Solar forcing effect on climate change 'extremely small': IPCC scientist

Jan 15, 2013 by Sunanda Creagh
The effect of solar forcing on climate change is ‘extremely small’, an IPCC scientist said today. Credit: https://theconversation.edu.au/theres-always-the-sun-solar-forcing-and-climate-change-1878

Changes in solar radiation, known as solar forcing, have had only a very small effect on climate change, a member of the UN's top panel of climate scientists said today.

The comment, made by a member of the UN's (IPCC), followed the leak of a draft IPCC report late last year, which included comments on the effect of solar forcing on .

At the time of the leak, the climate change skeptics blog, Watts Up With That, drew attention to what it described as a "game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing" but co-chair of the IPCC's Working Group 1, Professor Thomas Stocker said that solar forcing actually did not play a major role.

"As the indicate, the assessment is not yet completed. We are looking at an extremely small effect here, that's what one can say from the publications but I should stress the experts are still performing their assessment," he said a press conference in Hobart today.

The person who leaked the report, blogger Alec Rawls, obtained the draft by signing up as an expert reviewer of the draft.

Professor Stocker said the IPCC was "interested to have a very wide range of experts" reviewing their draft reports.

"We don't want to have quantitative bars on the reviewers, for example requesting a certain number of publications in . We rely on an honest self-declaration on why he or she is an expert," he said.

Extreme events

Professor Stocker and other members of the IPCC's Working Group 1 met today in Hobart, after a week of bushfires ravaged Tasmania and a swept Australia.

Professor Stocker said that previous IPCC reports had "clearly shown there is a connection between increased concentration, changes in climate, in particular changes in frequency and intensity of ."

"The five hottest summers in Europe have all occurred after 2001 over the past 500 years. This is a very interesting observation," he said.

Dr Scott Power from the Bureau of Meteorology and an IPCC Working Group 1 coordinating lead author, said bushfires and hot weather were part and parcel of living in Australia.

"What climate change does is increase the likelihood of such events and increase the intensity of such events," he said.

"So far in Australia, we have seen warming of the climate of about 0.9 degrees Celsius since 1910 and that's projected to go up; the increase is projected to be much higher than that if emissions aren't brought down over the coming decades," said Dr Power.

"So these sorts of events will become increasingly more common and the temperature records set will tend to go up with each passing decade."

Dr John Church, a CSIRO scientist and Working Group 1 coordinating lead author also said that a newspaper story published today saying sea level rises were not linked to climate change was inaccurate.

"Sea level clearly is linked to climate change, it clearly is linked to greenhouse gases and that was in the paper quoted by The Australian. The quote is, I am sorry, inaccurate," he said.

Explore further: Culvert repairs pose environmental risks, require safeguards

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Major climate change report draft leaked online: IPCC

Dec 14, 2012

A major report on climate change being compiled by the United Nation's climate science panel was on Friday leaked online in what appeared to be an attempt by a climate sceptic to discredit the panel.

Recommended for you

New York state bans fracking

12 hours ago

Governor Andrew Cuomo said Wednesday he would ban hydraulic fracking in New York State, citing health concerns about the controversial oil and gas drilling technique.

User comments : 39

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gregor1
1.3 / 5 (15) Jan 16, 2013
Funny these guys just don't keep up. There are many papers that show the sun influences climate and even NASA is back pedalling on this. Here is one of the latest http://hockeyscht...html?m=1
gregor1
1.3 / 5 (15) Jan 16, 2013
This paper explains why temperatures are at their peak now. We are coming out of the Little Ice Age. Perhaps the good Doctor needs to apply Ockam's razor.
http://hockeyscht...html?m=1
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (13) Jan 17, 2013
Here is one of the latest http://hockeyscht...html?m=1


One of the latest? Really Gregor1, you should learn to look past the propoganda. This paper was published in 2002 and relates to data collected in 1999.

Have you read the paper, or just the spin? Can you give an overview of Dr Karner's findings in your own words? It has a remarkable degree of mathturbation!
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (14) Jan 17, 2013
This paper explains why temperatures are at their peak now. We are coming out of the Little Ice Age. Perhaps the good Doctor needs to apply Ockam's razor.


