Anthony Watts on Watts Up With That has posted on the new Nature article in
The complexity of solar forcing has been emphasized previously also [and thanks to the encouragement of Kiminori Itoh on this subject!]. Peter Pilewskie, for example, emphasized the role of changes in the absorption of solar irradiance as a function of altitude in the troposphere as part of his excellent talk to my class in 2007; see
Pilewskie, Peter, 2007: Solar Forcings of the Climate System. April 20, 2007.
This subject was also proposed as a “strawman” for a National Research Council Panel in 2008, which started with the text
Detection and Attribution of the Solar Influence on Climate Change
Summary: The NRC will convene a one-day meeting that will consider the timeliness and utility of a study or workshop that would be focused on applying current understanding to help clarify an ongoing debate on the contribution of solar variability to the observed climate change, both regionally and globally.
Despite an emerging scientific consensus that natural causes cannot explain the observed warming, either in the past few decades, or during the industrial epoch, a rancorous and sometimes political debate over solar versus anthropogenic causes of climate change continues, especially in the popular media. Indeed, absent resolution of enduring claims that solar variability has caused significant (30-70%) recent surface global temperature increases, it is difficult to envision policymakers here or abroad undertaking what are likely to be, at least in the short term, unpopular and/or economically painful measures to slow global warming.
The study under consideration would augment and advance two recent NRC reports on 1) Radiative forcing and 2) Responses, by assessing how the extended complexities of the climate system likely precludes such a separation of forcings and responses, especially in the case of solar variability. A third NRC report assessing surface and atmospheric temperature trends is also relevant since the atmospheric responses to solar forcing becomes increasingly stronger, relative to anthropogenic (and other) influences, at increasing heights above the surface, so that the attribution of anthropogenic change in the troposphere and stratosphere is unlikely to be the same as that of surface temperature.
from my post
Protecting The IPCC Turf – There Are No Independent Climate Assessments Of The IPCC WG1 Report Funded And Sanctioned By The NSF, NASA Or The NRC [I recommend reading the entire strawman proposal].
This was yet another example of the suppression of viewpoints that countered that of the IPCC as I document in the above post as well as in the repost
The proposal was rejected as I wrote in my post. As I summarized
Except for Judith Lean, Art Charo and myself, however, there was no support for the Strawman proposal. The proposal for a formal NRC Panel was rejected by the others, unless it was very narrowly focused, such as on “decadal forecasts”. The agency representatives (from NASA and the NSF) were similarly not willing to support such a study.
The reason, undoubtedly preordained before we even met on that Monday, is that a significant number of the members of the Committee were (and presumably still are) active participants of the IPCC assessment, as documented above.
Thus, the intensity of the dismissive and negative comments by a number of the committee members, and from even several of the agency representatives, with respect to any view that differed from the IPCC orthodoxy, made abundantly clear, that there was no interest in vesting an assessment of climate to anyone but the IPCC.
The IPCC is actually a relatively small group of individuals who are using the IPCC process to control what policymakers and the public learn about climate on multi-decadal time scales. This NRC planning process further demonstrates the intent of the IPCC members to manipulate the science, so that their viewpoints are the only ones that reach the policymakers.
Events since 2008 have confirmed the conclusion in the last paragraph.