IPCC Global Warming Reports Underestimated Role of Sun in Warming: Study

Depending on the solar activity and temperature records used in the analysis, warming can be blamed on the sun, human activity, or both, the study found.

This picture taken on Nov. 3, 2013 shows a rare hybrid solar eclipse, in the northern Iraqi city of Arbil. Photo credit SAFIN HAMED/AFP via Getty Images

Reports on global warming issued by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) underestimate the role of the Sun in the warming process while falsely laying blame on human beings, according to a study published last month.

In 2021, Ronan Connolly, a scientist at the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Science (CERES), and his colleagues published a review raising concerns about multiple reports issued by the IPCC. The IPCC reports concluded that global warming since the mid-20th century was essentially human-driven, dismissing natural causes behind the process. The 2021 review was disputed in a 2022 article by two climate researchers who claimed that the review was “flawed,” that it “should not be treated as credible,” and that the IPCC’s decision to rule out solar activity as a major driver behind climate change “remains intact.”

In a Sept. 27 study published in IOP Science, a team of 20 climate researchers led by Mr. Connolly sought to debunk the 2022 article and reaffirm the 2021 review. It found that the IPCC may have “substantially underestimated the role of the Sun in global warming,” according to a recent post by CERES.

The 2021 review noted that the IPCC reports had two major flaws:

• For their analysis, the IPCC reports used global surface temperature data that was “contaminated by urban warming biases,” meaning that only temperature records from urban regions were considered. Urban areas tend to be warmer than the countryside due to human activity and various structures. Though urban areas only represent a small percentage of land, these places make up the majority of thermometer records used in estimating global temperatures.

• The IPCC reports used only a small data set from a large pool of data related to Total Solar Irradiance (TSI), which measures the radiant energy emitted by the sun falling on Earth’s atmosphere. And this small data set used by IPCC mostly came to two conclusions—there have been very few TSI changes over the past centuries or that TSI has slightly decreased since the 1950s.

By analyzing data showing a rise in temperatures in urban regions and little to no change in Total Solar Irradiance, the IPCC reports blamed human activity for global warming, dismissing the sun’s role in the process.

In the 2022 article, the two climate researchers criticized the 2021 review, noting the following:

• The mathematical techniques used in the review were inappropriate, and a different set of techniques should have been used.
• The TSI records considered in the review were not up-to-date.

In the Sept. 27 study, Mr. Connolly and his team addressed these issues, finding “even more compelling evidence that the IPCC’s statements on the causes of global warming since 1850 are scientifically premature and may need to be revisited,” said the CERES post.

The Study

In the 2022 article, the climate researchers used just a single surface temperature record, which only contained data from urban regions. Meanwhile, the IPCC’s recent 2021 global warming report only considered one Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) data set in their calculations.

The Sept. 27 study took a more comprehensive approach and avoided these limitations of the IPCC’s 2021 report and the climate researchers’ 2022 article:

• It used five surface temperature records—(a) only rural weather stations, (b) all available stations whether urban or rural, (c) only sea surface temperatures, (d) tree-ring widths as temperature proxies, and (e) glacier length records as temperature proxies.
• It also used 27 updated TSI records, all covering the period between 1850 and 2018.

The study found that depending on the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) dataset and surface temperature records used in the study, the conclusion as to what is driving global warming can change.

Delegates and experts attend the opening ceremony of the 48th session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Incheon, South Korea, on Oct. 1, 2018. Jung Yeon-Je/AFP via Getty Images

Some combinations of TSI and surface temperature records suggested that warming can be explained as being “mostly natural,” like solar activity. Other combinations suggested it was “mostly anthropogenic,” or human-driven. Some suggested warming was “both natural and anthropogenic.”

“While each of us has our own scientific opinions on which of these choices are most realistic, we are concerned by the wide range of scientifically plausible, yet mutually contradictory, conclusions that can still be drawn from the data,” the study said.

Talking about the results, Dr. Willie Soon, an author of the study, said that “if the IPCC had paid more attention to open-minded scientific inquiry than trying to force a premature ‘scientific consensus,’ then the scientific community would be a lot closer to having genuinely resolved the causes of climate change,” according to the CERES post.

Mr. Connolly highlighted the importance of remaining unbiased when conducting research. “In scientific investigations, it is important to avoid beginning your analysis with your conclusions decided in advance. Otherwise, you might end up with a false sense of confidence in your findings. It seems that the IPCC was too quick to jump to their conclusions.”

Flawed Climate Studies

Many other experts have also warned about flawed climate studies and models being used to push the climate agenda.

In August, the Global Climate Intelligence Group (CLINTEL) published its World Climate Declaration signed by over 1,600 scientists and professionals, stating that “there is no climate emergency.”

The coalition pointed out that Earth’s climate has varied as long as it has existed, with the planet experiencing several cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age only ended as recently as 1850, they said.

“Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming,” the declaration said. Warming is happening “far slower” than predicted by the IPCC.

“Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools,” the coalition said, adding that these models “exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases” and “ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.”

In an interview with The Epoch Times back in 2021, Laszlo Szarka, a geophysicist who is also a co-author of the Sept. 27, 2023, study, said that the definition of “climate change” has been distorted over the past three decades.

It was “distorted in 1992 in a way that is incompatible with science,” he said, pointing to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) excluding natural causes from the definition.

The term climate change used to—and must again—include not just human-contributed factors, but also natural ones like temperatures, wind patterns, and rainfall, he said.

“The obscuration of the classical definition of climate change has paved the way for any change in the climate to be attributed and accounted to anthropogenic emission.”