The Leaked IPCC Report: The Sun’s Influence

[updates at end of post- I am not so sure that the issues are as I originally laid out – comments welcomed] I was a little cautious about one element of the critique of the leaked IPCC report. This was the strong claim made by Alec Rawls that the leaked IPCC report highlights the importance of the sun in driving climate change. There was a backlash to this. For example, the New Scientist said this:


The sentence in question is the bold sentence in this passage:


Alec Rawls has provided a rebuttal of the critiques. It is long, and I believe quite complex, and can be found here. As such, I thought I would have a go at simplifying the point that he is making (in as simple language as possible), although do so at some risk I will get it wrong. I am not very familiar at all with this area of  science, but I think I have grasped the key principles of his argument:

  1. There is good empirical evidence that links the activity of the sun and global temperature
  2. One of these influences is total solar irradiance
  3. Total solar irradiance (which is known and can be accounted for) is, of itself, not sufficient to explain the linkage between the activity of the sun and the correlations with global temperature.
  4. Therefore something else must explain the linkages i.e. there is some other forcing mechanism from the activity of the sun that explains the linkage or ‘something’ is ‘amplifying’ the influence of the sun
  5. This might be the theoretical mechanism (backed by results from experimental work) in which solar activity impacts upon cloud formation

This is (in very simple terms) what I think is the gist of the paragraph quoted. There are points to note here.

  1. Observations are indicating a role for the activity of the sun on temperatures beyond what is currently being used in used in climate models. The models include solar irradiance, but not the other still uncertain/undiscovered amplifying mechanism.
  2. The passage accepts that the sun has a greater role in temperature than is currently used in climate models.

As you will have seen, there has been a response to Alec’s discussion which suggests that the context of the whole gives a different understanding. Indeed, there are even suggestions of ‘cherry picking’ and even outright dishonesty in the discussions of Alec’s argument. Central to the claim that the rest of the IPCC report is dismissive of the point in the paragraph is that other sections of the report cast doubt on the cloud formation theory.  Therefore, they claim that the rest of the report does not support a greater role for sun activity in the climate, and this is why there is nothing in the report which supports a greater role in climate change for the sun.

However, this is a very, very large problem, if that is their logic. For the moment we will accept their claim that the cloud theory is poorly supported (which is questionable). That merely means one explanation of the larger role of the sun in temperatures is poorly supported, and does nothing to argue against the evidence that the sun is a larger influence on temperature than is currently accepted in the climate models.

It just means that scientists should be looking harder for explanations of the larger role of the sun in the determination of climate [Update: RichardC reasonably points out that some scientists are already working hard on this, but the IPCC is uninterested]. In the interim they should still alter their models to include the larger role of the sun in driving climate [update: see John Hutlquist’s comment below for reasonable questions on this subject]. Whilst they might argue that they do not know what the additional amplifying mechanism is, they still need to accept the evidence that there is indeed an amplifying mechanism.

In summary, the argument in the IPCC report pretends that by casting doubts on a theory that exlains observation, they can then ignore the real implications of actual observations. These are not theory, and are observations. Casting doubts on a theoretical explanation of observations in no way makes the observations any less real! To pretend this is the case, is a sleight of hand, a magicians trick. It is getting you to look over there, whilst making the subject of interest disappear. If I have understood this correctly (and I am not certain of this), this is either a result of incompetence, or purposefully hiding an ‘inconvenient’ piece of evidence.

Important Note: In light of stepping out of my ‘comfort zone’ I welcome comments and corrections; for those who are reading; you should therefore check the comments below to see if any corrections have been made. Please note there may also be some comments which are from people who will seek to obscure rather than clarify the discussion that I have presented.

Update: In response to a comment below, I have added a large quote from the Economist, which discusses some of the science regarding the sun, climate and cloud formation. Being the Economist, it is well written, and for a lay audience. There is also a video with the original article which, if I remember when I first read the article, is very good.

