From arXiv - Astrophysics, 0905.0704
EARTH’S HEAT SOURCE - THE SUN
Oliver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor, Space and Nuclear Studies
University of Missouri,
Much of what we hear from the scientific community concerning AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is based on an obsolete model of the Sun, a
misunderstanding of the ways that Earth is connected to this unstable heat source, and on politically driven conclusions that come either directly or indirectly from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC admits that it “does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters” [1]. 132 Energy & Environment · Vol. 20, No. 1&2, 2009
Instead, IPCC operates under a myopic mandate to assess “the risk of human-induced climate change” [1]. Not surprisingly, the IPCC found what they were looking for. This paper is concerned with fundamental flaws in the currently fashionable model of Earth’s heat source—the Sun. Errors in theoretical models may significantly impact us, as Alan Greenspan recently conceded [2] when the world economy started to crumble.
Statements in the IPCC Summary Report for Policymakers [3] and the Assessment Report of IPCC’s Working Group I [4] seem to contradict the claim that IPCC reports are “. . neutral with respect to policy” [1]. The reports preserve the illusion that man is primarily responsible for the Earth’s current warm period by discounting sources of heating and cooling that do not fit into this narrow view with factually soft, inexact statements like these: “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG (Green House Gas) concentrations” [3]. “During the past 50 years, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling” [3]. “Changes in solar irradiance since 1750 are estimated to cause a radiative forcing of +0.12 [+0.06 to +0.30] W m-2 . . .” [4]. Thus, the IPCC concludes that what man has caused, man can now remedy. That misconception is a greater danger to us than the illusion of anthropogenic global warming. Were it not for these remedies, whether warming was anthropogenic or natural, it would be purely academic. It is not.
The vision of our stormy Sun as a mild–mannered, hydrogen fusion furnace—the Standard Solar Model, or SSM—is basic to this misunderstanding. This interpretation of Earth’s source of warmth ignores electromagnetic links [5, 6] and secondary effects of the Sun on our climate—cycles of solar eruptions, cosmic rays, sunspots and changes in magnetic polarity and intensity that follow gravitational interactions of the Sun’s dense, energetic core with planets and galactic objects [7-17 and references therein]. Analyses of planets, the Moon, the solar wind, solar flares, the solar photosphere, and ordinary meteorites show that our Sun is actually the violent, illmannered remains of a supernova that once ejected all of the heavier elements on Earth and in the solar system and now selectively moves lightweight elements into a veneer of H and He that covers the Sun’s energetic neutron core [18]. This brings the IPCC conclusions into question and, more importantly, the draconian solutions that some policymakers advocate.
<technical section>
Politics, Science and the IPCC
One need not know all of the ways that Earth is connected to the Sun to be able to say with certainty that the IPCC was wrong to assume that solar irradiance is the only solar variable that produces changes in Earth’s climate. As this paper was being completed, Dr. David Sibeck reported the discovery of yet another link between the Sun and the Earth [50].
Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone, President of the US National Academy of Sciences, led the 2001 NAS study of climate change that persuaded US President George Bush to support the IPCC. Six years later Dr. Frederick Seitz, the distinguished former NAS President, replied in the foreword to the 2007 NIPCC Report [51], “. . . we do not currently have any convincing evidence or observations of significant climate change from other than natural causes.”
Why is the scientific community so divided on an issue that can only be resolved by detached observations? Is it perhaps because the IPCC has been less than completely policy-neutral with regard to its findings? They claim to be, but there is now significant evidence that politicians rather than scientists control the tone and content of the final reports. Actually, everything goes quite well in the report process
through the second draft, following the first round of comments. However, after the Summary for Policy Makers is published, “Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter” [52]. In other words, the scientific reports that have been reviewed by some of the world’s finest minds are altered to agree with a politically generated summary document.
So, do politicians affect the IPCC process outcome? The UN’s IPCC falsely implies that 2500 scientists endorse the full AR4 report [53] when only a small percentage of the reviewers made comment on multiple chapters and a majority (58.1%) of negative comments on the critical Chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change,” were rejected [54]. The Independent Summary for Policy Makers (ISPM) [55] derived from the second draft of the AR4 Working Group1 [53], before its final modification, came to a quite different conclusion. Some
of the contributors to ISPM [55] were among the 2500 official IPCC reviewers.
Similarly, the NIPCC project, “Nature, not human activity rules the climate” [51], came to a like determination using a broader range of literature. The NIPCC scientists [51] did the work for no financial considerations, avoiding criticisms based on profit motives. In short, these two reports [51, 54] cast severe doubts on the conclusions voiced by the IPCC.
3. CONCLUSIONS
IPCC reports on the dangers of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) are based on an obsolete model of the Sun, a misunderstanding of the many ways that Earth is connected to its heat source, and on politically driven conclusions. The scientists are not at fault. The die for the present disaster was likely cast in the late 1940s or early 1950s, when federal research agencies like NSF started using the anonymous review
system to obtain consensus opinions. Politicians realized that knowledge is power Earth’s Heat Source - The Sun 141 when World War II ended with an explosive and decisive display of success by the Manhattan Project. I have seen the unholy alliance between politics and science grow since my scientific career started in 1960, despite this warning by US President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his 17 January 1961 Farewell Address to the Nation: “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded” [56]. |
