.
All this author did was plot the tabular data on a standard graph to make it more visually meaningful. The graph, with annotations, tells us much more than the IPCC’s dry tabular data does. Perhaps the IPCC will graph the table data in their final report.
The graph above may look familiar to solar savvy readers. It looks a lot like a graph of solar sunspot activity.
The two graphs are not an exact match. This graph covers 46 more years worth of data than does the IPCC report. 45 of those years are before Vieira’s data starts and the last year is for 2012 up to November of this year. Vieira ends with 2011.
But the two graphs are clearly related. The 11-year sunspot cycle AND its relative intensity correlate in both graphs. The Dalton Minimum and the Modern Maximum are both present in the data. There appears to be a 10-20 year delay between sunspot activity and underlying solar irradiance changes outside the 11-year cycle.
Where the IPCC is right
The prerelease IPCC report is correct about solar influences on current climate change in a couple critically important ways:
- The 0.2% variation of total solar energy output over the 11-year cycle doesn’t show in Earth’s temperature profile
- The slight average increase in total solar energy output (≈0.5 watts/M²) since 1920 can’t itself explain the observed global warming.
Where the IPCC goes Wrong
The prerelease IPCC report overlooks solar influences in many critically important ways:
- Logarithmically growing human CO2 emissions cannot explain the current 15-year temperature plateau
- IPCC climate modeling breaks down after 1998
- IPCC climate modeling closely matches only from 1980-1998
- Solar variability correlates with the current temperature plateau
- Solar variability correlates fairly well with climate change over the last 400 (11,000) years
Most important of all is that the IPCC minimizes the meaning of the very chilly Maunder Minimum and completely dismisses solar Bond Cycles that have been repeatedly verified in paleoclimatology studies since 2001. One 400 year Bond Cycle occurred 400 years ago – the Maunder Minimum! Data indicates we dropping into a Bond Cycle right now.
As far as they go, the IPCC and Michael Marshall are correct in their assessments of solar influences on current climate change.
The problem is they stop digging as soon as the data starts to conflict with the 100% human-caused global warming theory.
According to IPCC climate modeling, the observed logarithmic increase in human CO2 emissions should also show a corresponding logarithmic increase in global temperatures that is not reflected in either the HadCRUT3 or HadCRUT4 global sea-air databases for the last 15 years. Its not coincidence anymore, global temperature increases have plateaued.
A new book (in German) by geologist turned paleoclimatologist, Dr. Sabastian Lüning, documents Bond Cycle data, their relationship to climate change and a prediction for a Bond Event in the immediate climate future. The latest discoveries by solar physicists support Lüning’s conclusions.
The real AR5 report scandal is that the IPCC’s continuing denial of natural influences on climate change. It refuses to realistically include them into climate modeling when real-world data clearly demands they should be included.