Clouds are formed by the condensation of water vapour in the atmosphere around clusters of molecules such as ammonia and sulphuric acid. Ions created by the passage of cosmic rays can trigger the formation of such molecular seeds—a process of particular interest because the arrival of cosmic rays is regulated, in part, by the sun. The 11-year solar cycle, which governs the appearance of sunspots, also changes the sun’s magnetic field. That, in turn, affects the passage of cosmic rays (which are mostly protons released by distant supernova explosions), and thus the number of such rays that make it to Earth. Since clouds help regulate the climate, by reflecting sunlight back into space and cooling the atmosphere, some researchers think cosmic rays are a means by which changes in solar activity are translated into terrestrial climate change.

Just how much cosmic rays affect cloud formation has, however, remained elusive. A team at CERN, led by Jasper Kirkby, therefore decided to recreate both the solar cycle and the atmosphere in a lab. Their “cosmic rays” are generated by one of CERN’s particle accelerators. To simulate the atmosphere, they have built a special cloud chamber of their own, with the air manufactured from scratch, using liquid nitrogen and oxygen together with precise amounts of trace compounds, including sulphuric acid and ammonia.

A typical run at CLOUD, as the experiment is unimaginatively named, begins by tracking the growth of seeds from single molecules into clusters in the presence of ultraviolet radiation, which is known to encourage such growth. An electrical field removes any ions present, so the rate of seed growth should be equivalent to that in nature with no cosmic rays around. Next, the field is switched off, allowing actual cosmic rays to permeate the chamber for a while. Finally, a beam of artificial rays from the accelerator is added to the mix.

By comparing rates of seed formation during the different phases of the experiments, the researchers have been able to put a figure on cosmic rays’ contribution to the process. The results, reported in this week’s Nature, suggest naturally occurring rays enhance seed-formation rates by a factor of ten. That implies the rays’ varying intensity could indeed affect the climate.

Dr Kirkby and his colleagues remain cautious about the result, however, because of a second finding. To their surprise, they discovered that the seed-formation rates for sulphuric acid and ammonia are between a tenth and a thousandth of those needed to account for the cloud seeding actually seen in the atmosphere. That suggests other compounds are important, too—and this, in turn, implies that current climate models, which assume most seeds are made of ammonia or sulphuric acid, may require revision.

You may also wish to see this earlier article in the Economist, which gives further background, as it highlights the theory of Henrik Svensmark, who is a key theorist on the subject of cloud formation. I believe the science has moved ahead since these articles, but they do give a sense of the science at issue.

Another update in response to the comments and a little more consideration: This is with regards to the findings of correlations between the activity of the sun. There is a well worn statement that correlation does not equal causation (I recently stumbled across an interesting history of this, but forget where I found it, sorry). The best example I have seen as a simple illustration is that ice cream eating is highly correlated with hot weather, therefore eating ice cream causes hot weather (or the sun to shine). The point here is that correlations need a causal explanation. This is why the cloud seeding theory is important, as are other theories that link the activity of the sun to climate. However, as John Hutlquist points out in his comment, there are some correlations that are hard to ignore.

As you will note, I am starting to rethink a little on this issue. Science is about theory and observation, and that theory should be tested to see whether it is a true description of reality. There has to be theory in addition to observation. Added to this we have the question of intuitive plausibility. It seems intuitively plausible that the major driver of climate is the sun, but that does not make it true. However, when considering an intuitively plausible explanation and a less intuitively plausible explanation (i.e. the plausibility that human derived CO-2 emmissions are more influential in climate change than the sun), then it seems that there should be a desire to examine the more plausible explanation in great depth before settling on the less plausible.

