How do the IPCC justify downplaying the effects of the sun?
Thursday, February 15, 2007 at 12:28PM Interesting that the IPCC SMC has downgraded the role played by Solar Irradiance as a forcing agent in GW. In the 2001 TAR it gives an average figure of 0.3W m-2, however in the 2007 SPM this average figure has now become a high end figure and resultantly the average figure for solar forcing has come down to 0.12W m-2. The SPM offers no explanation for this and interestingly openly admits that the figure is no more than an estimate...quote, "Changes in solar irradiance since 1750 are estimated to cause a radiative forcing of +0.12 [+0.06 to +0.30] W m-2, which is less than half the estimate given in the TAR."
How on earth can they do this without first having some data that shows such a downgrading is warranted?
I have come across this work from 2003 by S. K.Solanki and N. A. Krivova which concludes...quote,
"In view of this and the arguments presented by Fro¨hlich and Lean [1998b] we conclude that the Sun has contributed less than 30% of the global warming since 1970 (unless it is through a channel not considered here).""
http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/natalie/PAPERS/warming.pdf
(http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/natalie/PAPERS/warming.pdf)
Here we have serious scientific study who's results would (by my calculation) translate to a high end estimate of approx' 0.55W m-2. Now if the IPCC were to use this figure in it's SPM then it would obviously follow that the average for solar forcing would increase and as a result some other forcing agent would have to decrease by a similar amount - the net result of this could be that solar forcing could be demonstrated as being the main driving force in global warming - most unfortunate.
But I'm just a layman.
Supplied by G. Jones (Warrington, north-west England)
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments