CU-NASA Research Center to Study Sun’s Effects on Earth’s Climate
Image of sun courtesy of NASA. |
The University of Colorado at Boulder’s Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics and NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., today announced the formation of a new collaborative research center dedicated to the study of the sun’s effect on Earth’s climate.
The center, called the Sun-Climate Research Center, or SCRC, will be co-directed by LASP Research Scientist Peter Pilewskie as well as Robert Cahalan, who heads Goddard’s Climate and Radiation Branch, and Douglas Rabin, head of Goddard’s Solar Physics Laboratory.
“The exciting thing about this collaboration is that we believe it will promote studies to help answer key questions about the climate system, including how Earth’s atmosphere responds to the sun’s variability and how that affects climate,” said Pilewskie, a faculty member in CU-Boulder’s atmospheric and oceanic sciences department. “This question is particularly important now as we seek to quantify the human-induced impact on Earth’s climate.”
Made possible by a Federal Space Act Agreement, SCRC will foster collaboration between Earth-atmosphere and solar sciences at the two institutions. Opportunities will include a scientist exchange program between the organizations and the ability for postdoctoral scientists and graduate students in science, engineering and mission operations to move between LASP and Goddard. The partnership also will include international research symposia on sun-climate interactions.
“In recent years Goddard and LASP have worked together on several Earth and sun missions,” said Cahalan. “Now we look forward to continuing to drive growth in this key interdisciplinary field of sun-Earth research, bringing new focus to the study of multiyear changes in the sun and its influence on Earth’s climate.”
According to the center’s co-directors, the SCRC represents a rare and innovative step that underscores LASP’s ability to take its high-caliber research and program opportunities to a new level with Goddard.
“LASP has developed some remarkable areas of expertise that are key to studying the sun and its effect on climate and on human activities,” said LASP Director Daniel Baker. “By working with our colleagues at Goddard, we can leverage our skills and help take an important step toward greater cooperation between NASA centers and leading university research teams.”
For more information on LASP visit lasp.colorado.edu/home/. For more information on NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center visit www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/home/index.html.
What’s the betting that their real aim is to debunk Svensmark’s theory and that they’ll use lots of models to do it? Better than even, I’d say
Poor misguided young fools.
We already that it is CO2.
Sol makes no diff.
But maybe….
Interesting. There seems to be a coordinated ‘renewal’ exercise under way. A similar press release is about to come from London:
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/news/article/1298/met_office_and_leading_uk_universities_launch_academic_partnership
Looks like CRU and the UEA might be getting the boot finally.
I can’t help feeling if they had decided to do this 10 years ago they would have saved us all a lot of time, hassle, money, and heartache.
I fear John A may be right, however. But let’s wait and see.
Sun has not effect on Earth’s climate. Only man has. The debate is over. Period.
This is great! So NASA thinks maybe the sun influences the Earth’s climate? NASA has always had the best and brightest. Leave it up to them to come up with an idea like this. An idea that’s so crazy it just might be true.
Seriously, who could have guessed it? The Sun. Climate. Brilliant!
This uneducated layman can give these science types a head start with 3 pointers.
1-) The sun is a variable star.
2-) There is MORE to the sun than just TSI
3-) The sun is to the earth as the stove element is to the pot.
There endeth the lesson.
They will conclude that, rising CO2 in earths atmosphere affects the heat output of the sun, and hence causes gobal warming, probably.
Will they figure out that ENSO is fueled by and ultimately driven by downward shortwave radiation and that the ENSO discharge and the ENSO recharge and redistribution phases represent most of the rise in global temperatures over the 20th century?
…help answer key questions about the climate system … as we seek to quantify the human-induced impact on Earth’s climate.
Sounds like business as usual… perhaps with a twist of lemon… ever been threaten with Boy are you in trouble – just wait until your father gets home! when you were a kid…. so I guess they are moving on to Boy are you in trouble – just wait until the Sun wakes up!
I’ll bet my last dollar that the outcome has already been decided and that this study is just a way to make that outcome appear scientific.
I clicked on the link provided by Tallbloke; I read as far as the name Beddington and an alarm went on to red alert! in my brain; my concentration failed and wouldn’t respond to a reboot. I will have to go back and read the link right through after I have had a quiet luncheon and a lie-down.
🙂
Hmm, studying to see if the sun impacts the climate! Ya think?!
And the truth shall set you free! (from carbon slavery)
http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2_files/The_Diurnal_Bulge_and_the_Fallacies_of_the_Greenhouse_Effect.html
Baa Humbug says:
November 30, 2010 at 4:26 am
As there are no relativistic neutrinos, black holes, or trans-dimensional strings in your assertion, it won´t be accepted by “settled science” and you risk to be anathematized.