And, once again, an article (not a paper!) from 1999 using data up to 1998. Perhaps the good gregor1 needs to apply some critical thinking to his guru's blog.

"WARNING: There is a well orchestrated denial industry that seeks to discredit the science with obfuscation, distortions and claims of conspiracy. Learn how to spot their lies."
runrig
5 / 5 (10) Jan 17, 2013
Funny these guys just don't keep up. There are many papers that show the sun influences climate and even NASA is back pedalling on this. Here is one of the latest http://hockeyscht...html?m=1


I have tried to understand this paper and it's beyond me. Mr Karner is a statistician and not a climatologist ( apparently ). I have also Googled it for a good hour and have found no expert comment on it for or against. Just its quoting by deniers. Why did it take Mr Watts and Mr Hockey 10 years to trumpet it?

If you are a statistician perhaps you could explain?
VendicarD
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 17, 2013
The latest? From 12 years ago, using satellite data (microwave emissions not temperature data), that is 38 years old, and which spans an altitude of 6-8 kilometers above the earth's surface.

"Here is one of the latest" - GregorTard

Poor GregorTard. He isn't even smart enough to know that no one believes the MSU data since it is a computed temperature and subject to severe observation problems.
VendicarD
4.4 / 5 (9) Jan 17, 2013
Because they are growing ever more desperate in their effort to perpetuate their denialist lies.

"Why did it take Mr Watts and Mr Hockey 10 years to trumpet it?" - Runrig
VendicarD
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 17, 2013
But according to the people who are now trumpeting it, temperatures have been falling since 1998.

"This paper explains why temperatures are at their peak now." - GregorTard

Have they been lying all these years?
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 17, 2013
But according to the people who are now trumpeting it, temperatures have been falling since 1998.


Nice catch, I missed that one! Contradiction, the mainstay of the purposefully obtuse!
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 17, 2013
"Tiny Solar Activity Changes Affect Earth's Climate"
"Even small changes in solar activity can impact Earth's climate in significant and surprisingly complex ways, researchers say."
http://www.space....ate.html

But only has a regional affect? How does that work?
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 17, 2013
But only has a regional affect? How does that work?


What are you talking about? Better yet, why do you bother? Nothing here to parrot ryggesogn2, so go put out of context, random copies of quotes you find in news blogs somewhere else.
VendicarD
4.4 / 5 (9) Jan 17, 2013
It doesn't. That's how.

"But only has a regional affect? How does that work?" - RyggTard

They are yammering over minor statistical correlations.

Too bad for you that you know nothing about science.
runrig
5 / 5 (7) Jan 18, 2013
"Even small changes in solar activity can impact Earth's climate in significant and surprisingly complex ways, researchers say."
But only has a regional affect? How does that work?


It works by altering the interaction of the Stratosphere with the Troposphere in the winter hemisphere. It is thought that a weak sun ( ala Dalton/Maunder minima ) allows cosmic rays to impinge above the poles, destroying ozone and causing warming. This induces easterly winds to downwell into the Troposphere. The dominant polar vortex is then displaced and often splits. Europe is favoured in this respect. Vis the LIA and the cold winters of Dickens' time. PS: this process is underway now - though caused by upwelling of Troposheric waves, in turn caused by the early/strong formation of the Siberian high, in turn caused by early/greater Eurasian snowcover, in turn caused by warmer E Arctic seas, in turn caused by the record Arctic melt last summer. See - large regional changes caused by small effects.
julianpenrod
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 19, 2013
There may be a possibility of misperception or engineered misperception in this.
In point of fact, it is accepted that solar radiation is the primary force driving the world's weather, rather the heat from it that is retained by earth. That is acepted. What is in dispute is how much of the heat from that radiation is retained by the atmosphere. The amount of energy released by the sun does not vary by such a great amount, the amount of solar energy reaching the earth does not does vary greatly, it is the degree to which earth's atmosphere traps and holds heat that is recorded as having changed significantly.
And, so often, crucial points are overlooked, Note where it mentions that "blogger Alec Rawls" obtained the drafyt of the report by "signing up as an expert reviewer".
If Rawls was a genuine "expert", one would expect that he would have a "Dr." or "Prof." before his name! He apparently doesn't even know the subject, but was able to sign up as an "expert"!
julianpenrod
2 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2013
Another filthy secret of "science", "expert review" means nothing! Anyone who wants to call themself an "expert", it appears, can do so! The truth is being judged by people, evidently, who couldn't recognize it if they saw it and only sign up to denounce something that says what they don't want the public to know!
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 19, 2013
It works by altering the interaction of the Stratosphere with the Troposphere in the winter hemisphere.


