Sun shunned - Climate Change: The Facts - page 41

Of the 38 co-authors and three review editors of the IPCC's solar sub-chapter (chapter
8 by Myhre et al . 2013), 6 only one is an expert on solar physics. Perhaps not surprisingly,
then, the subchapter is shot through with critical errors and serious misrepresentations.
These include:
• Misleading discussion of the sun's radiative forcing. The IPCC authors'
formulation of the sun and climate relation in terms of the idealised radiative
forcing and feedback scenario missed a great opportunity to highlight the primary
importance ofthe non-linear dynamics forthe evolution ofthe earth'sorbit around
the sun which produces unique and non-repeatable changes in the seasonal
distribution of incoming sunlight.
• Concealment ofproblems in determining absolute total solar irradiance. The IPCC
authors failed to alert readers to the fact that great uncertainty in measuring the
level and variation in total solar irradiation still exist, to the extent that estimates
from several measurements differ by as much as 5 to 10 watts per square metre
(Wm -2 ).Theuncertaintyissogreatthatwecannothaveconfidenceinanyclimatic
signals from rising atmospheric CO 2 .
• Cherry-picking of the total solar irradiance dataset. 7 The IPCC authors largely
ignored at least two other datasets that can be shown to be of better quality.
• Outdatedandbiasedselectionofreferences.TheIPCCauthorsfailed,forexample,
to cite potentially important sun-climate connection paper by Willie Soon and
David Legates (2013) which provides disconfirming evidence against the role of
atmospheric CO 2 for recent climate change. 8
• Insufficient understanding of the problems involved in reconstructing total solar
irradiance by the method described in Steinhilber et al. in 2009 and 2012. 9
Steinhilberetal.'smethodofreconstructionisofverypoor,ifnotincorrect,quality
butit isbeing promoted byIPCC authors tobethe best results forhistorical values
of total solar irradiance.
• Misplaced reliance on synthetic eleven-year solar cycles. There are no known
measurements to suggest the existence of the eleven-year-like solar cycles in the
sun irradiance variation for all historical time. Because the IPCC authors proposed
that all paleoclimate modeling group to assume such a cycle in their climate
models,theirconclusioncancreateartificialresultsandmisleadingconclusionson
decadal variations in the actual climate system.
• Ignorance of the 2011 paper by Fontenla et al., which is the best paper on physical
modeling of sun's irradiance at all wavelengths. 10 The IPCC authors neither cite
Fontenla et al. (2011), nor do they include the important conclusion from Fontenla