Both Exeter and Reading have form on CAGW advocacy, and the Met Office record is well-known. Look for the migration of the usual suspects from East Anglia and CRU into the new setup.
QUOTE: “Now we look forward to continuing to drive growth in this key interdisciplinary field of sun-Earth research……….” TRANSLATION: “We just created a new entity to be institutionalized and fed from now and forever with taxpayer dollars.” Let’s hope their research will be objective and useful, not agenda driven.
Why do Americans say ‘Center’, and not ‘Centre’, when they are happy saying ‘Tire’ and not ‘Tier’? Just a thought from a Englishman.
[Reply] You say Tomarto I say Tomato
The first thought that comes to mind is “It’s about time!” Honestly, my dog and cat know the sun influences their climate. How hard can this be? Maybe these guys can work out the details.
While they are at it, why not look at the Sun’s effect on the ozone hole. There definitely is some problems with those CFC falsehoods as well.
I read the link at tallbloke’s post and found the following gem:-
“.. better, more detailed computer models that will have a positive impact on society.”
Then I gave up. It’s more of the same lunacy, I fear.
Ridiculous. If the sun had any influence, nighttime would be cooler than daytime. Preposterous.
/SARC ON/
Why does the Sun issue keep coming back into the discussions. It is almost irrelevant. As for water vapour forget it. The main driver of global mean temps is toxic CO2. The debate is over.
/SARC OFF/
I sometimes imagine if we removed the Sun tomorrow would we feel warmer, cooler or just stay about the same? :o)
John A has it right, NASA takes every opportunity to ‘prove’AGW and bin Svensmark’s theory, which I think is excellent and probably correct since it is based on observation of the real world not some model.
Why do Americans say ‘Center’, and not ‘Centre’, when they are happy saying ‘Tire’ and not ‘Tier’? Just a thought from a Englishman
Just as they say “elevator” because they can’t be bothered to say “lift”, and it’s easier to say “transportation” than it is to say “‘bus”, “car”, or “train”……
At this point in time, why would the sun’s effects on the earth’s climate need to be studied? I think this project is just going to look for ways to dismiss and/or diminish the sun’s effects.
Anybody else smell pork?
Department of Propaganda – Climate Science – Unit 1
This is a short assignment that assesses your communication skills.
Task
You have to select one image for a climate science press release regarding the sun.
The image should imply and convey the following messages:
a) the sun is brooding and malevolent.
b) the sun is dark and sinister.
c) the sun is waiting to explode into life.
Now make your image selection from the following:
OPTION ONE
http://garybrandastrology.com/images/Sun%20Ultraviolet%20Prominence.gif
OPTION TWO
http://www.colorado.edu/news/r/188e2bc4d72943a6d6b50a91d727fbbf/sun.jpg
SCRC will be co-directed by Peter Pilewskie, Robert Cahalan, and Douglas Rabin.
Will they bring a scientific approach or the other approach like we saw with AGW by CO2?
John
I’m thinking only crazed hippies that’ve gone ballistic are the only ones to stand a chance to actually miss the sun with their “perfectly aimed” trajectory.
I wonder though will the “slightly” challenged people over at NASA now at least be convinced that they maybe ought to wait with their predictions about doom and gloom until they get around to include that easy to miss ginormous burning sphere in the center of our solar system?
Several years ago, while researching some Toronto history, I ran across a headline in the 30 March, 1927 Toronto Telegram that stated such an obvious truth I couldn’t imagine why it was news:
“Sun is Source of Energy”
The article itself involved a scientific lecture concerning the role of the sun on Earth’s climate.
How far we’ve come in 83 years.
>> … including how Earth’s atmosphere responds to the sun’s
>>> variability and how that affects climate
Variability? Ohhh, Lief will not like that… 🙂
.
Horse and cart story; but which goes first?
O/T: According to the BBC, the UK has just had the lowest recorded average temperatures for 100 years, , and the lowest ever recorded temperature on of -21 degC in Aberdeenshire (-20.3 degC in the winter of 1913 was the previous record). Thank you WUWT for reporting a US forcast of this on Friday 19 Nov, 3 days before the Met Office began to hint at what was to come. The current forcast is for this cold “snap” to continue another 2 weeks. What do you think, Anthony?
I hate to say it, but the politics of climate has made me a cynic & my initial reaction is this is being done with the conclusion already made in the minds of those who proposed this research – that the sun doesn’t influence climate & it’s all about CO2. If that was their conclusion & it was based on real unbiased research, no one will believe it anyway. See, that’s what happens when you corrupt science – nothing is trustworthy anymore.
