23 Experts in the fields of Solar Physics and Climate Science Contradict the IPCC — the Science is *NOT* Settled

A diverse expert panel of global scientists finds blaming climate change mostly on greenhouse gas emissions was premature.

Their findings contradict the IPCC’s conclusion, which the study shows, is grounded in narrow and incomplete data about the Sun’s total solar irradiance (TSI).

Most of the energy in the Earth’s atmosphere comes from the Sun. It has long been recognized that changes in the so-called “total solar irradiance” (TSI), i.e., the amount of energy emitted by the Sun, over the last few centuries, could have contributed substantially to recent climate change. However, this new study found that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only considered a small subset of the published TSI datasets when they were assessing the role of the Sun in climate change and that this subset only included “low solar variability” datasets. As a result, the IPCC was premature in ruling out a substantial role for the Sun in recent climate change.

The scientific review article looks at the role the Sun has played in ‘climate change’ over the last 150 years.

It finds that the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may have been premature in their conclusion that recent climate change is mostly caused by human greenhouse gas emissions.

The paper, written by 23 experts in the fields of solar physics and of climate science from 14 different countries, is published in the peer-reviewed journal Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics (RAA).

The study, which is the most comprehensive to date, carries out an analysis of the 16 most prominent published solar output datasets, including those used by the IPCC.

The researchers compared them to 26 different estimates of Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century (sorted into five categories), including the datasets used by the IPCC.

They focused on the Northern Hemisphere since the available data for the early 20th century and earlier is much more limited for the Southern Hemisphere, but their results can be generalized for global temperatures.

How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? (click the image to enlarge)

The study found that scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider.

For instance, in the graphs above, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports.

In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions.

On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural.

On the right, only rural stations are used.

While on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming.

On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Dr. Ronan Connolly, lead author of the study, at the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES):

“The IPCC is mandated to find a consensus on the causes of climate change. I understand the political usefulness of having a consensus view in that it makes things easier for politicians. However, science doesn’t work by consensus. In fact, science thrives best when scientists are allowed to disagree with each other and to investigate the various reasons for disagreement. I fear that by effectively only considering the datasets and studies that support their chosen narrative, the IPCC have seriously hampered scientific progress into genuinely understanding the causes of recent and future climate change. I am particularly disturbed by their inability to satisfactorily explain the rural temperature trends.”

The 72 page review (18 figures, 2 tables and 544 references) explicitly avoided the IPCC’s consensus-driven approach in that the authors agreed to emphasize where dissenting scientific opinions exist as well as where there is scientific agreement.

Indeed, each of the co-authors has different scientific opinions on many of the issues discussed, but they agreed for this paper to fairly present the competing arguments among the scientific community for each of these issues, and let the reader make up their own mind.

Several co-authors spoke of how this process of objectively reviewing the pros and cons of competing scientific arguments for the paper has given them fresh ideas for their own future research. The authors also spoke of how the IPCC reports would have more scientific validity if the IPCC started to adopt this non-consensus driven approach.

The full citation for the study, and indeed the study itself, can be found HERE.

Quotes from some of the other co-authors

Víctor Manuel Velasco Herrera, Professor of Theoretical Physics and Geophysics at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) said:

“This paper is very special in that all 23 co-authors set aside our research directions and specialties to produce a fair and balanced scientific review on the subject of sun-climate connections that the UN IPCC reports had mostly missed or simply neglected.”

Nicola Scafetta, Professor of Oceanography and Atmospheric Physics at the University of Naples Federico II (Italy):

“The possible contribution of the sun to the 20th-century global warming greatly depends on the specific solar and climatic records that are adopted for the analysis. The issue is crucial because the current claim of the IPCC that the sun has had a negligible effect on the post-industrial climate warming is only based on global circulation model predictions that are compared against climatic records, which are likely affected by non-climatic warming biases (such as those related to the urbanization), and that are produced using solar forcing functions, which are obtained with total solar irradiance records that present the smallest secular variability (while ignoring the solar studies pointing to a much larger solar variability that show also a different modulation that better correlates with the climatic ones). The consequence of such an approach is that the natural component of climate change is minimized, while the anthropogenic one is maximized. Both solar and climate scientists will find the RAA study useful and timely, as it highlights and addresses this very issue.”

