University of Groningen Variations on Sun’s role in climate change Klaassen, Wim Published in: Physics today DOI: 10.1063/1.4796649 IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below. Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Publication date: 2008 Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database Citation for published version (APA): Klaassen, W. (2008). Variations on Sun’s role in climate change. Physics today, 61(10), 12-12. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4796649 Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license. More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne- amendment. Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum. Download date: 01-10-2021 Variations on Sun’s role in climate change Wim Klaassen Citation: Physics Today 61, 10, 12 (2008); doi: 10.1063/1.4796649 View online: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4796649 View Table of Contents: http://physicstoday.scitation.org/toc/pto/61/10 Published by the American Institute of Physics In the March 2008 issue of PHYSICS bution to our understanding of the The burden of proof then switches from TODAY, Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West Sun’s role in climate change, they must those making claims to the science com- show a graph (page 51) of global sur- build on an existing body of knowl- munity at large for disproving each and face temperature and total solar irradi- edge; ignoring more than a century of every such claim. ance. Two curves of TSI are shown. The physical science will not help. I urge the editors of professional red curve shows an increase of TSI since The policy community relies on science journals, including PHYSICS 1980 and is used to argue that global professional scientific publications to TODAY, to revisit their policies and pro- surface temperature is sensitive to TSI. provide sound information on relevant cedures regarding what constitutes an The reference citation for the figure says topics. When PHYSICS TODAY publishes article versus an opinion. Such distinc- that data for the red curve are from opinions that are physically unsound tions are not without consequence. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk and http:// and defy basic scientific logic, the pol- www.acrim.com. icy community is misled. In my experi- Reference Both links show that TSI has not in- ence, once fundamental misconcep- 1. Project for Excellence in Journalism, The creased since 1980, but instead de- tions about science are introduced to State of the News Media 2004: An Annual creased during that period, so Scafetta the policy community, they are difficult Report on American Journalism, http:// to correct. Moreover, confusion and em- www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2004/ and West’s red curve disagrees with the journalist_survey_prc1.asp. barrassment produced by the process of cited data sources. That error is serious Anthony D. Socci because it leads to the inaccurate con- rooting out misconceptions can tarnish ([email protected]) clusion in the last sentence of the arti- a policymaker’s image of science. American Meteorological Society cle, that the report from the Intergov- Washington, DC ernmental Panel on Climate Change References should not be trusted. 1. J. L. Lean, Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L15701 We enjoyed the article titled “Is Cli- Wim Klaassen (2006). mate Sensitive to Solar Variability?” We 2. R. E. Benestad, “A Phenomenological ([email protected]) commend Nicola Scafetta and Bruce Sequel,” RealClimate.org, http://www University of Groningen .realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/ West for their courage in publishing a Groningen, the Netherlands 11/a-phenomenological-sequel. scientific piece that presents a socially and politically unpopular position. Rest assured that the Opinion piece Jay Gulledge Pew Center on Global Climate Change However, we are concerned about on solar contributions to climate change Arlington, Virginia the article’s placement in PHYSICS will find its way hastily into the TODAY as an opinion piece. Considering policy—or should I say political— the physical arguments, the reliance on community and will be misused to Publication of the recent Opinion observational and citable data sets, and stall efforts to limit greenhouse gas piece by Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West the attention to mathematical rigor, we emissions. And on what scientific struck me as potentially blurring the wonder what portion of the article is grounds? The work by Nicola Scafetta distinction between a peer-reviewed opinion. and Bruce West ignores decades of journal article and an opinion piece. W. H. Smith fundamental physical research and Presumably, opinion pieces are held to J. R. Smith is roundly criticized on technical a dramatically lower standard than ([email protected]) grounds.1,2 More important, their basic journal articles are in terms of peer Alexandria, Virginia approach to the question of how the review, burden of proof, and weight of Sun influences climate defies sound scientific evidence. Yet publishing It is good that PHYSICS TODAY re- scientific logic. something dubbed “opinion” that con- ported on the work of Nicola Scafetta Despite their sophisticated statistical tains scientific declarations of fact or and Bruce West. They have done by far treatments, the authors commit a fal- scientific assertions effectively blurs the the best work in relating solar vari- lacy by ignoring an established physi- crucial distinction between opinions ability to terrestrial climate, bringing cal forcing (greenhouse gases) while and peer-reviewed research articles. sophistication and rigor to a field dom- trying to assess the contribution of a PHYSICS TODAY’s audience seems to inated mostly by unsupportable posi- separate forcing (solar irradiance); both have a broad focus and therefore to be tions that the Sun’s effect is negligible push the climate in the same direction, less likely to evaluate the substance of on the one hand, or is responsible for if one assumes that the questionable the scientific claims raised in that or nearly all observed global warming ACRIM satellite time series on solar similar pieces. on the other. That solar variability has irradiance is accurate. With IR-trapping As has been noted in journalism cir- appreciable coupling to Earth’s climate gases omitted, the analysis by Scafetta cles, from the perspective of the public becomes obvious when an observer and West must overestimate the contri- and no doubt elements of the science notes the imprint of the Schwabe bution of total solar irradiance varia- community as well, “the distinction be- sunspot cycle on the climate tempera- tions to surface warming. Is the con- tween reporting and commentary has ture record.1 The identical scaleless tribution overestimated slightly or seriously eroded.”1 The same may well noise spectra for solar and terrestrial dramatically? The authors’ work offers be true for scientific journals; distinc- climate fluctuations provide additional no insights. tions between opinions and research support for coupling and for regarding Even if Scafetta and West take issue articles are largely meaningless to those the Earth–Sun network as a complex with the statistical treatments done by outside science, and that blurring may system. the Intergovernmental Panel on Cli- misinform public perceptions. Unfortunately, the Intergovernmen- mate Change, they should nonetheless The net effect is that the scientific tal Panel on Climate Change clings to its appreciate the indispensable require- community is more or less obligated to position that solar variability effects are ment to account for all relevant forc- respond to scientific claims made in negligible, to the detriment of its credi- ings, as the IPCC does in its analyses. If opinion pieces just as if they had met bility. Given known solar variability, the they hope to make an authentic contri- the standards of scholarly peer review. IPCC position can be rationalized only 12 October 2008 Physics Today www.physicstoday.org.