In other words, we have some interesting observational evidence that is suggestive that the sun is more influential as a driver of climate than manmade CO_2. However, the mechanism for how the sun might have greater influence than the know solar irradiance is still a subject of hypothesis and theory testing. It appears, however, that certain members of the scientific community are resistant to the possibility of the sun as a more significant driver of climate than CO_2, and wish to stick with their own (less intuitively plausible) explanation in the face of a more plausible explanation. They do not seem to want to engage with those who are engaging in the process of testing of an alternative hypothesis. Further, whilst their current hypothesis has resulted in model predictions, the predictions are not doing well in face of observation. This should be a driver towards greater interest in the alternative (and more intuitively plausible) hypothesis.

As I have pointed out earlier in the post, I am not in a position to evaluate the science, but I think I am starting to see something of the questions raised in the IPCC leaked report. If they can demonstrate that the current theories of amplification of the influence of the sun are wrong (which I gather they have not), then they could argue that there is no mechanism given for how the sun might be a more important driver for climate than CO_2, and then argue that without a mechanism, the observations are nothing more than coincidence. Correlation and causation are not enough. However, their own theory, as expressed in models, is failing to predict, meaning that their theory is problematic, and that the observations of solar drivers of climate seem to better fit observations of the climate.

In these circumstances, rather than seeking to discredit the sun as a more significant driver of climate, they should be actively looking themselves at the possibilities, and seeking their own explanations. Instead, their minds seem made up so that, whatever faults there are in their own theory, it must be defended to the hilt. After all, the big ball of energy that is the sun seems a plausible candidate for being a major driver of the climate. This stiff-necked approach now seems to me to be the issue at hand. Why are the IPCC scientists so resistant to the alternative explanation for climate variability in the face of the problems with their own theory? There are observations, there are possible causal mechanisms, there are interesting questions which should spur scientific interest (all science commences with questions). Why the disinterest?

Note: A second thanks to John for his comment on models, which spurred this rethink. I think he was gently making the correlation/causation point in the question about models.

17 responses to “The Leaked IPCC Report: The Sun’s Influence

  1. I’m still trying to get my head around this. There are some comments at Bishop Hill that seem to be helpful

    • Thanks Andy, BH’s is a helpful post. Seems similar in principle to this one, which is reassuring, as are the comments. I have commented on WUWT and Jo Nova, and asked for comments on whether I have it right, but it does look like I have got the gist of it.

  2. John F. Hultquist

    I think it appropriate that you try to write at a level for the expected readers of your blog. Apparently you think their technical expertise, and your own, needs to be brought to a higher level. Otherwise, you could just link to several other blogs and say whose arguments you like best.

    If the above is close to being a reasonable interpretation of the current situation then you might want to start by explaining some of the technical aspects of general interest.

    You could begin with some of the “evidence that links the activity of the sun” to whatever here on Earth. Some see amazing correlations or coincidences. For example, there are said to be solar minimums that impinge on human welfare. Can you show these. David Archibald
    shows some of this work in the March 2009 pdf.

    You might explain the Sun a little. What are Sun Spots and what do they mean. What is the correct and/or corrected count thereof. How much does total solar irradiance (TSI) vary? What does vary? This site has many reports:

    Both of the folks linked to above comment/post on WUWT and do not always agree on the facts or the interpretation. You can search WUWT for related posts.

    You write “The models include solar irradiance, but not the other still uncertain/undiscovered amplifying mechanism.

    If TSI does not vary enough to be of any importance then there is no need to include it. Undiscovered mechanisms can’t be included. Would you include “uncertain” things in your model? How?

    You mention a “cloud formation theory.” Do you assume your readers know what this is a reference to? Where does this stand now – proven, unproven, uncertain? What should your readers know about clouds? Why bother with them?

    My comments likely won’t help much with your post on the current kerfuffle. It seems to be about writer’s bias in particular and, in general, opening the IPPC process – and not just allowing the Summary for PolicyMakers (SPM) to appear full born from the UN comrades.