OTOH, I would love to be proven wrong & see objective & useful research come out of this. Or maybe I should be cynical the other way & this is being used as a “get out of jail free” card, so that climate researchers can distance themselves from their CO2 obsession & avoid public scrutiny as temps plunge over the next several decades as both PDO & AMO are in their cold cycles.
Who knows.
Does James Hansen have any control over current and historical records of the suns heat output/sunspot activity etc? If so Jim can get any result he wants
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
November 30, 2010 at 5:13 am
Why do Americans say ‘Center’, and not ‘Centre’, when they are happy saying ‘Tire’ and not ‘Tier’? Just a thought from a Englishman.
[Reply] You say Tomarto I say Tomato
====================================================
LOL…. er, that would be TYRE………;-)
But we get yer point.
What a novel idea. The sun’s effect on climate? Crazy!
Seems odd that after over 20 years of settled science which “proves” climate is little affected by solar variation, that our research institutes would embark on such a venture. I wonder what Willi Soon has to say about this.
On a completely different tack – I haven’t heard a whole lot out of CERN lately.
The goal of the research is stated in one sentence. “This question is particularly important now as we seek to quantify the human-induced impact on Earth’s climate.”
It looks like the intent is to prove human induced global climate change. Every time they have been proven wrong they simply change the story or name but the outcome is always man induced disaster.
John Marshall says:
November 30, 2010 at 5:36 am (Edit)
John A has it right, NASA takes every opportunity to ‘prove’AGW and bin Svensmark’s theory, which I think is excellent and probably correct since it is based on observation of the real world not some model.
Some support for Svensmark here:
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/shaviv-n-the-milky-waygalaxys-spiral-arms-and-ice-age-epochs-and-the-cosmic-rayconnection.pdf
This is a political move motivated by dollars. The giver of grants is changing colors, so these folks are gearing up to change their’s. I am not a fan of the idea that small changes in the Sun’s parameters drive changes in our climate. I think our own planet is quite capable of driving these changes.
This is government funded research. Congress votes the funds. Congress has changed and is more inclined to cut AGW research. They may be more inclined to fund research that improves our understanding of the natural variability of climate change. They have a better chance of keeping their jobs. It is what they should have been doing all along.
…….If you are a warmer; and they are by default. The team has been hand picked by someone and you know they didn’t pick any skeptics. Because, the Science is settled you see. So, they will find that the Sun’s influence is ranging from none to insignificant and their cute models will prove it. And if it ain’t the Sun, then it’s CO2.
The Sun’s influence is A Priori. Has anyone proven that it is not the Sun? Leif, I suppose, would say yes, with a tiny fractional difference in TSI between a calm Sun and a Spotty, Angry Sun, does not account for the energy input need to create the historical pertubations in the Climate directly. In AGW view; as long as there is a possibility that the Sun drives Climate (Hi Piers), then Anthony Watts and his motley Crew will always have a raft to float on in a sea of Concensus of the enlightened thousands.
This new Center is merely a battleship to find Watt’s raft and sink it, him, and his crew once and for all. Rear-Admirer Patchy Morals and Commodore Gore will eagerly be waiting for news of Watt’s sinking.
Preconceive Funding….. Business as usual.
Ghost of Big Jim
To paraphrase our great leader here we say that, “Because we won.” Lol.
At least it’s a move in the right direction. With the level of scrutiny that is bound to be applied I don’t see them getting away with anything that perpetuates the past abuses of the scientific method.
I’ve become pretty sure that the observed solar variations affect the size extent and intensity of the polar vortices and the vertical temperature profiles at the poles (and probably globally) so as to alter pressure distribution below the tropopause.
Ozone chemistry in response to changes in the balance of material emitted from the sun appears to be the culprit as suggested by the recent unexpected finding that from 2004 to 2007 ozone quantities increased above 45km when the quiet sun should have caused a reduction matching the changes below 45km.
I think that interesting adjustments to current assumptions are afoot if the 2004 to 2007 data is verified by continuing tends in the same direction and a continuing cessation of stratospheric cooling since the mid 90s with possibly now a warming trend in the stratosphere despite the quieter sun.
This could be an early indication of a realignment in the climate establishment whereby some in senior positions are starting to separate their future work from the earlier consensus whilst still paying lip service to it.
Will says:
November 30, 2010 at 4:58 am
And the truth shall set you free! (from carbon slavery)
http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2_files/The_Diurnal_Bulge_and_the_Fallacies_of_the_Greenhouse_Effect.html
Thank you… a really wonderful read…
A top down and bottom up approach that makes a lot of sense to me…
There are cycles as short as 24 hours and as long as 100,000 years that are tied to the interaction energy of the earth-sun system. There are also non-cyclic influences such as coronal mass ejections that carry huge amounts of heat by *convection* from the sun to the earth’s magnetic field, which is basically a million mile diameter catcher’s mitt for plasma. Deconvoluting all of these influences will be a Herculean task, given the absence of relevant data before the solar-monitoring satellites were put in place. Given time, though, I am confident that the influence of the sun will be shown to totally overwhelm ‘anthropogenic’ effects.
