AGW proponents use subjective forcing models and unmeasured estimates of past solar activity to claim humans drive warming. A scientist’s (Larminat, 2023) reassessment finds the Sun can drive climate, equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS, 2xCO2 + feedbacks) is 1.14°C, and human forcing is overestimated.
Because there have been no direct measurements of solar activity until the late 1970s, proponents of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) rely on “a high degree of (informed) subjectivity,” a “degree of belief that exists among [IPCC] lead authors,” and uncertain solar models and proxy-based assumptions to conclude the Sun has not had more than a negligible role in climate change (Larminat, 2023). This way it can be claimed that human activities, especially CO2 emissions, are predominantly or even solely responsible for modern warming.
However, because these climate models and numerical approximations are derivations of meteorological models designed to predict the weather, they are “questionable for validating the anthropogenic principle.”
When alternative estimates of past solar activity assume the Sun to have played a more substantial role in warming, and when efforts to “disappear” the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age climate variations go unrealized, it can instead be shown that the anthropogenic impact on climate has been strongly overestimated (ECS = 1.14°C, not 2.5 to 4.0°C as claimed by the IPCC), and solar activity is the predominant driver of past and even modern warming.
Solar forcing may have a 4 to 7 times greater effect on climate change than current climate models indicate, which may mean modern climate change is predominantly natural rather than anthropogenic.
Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) attribution may be significantly dependent on the choice of dataset.
Advocates of AGW may only use Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) reconstructions that align with the perspective that the Sun has little to no impact on climate. Consequently, climate models may only use the PMOD’s model-based satellite data (which shows a declining trend since 1980) rather than the ACRIM (which shows an increasing TSI trend from the 1980s to 2000s).
The biased selection of long-term TSI reconstructions that show little to no variability are also preferred over TSI reconstructions with large variability. For example, the uncertainty in the estimate of the increase in TSI since the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) ranges anywhere from 0.75 W/m² to 6.3 W/m² (Yeo et al., 2020). AGW advocates will, of course, select the lowest TSI change value (0.75 W/m²) and reject the higher values (6.3 W/m²), as then it is much easier to attribute modern warming to anthropogenic activity rather than to solar forcing.
The IPCC has selected one TSI dataset in the latest (2021) report for its global warming attribution assessments and climate models (GCMs). The dataset of course aligns only with the view modern warming is human-caused, and not natural, and thus it depicts a declining TSI trend since 1980 (PMOD) and almost no variability since the Maunder Minimum.
A new study (Connolly et al., 2023 with press release) identifies 27 other TSI estimates (purposely) ignored by the IPCC, several of which suggest modern warming may be up to 71-87% natural – especially if the temperature stations that do not show a strong artificial urban warming bias are used.
“Several of these different solar activity estimates suggest that most of the warming observed outside urban areas (in rural areas, oceans, and glaciers) could be explained in terms of the Sun.”
Another new study (Scafetta, 2023) suggests the Sun’s real climate impact may be 4-7 times larger than just from TSI (radiative) forcing alone, as the solar activity variations may mechanistically affect cloud albedo, which has been observed to drive 1-3 W/m² per decade changes in shortwave forcing (McLean, 2014).
“Thus, at least about 80% of the solar influence on the climate could be generated by processes other than direct TSI forcing.”
Climate models do not allow for any solar influence beyond the small, flat radiative forcing changes associated with TSI forcing, as this way it can be claimed that natural factors have little to no bearing on climate change.
Alternative solar activity records, as shown in TSI #2 Model below, have the Sun’s total impact directly linked to global temperature changes, including for recent decades.
“Aggregating all the [mistakes]…one estimates Mr. Loblaw [SkepticalScience blog author] to have made about 24 direct analytical mistakes and several arguments from misdirection in this one disquisition. That may be some sort of record.” – Dr. Patrick Frank
On 27 June, 2023, Dr. Patrick Frank had his 46-page paper with 284 references published in the journal Sensors. It exhaustively detailed the magnitude of uncertainty and error in calculating global-scale temperature measurements.
A blogosphere introduction to the paper appeared a few days later. It generated over 1,200 responses on the WUWT site, where debate is welcomed by those who agree or disagree, including direct discussion with the author himself in comments. (We highlighted Frank’s paper here a few weeks later, but without knowledge of the attention it had generated elsewhere.)
Contrast this open debate format with what occurs at climate blogs like RealClimate or SkepticalScience. Comments challenging the “consensus” position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are deleted and/or fail to emerge from moderation. Debate is effectively banned, as this leaves the impression that “consensus” AGW positions are irrefutably correct.