Ole Humlum, Emeritus Professor of Physical Geography at the University of Oslo, Norway:

“This study clearly demonstrates the high importance of carefully looking into all aspects of all available data. Obviously, the old saying ‘Nullius in verba’ is still highly relevant in modern climate research.”

Gregory Henry, Senior Research Scientist in Astronomy, from Tennessee State University’s Center of Excellence in Information Systems (U.S.A.):

“During the past three decades, I have acquired highly precise measurements of brightness changes in over 300 Sun-like stars with a fleet of robotic telescopes developed for this purpose. The data show that, as Sun-like stars age, their rotation slows, and thus their magnetic activity and brightness variability decrease. Stars similar in age and mass to our Sun show brightness changes comparable to the Sun’s and would be expected to affect climate change in their own planetary systems.”

Valery M. Fedorov, at the Faculty of Geography in Lomonosov Moscow State University, Russia:

“The study of global climate change critically needs an analytical review of scientific studies of solar radiation variations associated with the Earth’s orbital motion that could help to determine the role and contributions of solar radiation variations of different physical natures to long-term climate changes. This paper steers the scientific priority in the right direction.”

Richard C. Willson, Principal Investigator in charge of NASA’s ACRIM series of Sun-monitoring Total Solar Irradiance satellite experiments (U.S.A.):

“Contrary to the findings of the IPCC, scientific observations in recent decades have demonstrated that there is no ‘climate change crisis’. The concept that’s devolved into the failed CO2 anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis is based on the flawed predictions of imprecise 1980’s vintage global circulation models that have failed to match observational data both since and prior to their fabrication.

The Earth’s climate is determined primarily by the radiation it receives from the Sun. The amount of solar radiation the Earth receives has natural variabilities caused by both variations in the intrinsic amount of radiation emitted by the Sun and by variations in the Earth-Sun geometry caused by planetary rotational and orbital variations. Together these natural variations cause the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) at the Earth to vary cyclically on a number of known periodicities that are synchronized with known past climatic changes.”

WeiJia Zhang, Professor of Physics at Shaoxing University (China) and a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society (UK):

“The quest to understand how the Earth’s climate is connected to the Sun is one of the oldest science subjects studied by the ancient Greeks and Chinese. This review paper blows open the mystery and explains why it has been so difficult to make scientific advances so far. It will take the real understanding of fluid dynamics and magnetism on both the Sun and Earth to find the next big leap forward.”

Hong Yan (晏宏), Professor of Geology and Paleoclimatology at the Institute of Earth Environment and Vice Director of the State Key Laboratory of Loess and Quaternary Geology in Xi’an, China:

“Paleoclimate evidence has long been informing us of the large natural variations of local, regional and hemispheric climate on decadal, multidecadal to centennial timescales. This paper will be a great scientific guide on how we can study the broad topic of natural climatic changes from the unique perspective of external forcings by the Sun’s multi-scale and multi-wavelength impacts and responses.”

Ana G. Elias, Director of the Laboratorio de Ionosfera, Atmósfera Neutra y Magnetosfera (LIANM) at the Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Tecnología in the Universidad Nacional de Tucumán (FACET-UNT), Argentina:

“The importance of this work lies in presenting a broader perspective, showing that all the relevant long-term trend climate variability forcings, and not just the anthropogenic ones (as has been done mostly), must be considered. The way in which the role of these forcings is estimated, such as the case of solar and geomagnetic activity, is also important, without minimizing any one in pursuit of another. Even the Earth’s magnetic field could play a role in climate.”

Willie Soon, at the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES), who also has been researching sun/climate relationships at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (U.S.A.) since 1991:

“We know that the Sun is the primary source of energy for the Earth’s atmosphere. So, it always was an obvious potential contributor to recent climate change. My own research over the last 31 years into the behavior of stars that are similar to our Sun, shows that solar variability is the norm, not the exception. For this reason, the Sun’s role in recent climate change should never have been as systematically undermined as it was by the IPCC’s reports. Hopefully, this systematic review of the many unresolved and ongoing challenges and complexities of Sun/climate relationships can help the scientific community return to a more comprehensive and realistic approach to understanding climate change.”

László Szarka, from the ELKH Institute of Earth Physics and Space Science (Hungary) and also a member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences:

“This review is a crucial milestone on the way to restoring the scientific definition of ‘climate change’ that has become gradually distorted over the last three decades. The scientific community should finally realize that in science there is no authority or consensus; only the right to seek the truth.”