A winter hemisphere is half of the planet. The Pacific Ocean covers about half the planet, but its only a regional affect.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 19, 2013
There must be another IPCC meeting coming up. There is an above average number of AGW stories on Physorg.
runrig
5 / 5 (7) Jan 19, 2013
It works by altering the interaction of the Stratosphere with the Troposphere in the winter hemisphere.


A winter hemisphere is half of the planet. The Pacific Ocean covers about half the planet, but its only a regional affect.


I'll explain again in words of one syllable. It's regional because the winter polar stratosphere warms .... leading to regional cold as the polar tropospheric vortex is split and displaced, distributing the cold regionally to parts further south. Meanwhile the Arctic becomes warmer. The temperature averaged over the hemisphere remains the same. Geddit yet?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jan 19, 2013
It works by altering the interaction of the Stratosphere with the Troposphere in the winter hemisphere.


A winter hemisphere is half of the planet. The Pacific Ocean covers about half the planet, but its only a regional affect.


I'll explain again in words of one syllable. It's regional because the winter polar stratosphere warms .... leading to regional cold as the polar tropospheric vortex is split and displaced, distributing the cold regionally to parts further south. Meanwhile the Arctic becomes warmer. The temperature averaged over the hemisphere remains the same. Geddit yet?

Sure.
If NASA and NPL were so sure why do they want CLARREO and TRUTHS?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jan 19, 2013
"The Earth's climate is undoubtedly changing, but how fast and what the implications will be are unclear. Our most reliable models rely on data acquired through a range of complex measurements. Most of the important measurements - such as ice cover, cloud cover, sea levels and temperature, chlorophyll (oceans and land) and the radiation balance (incoming to outgoing energy) - must be taken from space, and for constraining and testing the forecast models, made over long timescales. This presents two major problems."
http://www.npl.co...atellite

" In particular, he says, little controlled research has been done on exactly what effect cosmic rays can have on atmospheric chemistry."
http://www.nature...504.html
VendicarD
4 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2013
This is correct. The direction of the change (warming) is known, but exactly how fast is unknown due to climatological noise that is otherwise known as weather.

"The Earth's climate is undoubtedly changing, but how fast and what the implications will be are unclear." - Ryggtard's link

Poor RyggTard. he isn't even bright enough to realize what he is posting contradicts the very viewpoint he is trying to promote.

Why isn't RyggTard living in the Randite paradise of Somalia?
VendicarD
4 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2013
As stated above, weather noise can muddy the climate signal. To disentangle the two requires higher precision data.

Kevin Trenmberth was lamenting the lack of high precision global data when he wrote the following...

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't" - Kevin Trenberth

Trenberth wants to be able to track the flow of heat into, out of the earth's atmosphere as well as across the planet's surface. Existing observational networks do not have the spacial precision to provide such data.

Now, after several more years since Trenberth wrote those words, there are now attribution studies that disentangle the observed warming trend from solar trends, el-nino trends etc.

They show that CO2 forcing has not slowed, and continues at the same rate as before Trenberth's reasonable lament.

"If NASA and NPL were so sure why do they want CLARREO and TRUTHS?" - RyggTard

VendicarD
3.3 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2013
There is no such thing as "a winter hemisphere".

"A winter hemisphere is half of the planet." - Ryggtard

Are you missing a hemisphere of your brain? Two of them perhaps?
Jo01
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2013
In the mean time: black carbon accounts for almost half of the 'warming'.
It won't take long before it's more than that.
And warming of 0.9 degrees sounds not really significant to me, especially if you take the few samples from 1910 into account. Even if it is true, less than 0.09 degrees per year, wow.
Time to worry about significant things, like the incredible overpopulation of Humans on this planet and the totally devastating effects that come with it like habitat loss for all other animals and a locust plague effect on all that's valueable.
If you worry about the climate stop producing children and (as a very distant second) stop using airplanes.
Anyone with children is out of the climate discussion.