@Bob Tisdale
I think the foundations are already starting to fall into place (via: Guan and Nigam; & Pavlakis et al) for the connection between DLR /ENSO and the distribution of this stored ocean heat over space and time. Just a matter of time. Thank you for your illuminating work in these areas.
Correction: hat should be DSR not DLR.
Why do Englishmen say ‘Tier’, and not ‘Tire’, when they are happy saying ‘Centre’ and not ‘Center’? Just a thought.
Back on topic, I hope this research involves more measurements rather than just models. — John M Reynolds
You mean we don’t already know the Sun’s influence on the climate? How did we create all those models, then?
John Marshall says:
November 30, 2010 at 5:36 am (Edit)
John A has it right, NASA takes every opportunity to ‘prove’AGW and bin Svensmark’s theory, which I think is excellent and probably correct since it is based on observations of the real world not some model.
Observations of the real world like.
Little or no sunspots by eyeballing = very cold climate, it doesn`t matter whether you fully understand the mechanism the historicl facts speak for themselves and they are not proxies.
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/400yearsofsunspots.gif
Sorry – I must have missed something…
I thought the science was ‘settled’… nothing to see – move along – that sort of thing…
I REALLY hope you’re not telling me that – how can I put this politely – all the bullshit we’ve been fed over the last ten or so years is open to question..? That all the £billions we’re to spend in the UK over the next forty-odd years might – just MIGHT – be money wasted..??
Well – I’m truly amazed…
“new collaborative research center dedicated to the study of the sun’s effect on Earth’s climate.”
========================================================
But is that really necessary? Haven’t we already closed the books on what drives our climate? I mean really, the sun is so far away, I hardly think the contribution to our climate will be of any significance. Does anyone really think the sun has much to do with anything? </sarc
&#%^&#%^& Get with the $%!@#%^@! program! What is this, like a V8 moment? Ya think? Do GISS and CU think this is a novel approach? Its just now occurring to them that they may wish to investigate our largest source of light and heat in regards to our climate? Maybe we can give them the cliff notes of Copernicus to catch them up to at least the last millennium.
NASA investigating the suns effects on climate?
It’s a trap.
Pamela Gray says:
November 30, 2010 at 6:28 am
Not only do these “small” solar changes drive our changing climate, but they drive the climates of the other planets in our solar system, also.
Prediction: this solar project will “show” in two years or less what the data would need three solar cycles at the barest minimum in order to show a trend.
Two years’ data for a sun that has 200 year cycles containing shorter cycles within that time would be a bogus enterprise. This is a monumental waste of money which should be privately funded, like the SETI futility now is, after wasting taxpayers’ money for a long while.
Unless these good fellows wait at least 50 years before they open their mouths for an interim assessment. Yeah, they’ll wait that long!
And back at Jim Cooley—why do Englishmen (and Women) talk like Elmer Fudd? You wascally wapscallions you!
The influence [if any] of Sun on climate was recently reviewed here:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2010GL045109.pdf
Leif Svalgaard says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
November 30, 2010 at 8:15 am
The influence [if any] of Sun on climate was recently reviewed here:
Wrong link. Here is the correct one
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009RG000282.pdf
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
November 30, 2010 at 5:13 am
Why do Americans say ‘Center’, and not ‘Centre’, when they are happy saying ‘Tire’ and not ‘Tier’? Just a thought from a Englishman.
[Reply] You say Tomarto I say Tomato
I suggest that it should be; You say Tomahto; I say Tomato.
Also, Big Jim; Why do the English say Umbreller instead of Umbrella?
Nearly every word ending in “a” is pronounced with an”er” on the end by Englishmen.
That is worse than a spelling variation. imho.
J.Hansford says:
November 30, 2010 at 5:58 am
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
November 30, 2010 at 5:13 am
Why do Americans say ‘Center’, and not ‘Centre’, when they are happy saying ‘Tire’ and not ‘Tier’? Just a thought from a Englishman.
[Reply] You say Tomarto I say Tomato
====================================================
LOL…. er, that would be TYRE………;-)
But we get yer point.
====================================================
I for one am in no doubt that our American cousins speak better English than us. They know that the letter “H” is spelt aitch, not haitch, and they’re probably well aware of the word “tire” (look it up – clue: it’s a verb).