The science is settled, right?

Well, no, that statement is a lie, and these 23 eminent solar physicists and climate scientists are evidence of that; they are putting their reputations –and in some cases their careers– on the line to share with you their findings.

Help their voices grow louder by spreading their message. Give others in your ‘circle of influence’ –to steal a gross climate change trope— the opportunity to awaken, to discover the true meaning of scientific endeavor; that is, to question everything.

Social Media channels are restricting Electroverse’s reach: Twitter are purging followers, while Facebook are labeling posts as “false” and have now locked me out of my account. And most recently, the CCDH stripped the website of its ability to advertise with Google.

So, be sure to subscribe to receive new post notifications by email. And also consider becoming a Patron or donating via Paypal (button located in the sidebar >>> or scroll down if on mobile). The site receives ZERO funding, and never has.

Any way you can, help me spread the message so others can survive and thrive in the coming times.

Related posts

36 Thoughts to “23 Experts in the fields of Solar Physics and Climate Science Contradict the IPCC — the Science is *NOT* Settled”

  1. Jopeck

    How are things going with your “record Siberian snowfall oktober index”? Most of the northern hemisphere much warmer then average right now.

    1. Jopeckerhead Trollwatch Inc.

      Severe Little Ice Age drought in the midcontinental United States during the Mississippian abandonment of Cahokia – 05 July 2021
      Drought has long been suspected as playing an important role in the abandonment of pre-Columbian Native American settlements across the midcontinental United States between 1350 and 1450 CE.

    2. TheMronz

      ‘Right now’ being the operative phrase here.
      If so hardly grazes the prolonged cold Southern Hemisphere figures.
      All part of natural variation, see above.
      Can you imagine a frustrated activist like Jopeck sat down debating ‘climate change’ with any of the above genuinely eminent observers? It’s going to start happening soon because that’s all the AGW party has. And my what fun we’ll have.

  2. Geoff

    The citation link does not work

    1. Cap Allon

      Links should be working now. Apologies.

    1. Dirk Pitt

      COP27 climate change meeting in Egypt and thennn they all fly to Bali for the G20 summit to bitch about global warming. Maybe they should focus on stopping WW3 and get resources flowing again so people don’t freeze and starve to death this winter?

  3. Tony.K

    You don’t need “experts” to confirm this.Anyone with a brain knows that…Oh wait.

  4. Amanda Wilson

    Thank you for posting the comments,….is there a list of who the 23 people were? I didn’t see Dr. Valentina Zharkova’s comments, I wonder if she was a part of this. So far, she seems to have the best Predictive System out there. It’s too bad people have not listened to what she has said. I watched her whole presentation and she was amazing. Even for someone who is not a Scientist.

  5. Amanda Wilson

    I meant, for someone like me, who has no background in the Sciences. Even I could understand pretty well what she was saying. 🙂

  6. Ice Age Totalitarianism Eugenics

    Biotech analyst Karen Kingston unveils PATENTS and documents describing the covid vaccine 5G link, biosynthetic AI nanotech, “soft actuators” and NEUROWEAPONS implanted with needles | Oct 16, 2022 | Latest, Technetronic Era

    How to track & trace every person, purchase, and protein on the planet & manipulate human behaviour | Oct 16, 2022

    1. Deb

      Hey, where’s Cranbook Canada? There’s an interesting guy living there. I have a friend in Alberta. Maybe I can stay on his ranch if it’s close, lol.

      1. .

        …er… make that… I have a secular exorcist/nemesis in Alberta.

        1. Deb

          No, actually he needs an exorcist, lol.

          1. Deb

            But I’m not one to hold that against anyone. I believe I mentioned the book I never wrote, “Raised by Demons”?

  7. Richard Greene

    More scientists guessing about the causes of warming since the 1800s

    The correct answer is no one knows.

    The +48% rise of CO2 estimated since 1850 probably caused some of the roughly +1 degree C, of global warming. So what?

    It is impossible to claim any more accuracy than that

    Data for CO2, global average temperatures, solar energy TOA and solar energy reaching Earth’s surface are not reliable before the satellite age (roughly 1980)

    Conclusions based on pre-1980 data can not be trusted.