  3. I think you’ve nailed it. There is more to it (see below) but your basic interpretation is correct I think.

    The anti-solar (for want of better term) IPCC faction requires a rising trend in everything including GCR’s but Rawls is saying that a sustained level (high or low) of “SOME” activity, or “an” activity (solar amplification) is all that is required (as per his water pot boiling analogy), not a trend necessarily. By focussing on the GCR aspect the anti-solar faction misses the point entirely and even dismissal of that is premature but GCR would never be a singular “control knob” anyway.

    The missing solar amplification has at least one other explanation by David Stockwell’s accumulation theory that is consistent with what Rawls is saying and accommodates GCR, GHG, cloud forcing etc. Links to that and quotes from the paper here and below it:-

    My only disagreement with the post is that it is not that scientists have to “look harder”, because the likes of Stockwell (not a climate scientist but skilled modeler nonetheless), Scafetta (astrophysics, his model tracking better than 99% of the GCMs) and many others some of which Rawls cites are definitely looking very hard. The issue is that the non-solar faction within climate science at the IPCC has to recognize what is being researched – mainly by climate science outsiders and solar specialists – and consider the alternative paradigm rather than dismiss it all on a GCR/trend pretext.

    Rawls battle with IPCC-aligned solar science has been going on for some time now from what we’ve been able to glean from his blog posts but he has only achieved minimal traction. I think it is understandable that he leaked at least the solar issue (may as well leak the entire report then) in order to get it all in the public domain because the subtleties of his argument are not readily understood clearly even by CAGW sceptics (Jaymez at JN admitted such at least) as I’m sure you will concur. The leaking exercise will go a long way to clarifying the issue i think as evidenced by this post and others so far.

    • Hi Richard, many thanks for your input. I have noted that even the skeptics who are most knowledgeable about the science seem to be less confident on this whole subject. I have put a brief update as per your point. Thanks. This post worried me a little, so reassurance is appreciated, as I am aware that you are very knowledgeable about the science.

  4. John, many thanks for the contribution and also for the links/suggestions. I was slightly worried about my inclusion of the point about needing to be included in the models, but couldn’t quite ‘catch’ the focus of my own worry. I see your point about asking how this might be put into models, without just having a catchall variable bereft of an explanatory theory. This does sound like falling into a dangerous approach to the models, and one which worried me when looking at the IPCC reports long ago. I will put a note in the post to suggest that this may be problematic, and will look at your suggested links and see if I can fill out some gaps.

    Update: I remembered that the Economist covered some of the material, and did so with clarity. I have added a long quote to the end of the post to help explain the principles.

  5. Oh dear.

    “There is good empirical evidence that links the activity of the sun and global temperature”

    The empirical evidence shows that while the earth has been warming the last 30-40 years, the sun activity has moved in the opposite direction (a slight cooling trend).

    • Oh my goodness, are you making a substantive point? On the science? Congratulations, and I mean that sincerely. A reference would be nice icing on the cake.

    • snerkersnerk, but yes there has been a cooling trend in the leading indicaters e.g. SH SST since 2001 and also UkMO OHC since about 2003. Atmospheric cooling has followed so that linear and polynomial trends show cooling since about mid 2000s.

      The delay in cooling is explained by the oceanic heat sink (accumulation of energy) and the thermal lag characteristics of the ocean so that there was energy to be dissipated but that is not an instantaneous process. That process is now all but exhausted.

      • False, richardcfromnz, there has not been a cooling trend. It’s interesting how deniers always claim that, but you can’t seem to agree on the year!

        The sun’s trend has been downward the past 30-40 years. The warming continued in that period.

        You are wrong as deniers always are.

      • snerkersnerk | December 19, 2012 at 1:05 am |

        >”False, richardcfromnz, there has not been a cooling trend”

        True snerkersnerk, there has been a cooling trend.