In light of the attention the Frank’s paper was propagating in the skeptical blogosphere, SkepticalScience contributing author, Bob Loblaw, decided it was time to take matters into his own hands earlier this month. His article, “A Frank Discussion About the Propagation of Measurement Uncertainty,” appeared on 7 August, 2023.
In the vein of actual scientific debate (that is not allowed at SkepticalScience), Dr. Frank has provided a detailed 29-point response to Bob Loblaw’s critique attempt.
Frank accuses Loblaw of presenting a careless, mistake-filled manifesto that “violates the ethics of scientific review.”
In the first five pages of Frank’s response he identifies over 20 mistakes Loblaw made in his analysis.
For example, Frank catches Loblaw (1) confusing the uncertainty of the average (Equation 4) with the average of the uncertainty (root-mean-square, Equations 5&6), as well as (2) assuming uncertainty can simply be reduced by averaging (Loblaw: “Frank’s calculations make the astounding claim that averaging does not reduce uncertainty!”) even though uncertainty can only be reduced by averaging if the uncertainty results from random error. (The paper itself clearly describes why shipboard temperature measurements derived from pulling wooden buckets out of the water are fraught with errors that are not random.)
The last two pages of Frank’s response address the rather self-contradictory Loblaw claim that scientists do not prejudicially assume that measurement error is randomly distributed so they can profess to reduce uncertainty by averaging. (Loblaw: “Nobody actually makes this assumption.”) Clearly the scientific literature is replete with “Assumers of Random Measurement Error.” Frank originally provided seven pages of the random-error-assumption examples in scientific papers dating from the 1920s to present. The list has been substantially parsed down here for brevity’s sake.
Finally, Dr. Frank was interviewed on Tom Nelson’s podcast on 21 August, 2023. He addressed uncertainty and error in temperature measurements and climate model projections. A YouTube link to Dr. Frank’s “Nobody Understands Climate” 90-minute presentation appears below.
Patrick Frank is a physical methods experimental chemist. BS, MS, San Francisco State University; PhD, Stanford University; Bergmann Postdoctoral Fellow, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel. Now Emeritus scientific staff of the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory and the Department of Chemistry, Stanford University. He has 67 publications in bioinorganic chemistry including among others the unusual metal active site in blue copper electron transport proteins, the first X-ray spectroscopic evidence for through-sigma-bond electron transfer, falsification of rack-induced bonding theory, deriving the asymmetric solvation structure of dissolved cupric ion (which overturned 60 years of accepted wisdom), and resolving the highly unusual and ancient (Cambrian) biological chemistry of vanadium and sulfuric acid in blood cells of the sea squirt Ascidia ceratodes. He also has peer-reviewed publications on the intelligent design myth, the science is philosophy myth, the noble savage myth, the human-caused global warming myth, and the academic STEM culture of sexual harassment myth.
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is claimed to intensify hydrological processes. Data analysis indicates it does not.
A paradigm has emerged in recent decades that says there has been and/or will be a worsening of hydrological extremes as a consequence of global warming.
Simplified, the paradigm says that wet gets wetter (flooding) and dry gets drier (drought).
But new global data analyses suggest (a) no trends in drought in the last 120 years (Shi et al., 2022), and (b) declining flood magnitudes as the climate warms (He et al., 2022).
With regard to drought, the global trends indicate there has actually been a de-intensification of meteorological (climate-related) drought from 1959-2014 relative to to 1902-1959.
“The results revealed that: 1) meteorological drought in most climate regions intensified during 1902–1958 but showed a wetting trend during 1959–2014.”
And, likewise, flood magnitudes have not just been flat, but they have been declining as the climate has warmed.
“We find most of the world shows decreases in flood volumes with increasing temperature.”
“[O]bservational records often present more evidence for a decrease in annual flood maxima.”
Share this:
Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. View more
Cookies settings
Accept
Privacy & Cookie policy
Privacy & Cookies policy
Cookies list
Cookie name
Active
Wer wir sind
Textvorschlag: Die Adresse unserer Website ist: https://climate-science.press.
Kommentare
Textvorschlag: Wenn Besucher Kommentare auf der Website schreiben, sammeln wir die Daten, die im Kommentar-Formular angezeigt werden, außerdem die IP-Adresse des Besuchers und den User-Agent-String (damit wird der Browser identifiziert), um die Erkennung von Spam zu unterstützen.