    While solar energy measured at the top of the atmosphere has barely changed since 1960 (NASA claims it declined slightly), it is more difficult to estimate the average solar energy reaching Eart’;s surface. That energy is affected by air pollution and clouds. Both of those variables are constantly changing, but probably not enough to explain most of the global warming since the 1970s

    To be smarter than climate scientists all you have to do is compile a list of variables that affect the climate, and then say the truth: We don’t know exactly each one does.

    All we know is the planet warmed since the colder Maunder Minimum period in the late 1600’s, and that was good news. Earth’s climate does not get much better than it is today, for humans, animals and plants. This is the best climate since the Holocene Climate Optimum ended about 5000 years ago! We should be celebrating the current climate and thankful for the global warming so far.

  8. Deb

    Come on! Conclusions based on data from NOW cannot be trusted!

    1. Richard Greene

      Conclusions based on recent data can be trusted for the 1980 to 2022 period, but those data can not be used for predictions of the future climate. which have been consistently wrong for over 50 years. We already have too many predictions!

  9. Michael Peinsipp

    AND President Rigor Mortis and other DC morons want to ‘cool down the Sun’!!!


      I LOVE your descriptive!

    2. Richard Greene

      Actually, cooling is easy to do:
      Fill the atmosphere with lots of air pollution to block more sunlight!

      1. CO2 is OK

        Great observation as the warming step of past decades correlates with a massive pollution reduction program by industry & Govts ; ie. particulates, etc.
        CO2 is OK

  10. Ed Taster

    It is now obvious that the beneficiaries of the AGW hysteria have been Russia and OPEC. I wonder how much of it was actually financed by Russia.

    1. Matt Dalby

      Russia has more than likely funded various environmental groups in the West to try and block new fossil fuel projects. I say more than likely because any donations they make will be channelled through numerous off shore trust funds and subsidiaries in tax havens so proving exactly where they originated from is impossible.

  11. Peter

    Sydney weather is a mess.
    Barely any sun except for the afternoons lately, cold and humid every day this spring.
    People can carry on all they want.
    If theyre too blind to see, let them become even more blind.

    1. Nick

      Yes. Two days last week were on the sunny and warm side then back to wet and cold. So that’s two days total since September 1 warm-ish. The sun is being dopey and inactive. All out of control.

  12. Control the Narrative, Control the World

    We do not control the MSM narrative(s) including their “science/physics narratives”. Note first 2/3s of this podcast – (((they’ve))) been creating or forecasting the propaganda/narratives, fiction, charts, eclipses, ice ages, GSM(s), markets, “NEWS” at an extremely granular level for a long, long time. Like Vegas… the house always controls the narrative.

    The objective focus of the, “THEY LIVE” movie was the failed attempt to regain [or obtain for the first time] the control of the narrative from the psychopathic zombies in control. The present woke zombie masses continue to fight against this all the way…. eugenics works cyclically too… so the only thing you can control is how you react to the controlled or natural existential crises.

    1. Baba Looey

      “Narrative becomes the way you make sense of chaos. That’s how you focus the world. It’s the only reason you should ever try this writing job.” ― Dennis Lehane

      We’re living the same narrative Cap’n Quixdraw… great thinnin’ per usual Amigo. Cheers.

      1. Deb

        Some writers make sense out of chaos, and some writers do it the other way round.

        1. Deb's Secular Exorcist Nemesis

          That’s right.

          1. Deb

            You can cast them out of yourself, you know. In fact, that’s the best way.

        2. Church Lady Logos

          … she mused while reflecting on her most recent post.

          1. Deb

            Well, I have my moods…

            1. Deb

              😉 (Non-freemason wink).

      2. The Good, the Bad and Cap'n EL KABONG

        The Good, the Bad and Cap’n EL KABONG

  13. Dirk Pitt

    Darwin is forecast warmer than normal the rest of the month then Nov and Dec. If you want hot move there.

    Volcanic haze is still thick down under and volcanos continue to erupt every time there is solar activity. Tonga popped from a solar flare. Etc etc etc. Every flare they pop and low pressure cells wizz past NZ which is heat rising and then cold pops up from down under to replace it.—add-more-layers/overlays?cams,pm2p5,-40.280,167.520,4—add-more-layers/overlays?tcso2,-18.459,170.376,5,-265.78125&extent=44.33957,-153.28125&range=month&magnitude=4.5&settings=true

    Flares quakes volcanos rinse repeat,,,

Leave a Comment