Soon-Connolly – Solar Forcings

CSS-51 This post has a quick look at a recent paper (The Detection and Attribution of Northern Hemisphere Land Surface Warming (1850–2018) in Terms of Human and Natural Factors: Challenges of Inadequate Data) put together by Willie Soon and Ronan and Michael Connolly (along with 34 other scientists from around the planet). The Michael Manns and Gavin Schmidts of the world are up in arms over this one. That on its own suggests that the authors must be over the target. The attempts at censorship and discreditation reek of the same tactics and participants revealed in the 2009 Climategate emails.

#climatechange #delaythegreen #globalwarming #showusthedata

Why is the alarmist community speaking out so vociferously against this paper? There is an easy answer. Models that factor in just the natural forcings (primarily solar) produce a much better temperature history match than the current front end loaded CO₂ versions that self-admittedly run way too hot and use implausibly high emission scenarios. The alarmist models still focus on the higher emission scenarios (ssp5-8.5, ssp3-7.0) despite an historical emission profile that is below the ssp2-4.5 scenario. The Soon-Connolly² et al (SC²) paper highlights those history matches, and not surprisingly casts further serious doubt on the simplistic, unscientific Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) alarmist narrative.

The alarmist community has always ignored the bulk of the solar forcings, focusing on just the absolute value of the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI), minor component of the overall solar forcing. Why would they ignore the Cosmic Ray Flux (and its relationship to cloud cover), solar wind strength, the planet’s electromagnetic field strength, the solar influence on ocean (and atmospheric) temperatures/currents, etc., etc. Again, the answer is simple, these findings go against the ‘authoritative’ narrative/consensus. The idea that the sun is the primary driver is not new. When all the available data is reviewed, solar fingerprints exist throughout the historical data (on a variety of time scales (short and long). The opposite is true for CO₂.There are simply no empirical CO₂/Temperature datasets that show CO₂ driving the climate on any statistically significant historical time scale. I have in the past shown that the Modern Temperature Record (MTR, 1850 to the present) and the Central England Temperature (CET, 1659 to the present) can be history matched more precisely when solar activity and ocean cycles are also factored in.

For the MTR case, I focused on just the TSI (as a proxy) and the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) without any CO₂ contribution. Those results were discussed in my OPS-8 – Basic Climate Model and Open Letter Addendum posts. The CET case used TSO, AMO and CO₂ and was discussed in my CSS-29 – Climate Model – TSI-AMO-CO₂ post. I am not going to rehash those discussions, but the history matches including TSI and AMO were far better than any match that uses just CO₂. No match will ever be perfect and there are many other processes that would tighten the matches up further. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) are a couple of cyclical examples that can have noticeable impacts on the temperature. Volcanic activity and solar activity (strong flares and Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs)) are examples of more erratic influences.

So, why are the alarmist models running too hot (even against the over-heated, “homogenized” surface temperature datasets)? Again, an easy answer. They intentionally try to minimize the role natural forcings play (i.e.: solar and ocean cycles) and attribute all the warming to CO₂ (by using unrealistically high CO₂ climate sensitivities and unproven positive water vapor feedback). There are at least 27 different TSI reconstructions (as shown by SC²). How many of these TSI reconstructions do the IPCC use in their evaluations? One in their latest report (AR6), M2017 (an average of K2007 and C2016). In their AR5 report they used four of the TSI reconstructions. SC² use a portfolio of 8 TSI reconstructions. The differences between the IPCC and SC² are obvious, but so are the history match comparisons that show SC² has a far more accurate temperature representation. I use the Naval Research Lab’s NRLTSI2 TSI reconstruction (originally sourced from a NASA website), which appears to reside in the middle of the pack.

The money we are wasting on ideological CO₂ emission reduction strategies saddens me deeply. The business-as-usual case (remember our emissions are below the ssp2-4.5 scenario) is simply not dangerous (let alone an emergency).  Every dollar we spend on these many unnecessary “green” initiatives is a dollar we burden of children’s and grandchildren’s future with and piles on to the self-induced financial problems (inflation, high interest rates, supply chain disruptions, energy/food security issues, etc.) that stem from our long-term climate change and (more recently) pandemic monetary policies. And for what gain? A small reduction in GDP growth and an unmeasurable reduction in temperature rise a century from now (using “the IPCC science”). This mass psychosis madness needs to stop and soon. I truly hope common sense prevails over these dangerous green ideologies. The path forward will be bleak for everyone if that does not happen (regardless of where you reside on the political or societal spectrum).

For more perspective and more detailed analysis, you can check out some of the following posts.

The Detection and Attribution of Northern Hemisphere Land Surface Warming (1850–2018) in Terms of Human and Natural Factors: Challenges of Inadequate Data, Soon-Connolly et al 2023

https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/11/9/179

There is NO Climate Emergency

Clintel Climate Intelligence

Open Letter Addendum

Addendum

One Page Summary (OPS)

OPS-8 – Basic Climate Model

Basic Climate Model

OPS-55 – The State of Climate Science

The State of Climate Science

Climate Short Story (CSS)

CSS-16 – Central England Temperature – Model

Central England Temperature – Model

CSS-29 – Climate Model – TSI-AMO-CO₂

Climate Model – TSI-AMO-CO2

CSS-42 – The Role of the Sun – Scafetta 2023

The Role of the Sun – Scafetta 2023