Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.


Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe

Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...

New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


Sun and climate moving in opposite directions, says leaked IPCC report

Posted on 19 December 2012 by John Cook

Republished from The Conversation. For a more detailed analysis of the science, check out Dana Nuccitelli's IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun.

The sun’s influence on climate may be smaller than you’ve heard (onlinewoman/Flickr).

Last week, blogger Alec Rawls leaked a working draft of the 5th Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). One section of the IPCC report examines the role of the sun on climate change and concludes that since 1980, solar activity has decreased and had a slight cooling influence on our climate. Over the last few decades of global warming, sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions.

This is hardly a new revelation. In recent years, a number of peer-reviewed studies have investigated the role of the sun on climate change. In 2004, solar researcher Sami Solanki examined solar activity and climate over the last 11,400 years. Upon observing a recent divergence between sun and global temperature, Solanki concluded “solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades”. More recently, UK scientist Mike Lockwood concluded that “…solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise…”.

This steady flow of peer-reviewed research finding a negligible solar influence is inconvenient for climate sceptics, who are desperate to blame global warming on the sun (in fact, they’re happy to blame it on anything other than human activity but the sun is the most popular option). How has the sun myth persisted in the face of such a persistent stream of empirical evidence? The most common method is cherry picking.

A striking example of solar cherry picking comes from the Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, whose main message was promotion of the sun myth. The documentary’s key piece of evidence was a graph of solar activity and global temperature, which infamously ended in 1980 when sun and climate diverge. By cherry picking the data, the producers of The Great Global Warming Swindle attempted to hide the recent decline in solar activity.

The most misleading cherry picks are those where the cherry picked interpretation is the opposite of the conclusion suggested by the full body of evidence. This is the case with Alec Rawls’ interpretation of the leaked IPCC draft. While Rawls’ breaking of a disclosure agreement is unethical, his distortion of the science is more destructive.

Rawls quotes a line from the IPCC draft speculating about a possible mechanism that may amplify the solar influence on climate. From this single sentence, he concludes that the sun must have a greater impact on recent global warming.

One possible mechanism that amplifies the sun’s influence on climate is galactic cosmic rays. The hypothesis, proposed by Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark, is that cosmic rays originating from outside our solar system may seed clouds on Earth. Clouds generally reflect incoming sunlight, which cools our climate. Protecting us from cosmic rays is the sun’s magnetic field, which grows stronger as the sun brightens. When solar activity weakens, more cosmic rays hit the Earth. If cosmic rays do happen to affect clouds, then a weaker sun leads to more cosmic rays causing more clouds, which will have a cooling effect.

The jury is still out on whether cosmic rays amplify the sun’s effect on climate. A number of studies have examined any possible link between cosmic rays and climate and found no link. Reviewing this body of evidence, the current draft of the IPCC report concludes that the cosmic ray mechanism is too weak to have any significant influence on climate.

Regardless of whether cosmic rays or any other mechanism amplifies the sun’s influence, the key fact here is that the solar effect on climate in recent decades has been that of cooling. Any mechanism that amplifies the solar effect would increase the cooling. This is the opposite conclusion to that of Alec Rawls who used a single, isolated sentence in a draft document to support his argument.

Those who reject the scientific consensus on climate change ignore years of research by solar scientists who have repeatedly concluded in study after study that the sun has had a negligible contribution to recent global warming. This is just one part of the accumulating body of evidence that has led the IPCC to release ever strengthening statements on the human role in global warming.

Consequently, the current draft of the IPCC’s 5th Assessment report concludes that it is virtually certain that humans are causing climate change.

0 0

Printable Version  |  Link to this page


Comments 1 to 9:

  1. Excellent summary. I can't believe why the deniers keep bringing up the failed "it's the sun" argument time and time again. I guess they feel that they can reach new groups that don't know that the argument is proven wrong multiple times, and their message has never really been about the truth anyway.
    0 0
  2. Yes, I think the deniers hope to reach new groups--which is why it was so great to see Skeptical Science, The Conversation, and scientists like Sherwood get out in front of this nonsense and quickly shoot it down. Happily, the MSM picked up SkS and the others (with one the dismissable exception of Delingpole, who again displayed his utter ignorance of science and his inability to read carefully and think for himself).
    0 0
  3. Even by denier standards, Rawls is really quite something H/T Rattus Norvegicus at Stoat
    0 0
  4. Summary form of denier argument: So: a dog, a blonde, and a helicopter walk into a bar. But! That does not mean the blonde dog is necessarily in *charge* of the helicopter! Apologies for what may appear off topic but the structure of argumentation is not far off...
    0 0
  5. Esop: "I can't believe why the deniers keep bringing up the failed "it's the sun" argument time and time again." Because many of them know that continually repeating it will negate action on AGW. It isn't anything to do with science.
    0 0
  6. Great title John, it really says it all!
    0 0
  7. VeryTallGuy @ 3, the pdf you linked to, a letter from Flight 93 Advisory Commission Chairman to Mr. Alec Rawls, includes this little gem:
    You continue to harass, intimidate, and slander
    Nothing like a bit of harassment, intimidation and slandering, to make up for an excruciating lack of facts, research and analysis. It is almost beyond comprehension that Mr. Rawls could become so belligerent over something as simple and sensitive as planning for the Flight 93 Memorial. I wonder if his next outburst will be to accuse Islam of inventing and funding the AGW hoax?
    0 0
  8. Hold on a minute. Is this Rawls fellow really an intellectual first cousin to the 911 Truther bunch? Shouldn't a massive overdraft in one credibility account cause a red flag to be thrown up on further applications for credence?
    0 0
  9. RealClimate just posted "A review of cosmic rays and climate: a cluttered story of little success."
    0 0

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us