J.
Jo01
2.5 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2013
0.009 degrees per year, wow.

J.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2013
In direct contradiction to the above claim;
There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate. A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate," lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet."


Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

Methinks the IPCC should rely on a more inter-disciplinary approach as indicated in the referenced article, rather than the circular reasoning of a small group of self professed "experts".
VendicarD
4.5 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2013
The IPCC bends over backward to be open.

Are you suggesting that they should be more closed?

"He apparently doesn't even know the subject, but was able to sign up as an "expert"" - OingoBoingo

I would be concerned if he was able to make substantive changes to the IPCC report.

It appears that he has had zero success at altering the presentation of the science.

It is easy for an educated man to act like a fool, but not so easy for a fool to act like an educated man.

VendicarD
5 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2013
Methinks that "cantdrive" read the title of his reference but not the content.

"Methinks the IPCC should rely on a more inter-disciplinary approach" - Cantdrive

Perhaps I should help him...

From his own reference...

"Hal Maring, a climate scientist at NASA headquarters who has studied the report, notes that "lots of interesting possibilities were suggested by the panelists. However, few, if any, have been quantified to the point that we can definitively assess their impact on climate."

Reading is fundamental.
VendicarD
5 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2013
Representing about the same rate needed to raise the earth's temperature by 2'C (total, current anomoly is 0.8'C), over the next 100 years.

"0.009 degrees per year, wow." - JoO1

An anomoly of 2'C is the maximum deemed by scientists to be reasonable to prevent global catastrophe.

VendicarD
5 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2013
But it does to climate experts, based on their scientific knowledge of the earth.

"And warming of 0.9 degrees sounds not really significant to me" - JoO1 expressing his opinion.

Would a change in Mueller's constant by 0.9 degrees be a significant change in your opinion?

Egleton
5 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2013
Smoking doesn't cause cancer.
Jo01
1 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2013
But it does to climate experts, based on their scientific knowledge of the earth.

"And warming of 0.9 degrees sounds not really significant to me" - JoO1 expressing his opinion.

Would a change in Mueller's constant by 0.9 degrees be a significant change in your opinion?



You didn't have to add that I expressed my opinion, I made that very clear.
Now about the significance: climate 'experts' are learning constantly, because it's a new science' and experience learns that 'experts' are wrong a lot of the time.
(Think of medical science for example.)
Now this estimate of 2 degrees celsius and 'global catastrophe' is just an educated guess and represents the ultimate worst case scenario thinkable.
I'am not at all impressed by that. I'am an expert myself you know.

Talking about significance: do you have children?

J.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2013
"Gamma-ray burst blasted Earth in 8th century"
http://www.cosmos...-century

How do climate modellers tweak their models to account for this feedback?
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2013
"Gamma-ray burst blasted Earth in 8th century"

Why should they? If you'd bothered to read the article you linked to then you would notice that the burst lasted probably all of two seconds.

I'am not at all impressed by that. I'am an expert myself you know.

Wow. That's rich.
VendicarD
4 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2013
"Smoking doesn't cause cancer." - Egleton quoting ConservaTard Rush Limabaugh

But according to the same Conservatives, birth control causes pregnancy.

Odd how in America people are actually paid to be stupid.

VendicarD
4 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2013
It is sad that by asking that question, RyggTard proves that he doesn't even know what a "feedback" is.

"How do climate modellers tweak their models to account for this feedback?" - RyggTard

Like all Randites, his strength is in his ignorance of his own ignorance.
VendicarD
4 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2013
The opinions of the ignorant are of no consequence.

"You didn't have to add that I expressed my opinion, I made that very clear." - Jo01

Meanwhile..

http://www.youtub...0FBDghtA
VendicarD
5 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2013
Changes in solar radiation, known as solar forcing, have had only a very small effect on climate change, a member of the UN's top panel of climate scientists said today.

http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
VendicarD
5 / 5 (1) Jan 22, 2013
From the latest BEST analysis.

http://berkeleyea...mall.png

Looks like a hockey stick to me.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.