Aus deiner E-Mail-Adresse kann eine anonymisierte Zeichenfolge erstellt (auch Hash genannt) und dem Gravatar-Dienst übergeben werden, um zu prüfen, ob du diesen benutzt. Die Datenschutzerklärung des Gravatar-Dienstes findest du hier: https://automattic.com/privacy/. Nachdem dein Kommentar freigegeben wurde, ist dein Profilbild öffentlich im Kontext deines Kommentars sichtbar.
Medien
Textvorschlag: Wenn du ein registrierter Benutzer bist und Fotos auf diese Website lädst, solltest du vermeiden, Fotos mit einem EXIF-GPS-Standort hochzuladen. Besucher dieser Website könnten Fotos, die auf dieser Website gespeichert sind, herunterladen und deren Standort-Informationen extrahieren.
Cookies
Textvorschlag: Wenn du einen Kommentar auf unserer Website schreibst, kann das eine Einwilligung sein, deinen Namen, E-Mail-Adresse und Website in Cookies zu speichern. Dies ist eine Komfortfunktion, damit du nicht, wenn du einen weiteren Kommentar schreibst, all diese Daten erneut eingeben musst. Diese Cookies werden ein Jahr lang gespeichert.
Falls du ein Konto hast und dich auf dieser Website anmeldest, werden wir ein temporäres Cookie setzen, um festzustellen, ob dein Browser Cookies akzeptiert. Dieses Cookie enthält keine personenbezogenen Daten und wird verworfen, wenn du deinen Browser schließt.
Wenn du dich anmeldest, werden wir einige Cookies einrichten, um deine Anmeldeinformationen und Anzeigeoptionen zu speichern. Anmelde-Cookies verfallen nach zwei Tagen und Cookies für die Anzeigeoptionen nach einem Jahr. Falls du bei der Anmeldung „Angemeldet bleiben“ auswählst, wird deine Anmeldung zwei Wochen lang aufrechterhalten. Mit der Abmeldung aus deinem Konto werden die Anmelde-Cookies gelöscht.
Wenn du einen Artikel bearbeitest oder veröffentlichst, wird ein zusätzlicher Cookie in deinem Browser gespeichert. Dieser Cookie enthält keine personenbezogenen Daten und verweist nur auf die Beitrags-ID des Artikels, den du gerade bearbeitet hast. Der Cookie verfällt nach einem Tag.
Eingebettete Inhalte von anderen Websites
Textvorschlag: Beiträge auf dieser Website können eingebettete Inhalte beinhalten (z. B. Videos, Bilder, Beiträge etc.). Eingebettete Inhalte von anderen Websites verhalten sich exakt so, als ob der Besucher die andere Website besucht hätte.
Diese Websites können Daten über dich sammeln, Cookies benutzen, zusätzliche Tracking-Dienste von Dritten einbetten und deine Interaktion mit diesem eingebetteten Inhalt aufzeichnen, inklusive deiner Interaktion mit dem eingebetteten Inhalt, falls du ein Konto hast und auf dieser Website angemeldet bist.
Mit wem wir deine Daten teilen
Textvorschlag: Wenn du eine Zurücksetzung des Passworts beantragst, wird deine IP-Adresse in der E-Mail zur Zurücksetzung enthalten sein.
Wie lange wir deine Daten speichern
Textvorschlag: Wenn du einen Kommentar schreibst, wird dieser inklusive Metadaten zeitlich unbegrenzt gespeichert. Auf diese Art können wir Folgekommentare automatisch erkennen und freigeben, anstatt sie in einer Moderations-Warteschlange festzuhalten.
Für Benutzer, die sich auf unserer Website registrieren, speichern wir zusätzlich die persönlichen Informationen, die sie in ihren Benutzerprofilen angeben. Alle Benutzer können jederzeit ihre persönlichen Informationen einsehen, verändern oder löschen (der Benutzername kann nicht verändert werden). Administratoren der Website können diese Informationen ebenfalls einsehen und verändern.
Welche Rechte du an deinen Daten hast
Textvorschlag: Wenn du ein Konto auf dieser Website besitzt oder Kommentare geschrieben hast, kannst du einen Export deiner personenbezogenen Daten bei uns anfordern, inklusive aller Daten, die du uns mitgeteilt hast. Darüber hinaus kannst du die Löschung aller personenbezogenen Daten, die wir von dir gespeichert haben, anfordern. Dies umfasst nicht die Daten, die wir aufgrund administrativer, rechtlicher oder sicherheitsrelevanter Notwendigkeiten aufbewahren müssen.
Wohin deine Daten gesendet werden
Textvorschlag: Besucher-Kommentare könnten von einem automatisierten Dienst zur Spam-Erkennung untersucht werden.