SOLAR INFLUENCE UNDERESTIMATED by Professor Will Alexander January 26, 2009Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: climate change, global warming, Professor Will Alexander, professor william alexander
SOLAR INFLUENCE UNDERESTIMATED
By Professor Will Alexander
Via Email, January 26, 2009
Until now the climate alarmists exploited their untouchable status within the shelter of the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. This has come to an end.
Our studies confirm that variations in received solar energy and not atmospheric discharges by burning fossil fuels are far and away the dominant cause of climate variability.
We can demonstrate beyond doubt that reductions in greenhouse gas emissions will not have the slightest effect on South Africa’s climate now or in the future.
Please distribute the attached memo widely.
Climate change – solar influence underestimated
Monday 26 January 2009
The scientific advisers to the South African Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism have created the impression that climate change is one of the greatest threats to our planet and to our people.
This statement is totally false and misleading.
As shown in this memo, during the past five years the range of received solar energy was 28 units compared with a range of only 1.6 units resulting from human activities.
Reducing undesirable emissions arising from burning fossil fuels will not have any measurable effect on climatic processes.
This conclusion is confirmed by comprehensive studies of our extensive hydro-climatic database during the past 30 years. These studies demonstrated the unequivocal linkage with variations in solar activity and complete lack of evidence of the effects of human activities.
The Minister is urged to appoint an independent, multi-disciplinary commission of enquiry to advise him before he commits South Africa to undertake costly and fruitless measures that can only damage our economy at a time of a global economic recession and rising unemployment.
The Minister is further informed that South Africa has now entered a period when severe subcontinental droughts can be expected. The basis for this prediction has been denied by his advisers.
I must also record that the Minister’s advisers are well aware of our studies but have rejected my frequent suggestions that we meet to discuss our differences on this nationally important issue.
The Midrand Summit is only four weeks away. The South African authorities are about to make some irreversible decisions that will affect the future prosperity of our nation and its citizens. There will be no benefits — just penalties.
This might be in order if we were facing a national emergency but we are not. There is no enemy at our gates. The threats are entirely imaginary as this memo demonstrates.
I am reminded of Adolf Hitler’s infamous statement that the bigger the lie the more believable it will be. I also recall Winston Churchill’s rallying cry that we will fight them on the beaches, we will fight them on the landing grounds, —- we will never surrender.
Am I exaggerating? Here is yet another example of a big lie perpetrated by climate alarmists. It goes to the very heart of the issue.
I received several responses to my request for one-page contributions that challenge the underlying science of climate change. I have attached a one-page comment from Fred Bailey in the UK. Here is some background to his comments.
Everybody accepts that solar energy received on earth drives the earth’s climate. It must follow that changes in the received energy will result in corresponding changes in climate. It is also elementary knowledge that the magnitude of the received energy will depend on the earth’s distance from the sun.
The first thing that scientists should do is therefore to determine the magnitude of changes in the earth-to-sun distance and then calculate the corresponding changes in received energy. This is what Fred Bailey did. His results are attached. More details of the methods that he used are provided in his book Textbook of gravity, sunspots and climate. Details of the linkage with the earth’s climate are given in our five-authored, refereed paper Linkages between solar activity, climate predictability and water resource development. (Alexander, Bailey, Bredenkamp, van der Merwe and Willemse, in the Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering, June 2007.)
In the attached note Fred Bailey demonstrates that wattage changes in the range of 30 Wm-2 have been taking place over millions of years. Compare this with the IPCC’s figures below.
The IPCC’s big lie
Climate alarmists have gone to great lengths to discredit the influence of variations in solar activity on climatic variations. They are forced to do this in order to establish their claims of exclusive human causality of undesirable climatic fluctuations. This is how they propagated their big lie. The emphases are mine. Note in particular that the IPCC’s variations are determined from proxy and satellite observations and not direct calculations. Why did they not carry out direct calculations based on the variations in the earth-to-sun distance? The answer is obvious.
IPCC third assessment report, 2001, working group 1, section C6.
Radiative forcing of the climate system due to solar irradiance change is estimated to be 0.3 ± -0.2Wm-2 for the period 1750 to the present. Most of the change is estimated to have occurred during the first half of the 20th century. The fundamental source of all energy in the earth’s climate system is radiation from the sun. Therefore, variation in solar output is a radiative forcing agent. The absolute value of the spectrally integrated total solar irradiance (TSI) incident on the earth is not known to better than about 4Wm-2, but satellite observations since the late 1970s show relative variations over the past two solar 11-year activity cycles of about 0.1%, which is equivalent to a variation in radiative forcing of about 0.2 Wm-2 . Variations over longer periods may have been larger, but the techniques used to reconstruct historical values of TSI from proxy observations (e.g.sunspots) have not been adequately verified.
IPCC fourth assessment report, 2007, working group 1, section 2.2.
There is a very high confidence that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] Wm-2.
In comparison, changes in solar irradiance since 1750 are estimated to have caused a small radiative forcing of about +0.12 [+0.06 to + 0.30] Wm-2, which is less than half the estimate given in the third assessment report.
Figure 2.4 of the report provides the following radiative forcing components.
Long-lived greenhouse gasses: 2.14
Stratospheric water vapour: 0.07
Surface albedo: -0.1
Total aerosol: -1.2
Linear contrails: 0.01
Solar irradiance: 0.12
Total net anthropogenic: 1.6
However, Fred Bailey calculated that for the past five years the range was equal to 28 Wm-2 compared with the IPCC’s estimate of the anthropogenic component of 1.6 Wm-2 !
The solar influence is therefore 17.5 times greater than the human influence. No wonder the IPCC cooked the books.
For the past 30 years I have repeatedly demonstrated that there is NO evidence in the hydro-climatological data of human-caused abnormalities against the background of the undeniable evidence of the influence of variations in solar activity.
The IPCC’s fourth assessment report will be discussed at the Midrand Summit. It will be very interesting to hear how the presenter treats this problem. Will he quote the overwhelming ignorance of the vast majority of climate alarmists? How will he account for undeniable linkage with the hydroclimatological processes described in our joint paper?
For the past two years I have repeatedly drawn attention to the probable occurrence of severe global droughts from 2009 to 2016. This warning is described in detail in my article The likelihood of a global drought in 2009 – 2016 <click here to read>, published in Civil Engineering in June 2008.
There are already signs of a developing drought in parts of South Africa. Other parts of Africa are in the grip of a drought but confirmation is difficult. Argentina is also currently experiencing a severe drought. The country faces a potential loss of revenue from agricultural production of US$4.4 billion.
My prediction is based on the observed, regular and therefore predictable, periodicity in the hydrometeorological data. The existence of this periodicity is denied by climate alarmists.
Soon it will be far too late to take any action to avoid the consequences, particularly to the rural and farming communities as well as the water supply authorities.
[Fred Bailey’s comments are attached.]