Thursday, June 24, 2010

IPCC "Consensus" on Solar Influence was Only One Solar Physicist who Agreed with Her Own Paper, a Czech climate skeptic blog, has posted today an interesting article "Judithgate: The IPCC was only one Solar Physicist" (google rough translation). Her name is Judith Lean (photo at right). On the basis of this "consensus of one" solar physicist, the IPCC proclaimed solar influences upon the climate to be minimal. Objection to this was raised by the Norwegian government as shown in the AR4 second draft comments below (and essentially dismissed by the IPCC): "I would encourage the IPCC to [re-]consider having only one solar physicist on the lead author team of such an important chapter. In particular since the conclusion of this section about solar forcing hangs on one single paper in which J. Lean is a coauthor. I find that this paper, which certainly can be correct, is given too much weight"...: continues [google translation + editing]: "As I wrote elsewhere (article on pmode ACRIM), Judith Lean, along with Claus Frohlich, are responsible for the scandalous rewriting of graphs of solar activity. Satellites showed that the TSI (measured in watts) between 1986 and 96 increased by about one third. Judith Lean and Claus Frohlich (authors of the single study noted above) "manipulated" the data. People who were in charge of the satellites and created the original graphs (the world's best astrophysicists: Doug Hoyt, Richard C. Willson), protested in vain against such manipulation. Willson: "Fröhlich has made changes that are wrong ... He did not have sufficient knowledge of (satellite) Nimbus7 ... pmode composites are useful for those who argue that global warming may be primarily due to anthropogenic causes." [cautionary note English->Czech->English translation of Willson]

...Since the appropriate questions were not asked, the IPCC knows little about the sun. While the rest of the IPCC AR4 is rich in graphics, there is not a single graph of cosmic radiation, solar cycle lengths,  or geomagnetism - which is very strange because they are important indicators of solar activity. The IPCC reports should be a comprehensive, complete summary of current scientific knowledge. It's due to the fact that these indicators say what alarmists don't want to hear. These indicators of rising solar activity 1970-1990s show global warming (in whole or in substantial part) can be explained naturally and is not the fault of humans. The IPCC deliberately hid these graphs from readers under the principle of hide the decline."

The graphs the IPCC didn't want you to see:


Solar Geomagnetic Activity shows increase starting in 1970's


The length of the sunspot cycle - the shorter the cycle, the greater the solar
activity. compare with the graph above.


The evolution of ground temperatures from Phil Jones (CRU) in 1986. 
Retrieved from famous Christensen study 1991. See here and here
The rewriting of the history of 20th century temperatures, see article here.


Red is the original graph of satellite measurements of solar constant TSI 
(composite ACRIM). ACRIM measurements show that in 1996, the sun was 
more active than ten years before, in contrast to the "manipulated" estimates 
of the sole IPCC solar physicist Judith Lean (2004) (blue).


Cosmic ray counts (decreases when solar activity increases. The solar wind protects 
the Earth against space radiation, which in turn may increase cloud formation 


Earth temperature correlated to solar activity. The blue line is a reconstruction of solar activity. (Jones 1993). 
Black is the Northern hemisphere temperature (Jones 1993).

Graph from IPCC AR4 showing global temperatures in black and modeled
temperatures in blue assuming no anthropogenic forcing. The graph allegedly 
proves that anthropogenic greenhouse emissions must be the cause of global 
warming, but since the increase in solar activity 1970-1990 seen in the first 
graph above is not taken into account, the blue model is inadequate and 
proves nothing. (added: The models also fail to account for the huge 
influences of ocean oscillations.)

The IPCC conclusion about human influence on climate - and plans for reworking the entire energy economy on the basis of the carbon footprint - stands and falls with the question of how significant is the influence of solar activity. Yet the IPCC devoted only a few paragraphs to this essential topic, and based the "consensus" on a single astronomer, who agreed with herself.


  1. Certainly the cutest Solar Physicist I've ever seen.

    Maybe we can just let this slide?

  2. Just discovered this site from WUWT - thank you so much for all the useful daily data!!! WUWT has been somewhat off the pace lately. So - much appreciation - makes my life easier.

    And totally agree with this posting - indeed, I wrote a whole book about it!!! 'Chill: a reassessment of global warming theory' in which many of these graphs and the criticisms feature.

  3. Thanks for reporting it. I hurried to write an English tŕanslation of this Judith gate text, since it aroused so many attention, people bothered to toil through google translation editing.



  4. The sun doesn't effect climate or weather, nor does wind or clouds. The sun is there to power solar cells, and the wind is to power turbines when it is cloudy. The sun and wind are "new" and require subsidies to develop. Sailboats and clotheslines are "cutting edge, solar wind hybrids".

  5. Through WUWT and Climate Audit, I criticized Lean's work at its moment because she had changed her original database, based on proxies and sunspots together, to another database based only on sunspots. Lean’s first database, published by NOAA in 2001, showed a clear increase in the Sun’s radiation intensity in the last 400 years. However, her new graphs show a plain baseline which hides the increase of the amplitude of the solar activity. Her first database shows an amplitude of the solar activity of 3.3 W/m^2 with a minimum of 1363.4 W/m^2 in 1659, and a maximum of 1366.728 W/m^2 in 1981; on the other hand, her new database displays only 1.2 W/m^2 with a minimum in 1902 and a maximum in 1981. Obviously, the latter work by Judith Lean was damaged.

  6. John of Cloverdale WA AustraliaJune 18, 2011 at 5:02 AM

    Jack, a bottle blonde with no chest. You keep her mate.