3 ms·

The lack of Solar variability in the IPCC models is a "known issue"[1] which is, in my opinion, an under stated position as the bulk of the heat/energy in the E

The lack of Solar variability in the IPCC models is a "known issue"[1] which is, in my opinion, an under stated position as the bulk of the heat/energy in the Earth's system comes from the Sun. That said, the science around it is pretty interesting. Whether or not it puts the Earth into a cooling trend it is affecting the propagation of radio waves around the planet and as an amateur radio operator, having a 'quiet' Sun creates a pretty unique opportunity for operating in a previously unexplored solar regime. [1] More research to investigate the effects of solar behaviour on climate is needed before the magnitude of solar effects on climate can be stated with certainty. -- IPCC 2007 Working Group (https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-4-3.html https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-4...)

ben_w 8y ago
Out of curiosity, I just looked up solar variations. Wikipedia says the average (over a year) solar irradiance goes from 1365.5 /m^2 to 1366.5 W/m^2, which is larger than the estimate in your link. By comparison, the estimated net effect of anthropogenic temperature forcing is 1.5 W/m^2. Yes, this is relevant and should be in models. However, I would be shocked if they have made no effort to include it. It’s a cycle with straightforward values, thinking they’re ignoring it completely is like thinking Apple has made an iPhone app and forgotten to test it on an iPad for 40 years. Indeed, most of your link appears to be the science version of “we tested it on every combination of device we can, but we’d like some budget to go on eBay and get an original iPad running iOS 3”.