Let us hope these gentlemen apply the multiple working hypotheses and the most rigorous of deductive reasoning to their work. The geo and astro physics people are perhaps a little to fond of numeric models for my taste, however in the past they have been more circumspect in believing their results. Let us extend generous and sincere support but remain skeptical until we have results to evaluate.
” “This question is particularly important now as we seek to quantify the human-induced impact on Earth’s climate.””
Which means that any influence deduced from same study will be adduced as additve by nature.
But the bucks are already committed, so party on.
It is amazing how so called climate scientists are developing original ideas!
Isn’t the science on climate change (AGW) settled?
” “This question is particularly important now as we seek to quantify the human-induced impact on Earth’s climate.””
Which means that any influence deduced from same study will be adduced as additive by nature.
But the bucks are already committed, so party on.
Mmm, we need to get these solar scientists into the fold. We’ll offer them lots of money for solar physics papers related to climate change.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 30, 2010 at 8:15 am
The influence [if any] of Sun on climate was recently reviewed here:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2010GL045109.pdf
No proxies allowed, just real world observations.
This is not inconsistent with AGM models….
AGM, AGW, whatever….
Variable energy output from the sun
Variable sunspot activity
Variable Multiple cycle lengths of the sun daily yearly … 100K yrs
Variable distance – Earth from Sun
Variable tilt of the earths axis
Variable cosmic ray density intercepting earth
Variable stored energy in the earth oceans
Variable particulate content of the earth’s atmosphere (volcanic)
Variable composition of the atmosphere over time
Variable particulate content of the earth’s atmosphere (fires)
Variable CO2 content of the earths atmosphere (anthropogenic)
Variable CO2 content of the earth’s atmosphere (biological)
Variable CH4 content of earth’s atmosphere (anthropogenic)
Variable CH4 content of earths atmosphere (biological)
Variable water vapor content of the earth’s atmosphere (seasonal)
Variable snow pack coverage (seasonal)
Variable snow pack coverage (short and long cycles)
Variable sea ice coverage (seasonal)
Variable PDO / AMO cycles (Decades)
Variable geographic temperature responses to El Nino and La Nina
Variable cyclic drought and precipitation inputs (Seasonal decadal)
Variable temperature records depending on who is measuring and recording
Variable temperature data bases depending on data recording media
Variable point temperature records due to urban encroachment (time)
Variable temperature error bars due to differing equipment
Variable temperature database adjustments
Variable funding and research output on any particular variable above
Variable quality of published research
Variable historical records of temperature depending on variables measured
Variable politics
Variable economic output (CO2 CH4 etc)
Variable computer modeling results based on input variables
Variable interpretations of non quantitative historical records
Variable common sense
Variable number of variably important variables not on this list
= an almost infinite number of predictive earth temperature results depending on the weighting of the variables
#
John Marshall says:
November 30, 2010 at 5:36 am
John A has it right, NASA takes every opportunity to ‘prove’AGW and bin Svensmark’s theory, which I think is excellent and probably correct since it is based on observation of the real world not some model.
#
kramer says:
November 30, 2010 at 5:39 am
At this point in time, why would the sun’s effects on the earth’s climate need to be studied? I think this project is just going to look for ways to dismiss and/or diminish the sun’s effects.
#
Jason says:
November 30, 2010 at 7:54 am
NASA investigating the suns effects on climate?
It’s a trap.
#####
My thoughts exactly. NASA just wants more data to use to obfuscate. I give them six months to start generating press releases reporting paywalled “studies” that show increase global temps by compensating for a theorized inactive sun. “Its worse then we thought! The sun is hiding AGW”
Let’s drop the other Chu… LOL
“Chu countered that climate action would benefit the economy by opening up a new field in green technology.
But Chu also defended potential costs. He likened climate skeptics to homeowners who are repeatedly told to change wiring but keep looking for electricians to tell them they do not need to.
“Do you actually go and you say, well, okay, that’s a threat but I think it’s more cost-effective — I just make sure my fire insurance is up-to-date?” he said.”
Alexander K says: November 30, 2010 at 4:43 am
I clicked on the link provided by Tallbloke; I read as far as the name Beddington and an alarm went on to red alert! in my brain; my concentration failed and wouldn’t respond to a reboot. I will have to go back and read the link right through after I have had a quiet luncheon and a lie-down.)
———————————————————————————-
Alexander K. Me too! I read the lot and also got a similar reaction to this statement by Julia Slingo:
Julia Slingo, Met Office Chief Scientist said: “This is the first time that a group of universities has joined forces with a leading government organisation to form a cluster of research excellence aimed at accelerating science research to benefit society.
“This is just the start of what I hope will be an exciting joint venture and only one element of our collaborations, both here and overseas, aimed at maximising the benefit of the UK’s world-class expertise in weather forecasting and climate prediction.
Weasel words.
They are just widening the groupie network and distancing themselves from the poisonous UEA and Jones.
The old saying that leopards do not change their spots comes to mind.
Douglas
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 30, 2010 at 8:15 am
The influence [if any] of Sun on climate was recently reviewed here:
The SOLAR INFLUENCES ON CLIMATE paper seems to have a rather myopic and one sided definition of solar influences… I searched in vain for the following words: Milankovitch, eccentricity, precession, axial, tilt, obliquity… and of course there no reference to the word Corbyn…
What has the Sun ever done for us
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso&fs=1&hl=en_US]
“”””” The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
November 30, 2010 at 5:13 am
Why do Americans say ‘Center’, and not ‘Centre’, when they are happy saying ‘Tire’ and not ‘Tier’? Just a thought from a Englishman. “””””
Well Americans are more phonetic than you Englishmen. For example what Englishmen will simply sluff off as “chumley” ; an American; following his phonetic instincts, will say “chol-mon-de-ley”.
So “center” sounds like “sen-ter” while “centre” looks like its French, so Yanks might say “sen-tray”.
And you blokes say “shedule”; but Americans say “skedule”; it’s pretty simple you see because we have a better “shool” system than you do.
But we use “tire” instead of “tyre” because that’s really a place name.
My initial response was cynical – the foxes are being invited to control the hen house. Upon further consideration, I’m convinced the sole purpose is to debunk skeptics and marginalize the dominate energy source in our solar system and Earth’s climate system. We know that if our sun vanished, we would begin to cool rapidly in 8 minutes, and freeze solid in less than a month. How can anyone think that energy source could possibly impact our climate? Duh! This collaboration is BS from the outset!
Bill Yarber
Well I would first off try to discover the effect of the sun on weather, because you can do that a lot quicker, and for less money; but these chaps are after a life long gravy train; and if you work for the gummint, then 30 years is about as long as anyone wants to work; and that is exactly one climate cycle. So with only one observed climate cycle, you can’t reach any conclusions; so you can pass the project off to your offspring, and have them do another cycle on the taxpayer’s backs.
I can see that the way to cure government largess, is to simply require that ALL government employees; Federal, State or Local, shall have the exact same retirement age, as the Full Social Security retirement age. So the present government retirement age would be 66 going up to 69 in a few years. Oh I would let them retire earlier, in fact encourage them to; but they wouldn’t be able to collect any taxpayer funded retirement pay until they were 66, or whatever the current SS retirement age was.
But I wouldn’t mind studying the effect of the sun on climate; I have a nice location down in the Loreto Bay region of Baja California Sur, that is a perfect place to do some sun-climate research, along with oceanography, and piscatorial biology.
The rats are jumping the sinking SS-C02 ship and jumping aboard another ship called the SS-Money the Second.
“NASA Research Center to Study Sun’s Effects on Earth’s Climate”
Now there’s an idea, and we’re only 25 years into the CO2-warming alarm. Their mission: how to acknowledge, as the earth cools, that global temperature IS driven by solar activity, without acknowledging that the evidence for this has been obvious since the Maunder Minimum, strong since 91 (Friis-Christensen and Lassen), and overwheming for the past ten years (as isotope studies have allowed a solar proxy to be read from core samples and compared to temperature signatures).
“But nobody could have known!” will be their lying mantra. “After all, we only started looking at the sun-climate relation in 2010!”
I too followed tallblokes link and found the following
“John Beddington said: “Our economies and societies are increasingly vulnerable to hazardous weather and climatic changes. ”
Really? Why’s that then? Are hurricanes increasing ? – no. Are sea level rises accelerating ?- no. Has the Earth [warmed] more than one degree C in the last hundred years? – no. Has there been any statistically significant warming since 1998? – no. Is global sea ice catastrophically collapsing? – no.
Perhaps Beddington believes then that increasingly more prosperous societies (and we are all of us more prosperous than in the past, to paraphrase Matt Ridley) are increasingly less capable of coping with change, when all the evidence points to the contrary.
Just look at the devestation wreaked on Haiti by earthquakes and cholera and compare that with how other more prosperous countries face up to challenges.
Beddington’s rent-a-quote comment makes no sense at all.
Malaga View says:
November 30, 2010 at 9:22 am
The SOLAR INFLUENCES ON CLIMATE paper seems to have a rather myopic and one sided definition of solar influences… I searched in vain for the following words: Milankovitch, eccentricity, precession, axial, tilt, obliquity… and of course there no reference to the word Corbyn…
Because the things you were looking for have nothing to do with the sun’s influence on climate, anymore than me moving into the shadow to avoid the midday heat or it being colder at night than during the day. You could better talk about the influence of the earth’s orbital parameters and orientation.
The influence of Corbyn on climate is pretty small too.
Definately sounds like another smokescreen to me.
However, I think it should be rammed home into the alarmists faces at every opportunity that the science CANNOT be settled, otherwise why would they be doing this? I mean, you dont go looking at something that supposedly has nothing to do with the climate? do you?
I agree with some of the other comments though, that the results may well be somewhat pre-written!
The only good thing is that whatever ‘they’ do, it will take some more time, and the longer they take, the more likely it will be that ‘cooling’ will be seen and the sham exposed.
Great breakthroughs in science have always been made by individuals not by societies, less by social masses and the least still by bureaucrats.
So keep on your research because “The people united will always be cheated”
Maybe they are setting up a new gravy train to transfer themselves onto. What’s the old saying, ” never quit your job till you have a new one. ” Who knows, maybe they will give up the AGW hoax and launch a NEW new doomsday scenario. What ever the new one is, I’m sure the solution will be the same. Always is..
My son went to UC Boulder for one semester in aerospace eng., got a 4 point and switched to U WY, Laramie as Boulder was so liberal that he could not stand it. Cost me a bunch of $$ as he gave up a full ride to WY to go there. Unless they are looking to the future possible funding that is not AGW centered, as noted by some here, my bet is the same old same old.
Bob Tisdale,
If you can prove that go right ahead..
A link to the Grantham Prize for “Top Environmental Reporting” appeared at the top of my Gmail. The winner receives $75,000.
What a shame Anthony will never see a penny of it, despite being one of the best environmental reporters out there. Of course, we all know that whoever wins, it will be for some party-line story on the “environmental crisis” and the need to stop global warming.
On the other hand, maybe we can submit Anthony. It can’t hurt.
All that I can see, is a super computer designer rubbing his hands in gleeful anticipation.
They’ll also need a couple of land based observers. Now there’s a thought. I am sure that I had a bit of smoked glass around here somewhere.
Maybe the United Nations Organization has its sites set on a Global Sunbeam Exchange Commission. I’ll bet they’re tangling together a net of Sun Regional Commissions, Sun Inter-agency Commissions, Sun Inter-institutional Cooperations, Sun Functioning Commissions, Sun Expert Bodies, Sun Ad hoc Working Groups, Sun Ad Hoc Advisory groups, Sun Standing Committees, Sun Councils, Sun Fact-finding Missions, Sun Integrated Non-governmental Organizations, Sun Steering Groups, Sun Summits, Sun Initiatives, Sun Forums, Sun Secretariats, Sun Programmes, Sun Declarations, Sun Summits, Sun Initiatives, Sun Conferences, Sun Steering Groups, Departments of Sun, Offices of Sun and Sun Partnerships with Goldman Sachs et al. For all that, we’ll get a SunScam.
Where’s the hockey stick for the sun? Can’t be science without a hockey stick! Bet the the sun block manufacturers are financing this. Where do I buy solar cap and trade credits?
BTW – Great post on variables, ARW!
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 30, 2010 at 9:50 am
Because the things you were looking for have nothing to do with the sun’s influence on climate…
That was my point about the paper being myopic… it is a bit like writing a paper about CARPET BOMBING IN VIETNAM from the perspective of the pilot… well you see some flashes on the ground… the fuel economy of the engines improves because the bomber is lighter… and, of course, our top speed increases too…
See where I am coming from?
George E. Smith says:
November 30, 2010 at 9:22 am
Which other Mac Entire are we talking about? The CA version, I trust?
Regards,
Perry
The answer is blowing in the wind.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 30, 2010 at 8:15 am
The influence [if any] of Sun on climate was recently reviewed here:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2010GL045109.pdf
Many years of cold winters lie ahead
CLIMATE: WE ARE likely to experience several years of colder winters with more frequent cold spells similar to the current conditions, according to a UK climate expert.
The change comes as a result of a link between the sun and the high altitude jet stream winds, explained Prof MIKE LOCKWOOD of the department of meteorology at the University of Reading.
He and colleagues have established a link between low solar activity and a phenomenon known as “jet stream blocking”.
The big thing people need to appreciate is the weather they experience on a local or a regional scale is not the same thing as global temperatures,” he said.
“Our colder winters mean almost nothing in terms of global averages. That is why climate change is a better term than global warming.”
IT`S THE SUN THAT DONE IT.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1130/1224284431435.html?via=rel
Malaga View says:
November 30, 2010 at 10:53 am
That was my point about the paper being myopic
The influence on Earth parameters on climate is not really in doubt. The influence of Sun [its activity that is] is what was discussed explicitly: “[1] Understanding the influence of solar variability on the Earth’s climate requires knowledge of solar variability…”, so the myopic view was deliberate, called it ‘focused’ if you will.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 30, 2010 at 9:50 am
Hahaha!
