The Heritage Foundation, Special Report No. 305 of Dec 11, 2024, authored by Willie Soon, Ronan Connolly and Michael Connolly, titled "The Unreliability of Current Global Temperature and Solar Activity Estimates and Its Implications for the Attribution of Global Warming," has the following conclusion.
"We found that, depending on which TSI record we consider, we can explain anything from most of the warming to none of the warming as being due to changes in solar activity. For the non-urbanized temperature data, we found that the best-fitting TSI records provide a better match to the temperature changes than the IPCC’s proposed human-caused factors provide."
Like your article this is information to assuage the fears induced in the general population by climate change alarmists, but it doesn't bleed so it doesn't lead.
Yes indeed, when I have spoken with Dr. Soon, he has made it abundantly clear that there is a massive uncertainty on the pace and extent of change in our star that he is infuriated the broader scientific community seems to ignore.
While the article offers a compelling overview of the Sun’s influence on Earth’s climate through multi-decadal variability and solar cycles, it risks overstating the case for solar-driven climate change at the expense of well-established anthropogenic factors.
The focus on 11- and 22-year solar cycles, and the uncertainties in TSI reconstructions, is certainly relevant for understanding natural variability. However, the global temperature record since the late 19th century shows a persistent upward trend that cannot be explained by solar cycles alone. Even when accounting for possible solar contributions, the warming observed over the past century exceeds what would be expected from natural variability and solar forcing.
Let’s acknowledge the complexity: the climate system is influenced by both natural and human-driven factors. But to suggest that uncertainty in solar data justifies ignoring or minimizing the impact of greenhouse gas emissions is scientifically unsound. The fact that we can measure and understand both solar and anthropogenic influences is precisely why we should act to mitigate human-caused warming. Even if solar variability contributes significantly, it doesn’t excuse inaction -- especially when the risks of further warming are well-documented.
In short, the responsible scientific approach is to consider all drivers of climate change, not to use uncertainty in one area as a rationale for ignoring solutions in another. We know enough about the consequences of continued warming to justify strong action, regardless of the exact split between solar and human causes.
This article goes well beyond the uncertainties in TSI - it dives deep into showing the strong relationships seen between the variabilities in the hydrological cycle and atmospheric circulation with temporal similarities seen in TSI reconstructions over the 20th century.
This article highlights the clear possibility that climate change over the 20th century may be 100% driven by natural forces. This possibility can not be ignored.
If indeed we are responsible for 100%, then the theories of radiative transfer for rising CO2 concentrations suggest that G7 countries such as Canada, will have to spend trillions to try and reduce their contributions to warming and that if they do not, their contribution will be less than 0.01 C per century.
No - that is silly.
Here is a recent article I wrote that gives an entirely different way at estimating changes in the global average air temperature and it ignores 100% human influence.
The Heritage Foundation, Special Report No. 305 of Dec 11, 2024, authored by Willie Soon, Ronan Connolly and Michael Connolly, titled "The Unreliability of Current Global Temperature and Solar Activity Estimates and Its Implications for the Attribution of Global Warming," has the following conclusion.
"We found that, depending on which TSI record we consider, we can explain anything from most of the warming to none of the warming as being due to changes in solar activity. For the non-urbanized temperature data, we found that the best-fitting TSI records provide a better match to the temperature changes than the IPCC’s proposed human-caused factors provide."
Like your article this is information to assuage the fears induced in the general population by climate change alarmists, but it doesn't bleed so it doesn't lead.
Yes indeed, when I have spoken with Dr. Soon, he has made it abundantly clear that there is a massive uncertainty on the pace and extent of change in our star that he is infuriated the broader scientific community seems to ignore.
Interesting article. Clearly sun weather drives terrestrial weather.
From the daily cycle and beyond!
While the article offers a compelling overview of the Sun’s influence on Earth’s climate through multi-decadal variability and solar cycles, it risks overstating the case for solar-driven climate change at the expense of well-established anthropogenic factors.
The focus on 11- and 22-year solar cycles, and the uncertainties in TSI reconstructions, is certainly relevant for understanding natural variability. However, the global temperature record since the late 19th century shows a persistent upward trend that cannot be explained by solar cycles alone. Even when accounting for possible solar contributions, the warming observed over the past century exceeds what would be expected from natural variability and solar forcing.
Let’s acknowledge the complexity: the climate system is influenced by both natural and human-driven factors. But to suggest that uncertainty in solar data justifies ignoring or minimizing the impact of greenhouse gas emissions is scientifically unsound. The fact that we can measure and understand both solar and anthropogenic influences is precisely why we should act to mitigate human-caused warming. Even if solar variability contributes significantly, it doesn’t excuse inaction -- especially when the risks of further warming are well-documented.
In short, the responsible scientific approach is to consider all drivers of climate change, not to use uncertainty in one area as a rationale for ignoring solutions in another. We know enough about the consequences of continued warming to justify strong action, regardless of the exact split between solar and human causes.
Thanks for your response.
This article goes well beyond the uncertainties in TSI - it dives deep into showing the strong relationships seen between the variabilities in the hydrological cycle and atmospheric circulation with temporal similarities seen in TSI reconstructions over the 20th century.
This article highlights the clear possibility that climate change over the 20th century may be 100% driven by natural forces. This possibility can not be ignored.
If indeed we are responsible for 100%, then the theories of radiative transfer for rising CO2 concentrations suggest that G7 countries such as Canada, will have to spend trillions to try and reduce their contributions to warming and that if they do not, their contribution will be less than 0.01 C per century.
No - that is silly.
Here is a recent article I wrote that gives an entirely different way at estimating changes in the global average air temperature and it ignores 100% human influence.
https://josephfournier.substack.com/p/clouds-not-co2-drive-climate-how