        HadSST2 SH cooling since 2001:-

        HadCRUT4 global mean cooling since 2003

        >”The sun’s trend has been downward the past 30-40 years”

        Depends which composite you select and how the ACRIM “gap” (Challenger disaster) was closed.. The ACRIM composite indicates that the high TSI level continued until 2001 as opposed to PMOD/Frolich and Lean:-

        >”The warming continued in that period”

        Nope. Not this century. That’s clearly shown in AR5 (e.g. models vs observations)

        But OK, lets assume solar max at 1986 (as per Joanna Haigh and PMOD). It is to be expected that warming would continue after 1986 as long as TSI levels are relatively high (compared to solar min at Maunder Minimum levels say) because cooling would not be instantaneous from 1986 due to oceanic solar energy accumulation and thermal lag/inertia characteristics i.e. the oceanic heat sink. Haigh et al (including Foster, Rahmstorf and yourself apparently) don’t/wont understand this concept.

        However, that oceanic energy accumulation will be gradually exhausted now (2012) that the sun is definitely in recession. That gradual release interspersed with the odd concentrated release by El Niños. The release of energy has been evident since the early 2000s (see above plots) but significant cooling due to lower solar activity wont be clearly discernible in the atmosphere for another 2 years or so (circa 2014). mainly because the North Atlantic is still warm.

        There is nothing to support a return to a warming regime until at least 2020 because the sun’s in recession, the PDO is in Cold Mode, there’s no predictions of an El Niño in the near future, and it looks like we’ve entered a negative MEI era (La Niña domination).

        And the above solar scenario is totally consistent with dimming/brightening/albedo/cloud forcing/GCR modulation or whatever (basically just modulation mechanisms). The last 30 yrs have NOT been consistent with aGHG forcing on the other hand. This leaves the IPCC in something of a conundrum doesn’t it?

        The AR5 SOD is just not Yvo de Boer’s promise of a “scare the wits” event unless WGIII still has something radical to embellish the final report. In present form it is rather mild and benign (e.g. SLR), the models/observations disparity (e.g. GAT, methane) is stark, and the whole thing somewhat embarrassing for the CO2 climate control knob clique.

  6. This sort video explains some of Svensmark’s theories on cosmic rays and the sun’s influence on climate

  7. John F. Hultquist

    The notion that the Sun’s activity “has moved in the opposite direction (a slight cooling trend)” needs clarification. Perhaps the writer means the Sun Spot numbers have declined. Does this mean the Sun is cooler? We can “see” sun spots because they are cooler than the regions of the surface they are in. As the spots “get hotter” it is more difficult to see them. This information is explained in papers by Livingston and Penn, such as ‘H’ in the list on the site (previous comment).

    I will also add that Earth’s atmosphere seems not to have been warming recently while GHGs continue to increase.

  8. This graph was posted on WUWT and shows correlation between solar cosmic activity and temps for the North Atlantic area

    As you can see, there is a fairly striking correlation

  9. What I don’t understand, like you, is why the IPCC are so defensive over the solar-cosmic ray theory. It may well bolster their case in explaining the lack of warming over the last 16 years or so, and potentially strengthen the AGW case..

    Surely, we want all available data to feed into the climate models.

    • There is no lack of warming over the last 16 years. Funnily enough, you contradict the other denier here who claims there’s only a lack of warning in the past 10-11 years or so.

      Why can deniers never get their stories straight?

      The IPCC is an organization. An organization does not have human emotions. You are defensive and are attacking the IPCC because its reports seem to threaten your ideology. The IPCC is simply an organization which gathers the science.

  10. There is no lack of warming over the last 16 years
    OK, so how much warming has there been? References?
    Does it fit with the graph from the previous post that came from the IPCC?

    Why can deniers never get their stories straight?
    “Deniers”, as you charmingly refer to us as, are not pre-programmed automata that churn out state-sponsored propaganda. We try to engage in civil discourse that may occasionally mean our facts are not perfectly aligned.


    I am not attacking the IPCC. In fact, there appears to be some agreement that the IPCC has done a better job at representing the science in AR5 that in previous reports, in that it acknowledges the lack of case for alarm in most areas.

Leave a Reply


You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Google+ photo


Connecting to %s