You are joking, no?
“We want to study the sun but the cash has run out!”
“Got any of those `in respect of catastrophic man-made global broiling` sticky labels left?”
“Yep”
“Ok, stick `em all over the project,and submit it”
KER CHING!!!!!
Game on!!!!
(I was never this cynical….look what they`ve done to me!).
bubbagyro says:
November 30, 2010 at 11:19 am
Hahaha! You are joking, no?
Not at all. There is a difference between an intrinsically variable sun [and that was the topic of the paper] and the amount of sunlight hitting you [and that depends on you and your environment even if the sun were completely constant]. So, no joke.
Robuk says:
November 30, 2010 at 11:01 am
“The influence [if any] of Sun on climate was recently reviewed here:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2010GL045109.pdf
I corrected that [wrong link]. Correct one: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009RG000282.pdf
Seems to me like the good ol’ Sun is dragging his feet in between cycle 23 & 24, which may indicate (dare I say it? – yeah!) a mini-ice age, as per the 17th century.
Looks like we may be pumping a heck of a lot more CO2 into the atmosphere for a few years, just to keep warm.
Could be that these chaps at CU-NASA already know that they’re on to a good thing, and will be providing all those greens, who are now in a position within a government, or insiders at the UN or EU unelected bureaucracies (or just a b****y nuisance elsewhere) a fantastic opportunity to reap the benefits of all those so-called “carbon” taxes that particular would-be policy makers at Cancun are so desperate to enforce, and are so reluctant to cede.
I have a theory that certain academics can see the writing on the wall and are re-positioning themselves prior to the eventual ‘big bang’ in climate change. That’s when a critical mass of non-specialists realise that AGW is really about wealth distribution and not science.
I’d like to call this theory the ‘Academic Displacement Theory.’
Now how can we test it?
The fact of the matter is this:
Until solar physicists et al sit down and work out a true understanding of ALL mechanisms playing their role(s) in the sun-earth-moon system involving ALL climatic influences (atmospheric, oceanic, magnetic, etc) for both top-down and bottom-up connective relationships, absolutely nothing will be accomplished other than the same old dogma of the “observations” being fitted to match an hypothesis.
I put “observations” in quotations because, as it currently stands, without full knowledge of what your observing (lack of the involved mechanisms) then you aren’t truly making any educational observations. You’re just seeing and guessing.
We need to understand all facets of short-term influences in order to come up with viable long-term “trends” because obviously those short-term influences are the base fundamentals in the equation that accrue to create the long-term “trend”.
And why do I put the word “trend” into quotations as well ? Because utilizing this word as defined by climate science (30 years) is highly questionable at best when we’re talking about the earth’s chaotic climate system. Simply put: The earth does not abide by 30-year junkets set in concrete just because scientists have established it as such. A trend could be 10 years or it could be 10,000 years and then it can turn around, toss a monkey wrench into the picture, and become a 50 year trend.
And this is why ALL mechanisms need to be fully understood alongside their relationships with one another… If you’re going to develop computer models to predict future climate, then you had damn well better input every single variable involved. And once that’s established, it’ll be nonstop adjustments to account for the neverending variable changes that occur on a daily basis… hence the word chaotic.
And to try to establish worldwide policies on that chaos ? Don’t make me laugh.
As a side note : The science paper that Leif linked to establishes nothing other than to say that further research needs to be done on the understanding of mechanisms for both short-term and long-term. Other than that, it just blathers on and on about the physical science that’s already understood and why the current hypothesis still works based on that.
You can look at the same thing 800 different ways to come up with 800 proofs of why an hypothesis works and you still have established nothing. Half science is only that, half science.
These scientists need to stop looking at what we already know and start looking at what we don’t know.
Is that what this new venture between U of C and NASA is going to do ? Time will tell. Personally, the now tainted cynic in me is not holding its breath.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 30, 2010 at 11:34 am
“amount of sunlight hitting you”
As Sherlock said, “there is more here than meets the eye”. You of all people do know that the visible spectrum of the sun is the least important variable compared to the electromagnetic spectrum consisting of radiation at low wavelengths (high energies) and particles. UV, especially at high energies, varies as much as 8-10% cycle on cycle. X-Rays, gamma rays, etc. vary by as yet unknown amounts, depending on the sun’s inherent activity at any time, and that appears to be variable by cycle. When we next consider the variable solar magnetic field strength, and the influence of that strength on cosmic bombardment by extrasolar sources, all bets are off.
And we cannot, even in 100 years of solar study, deduce these variances, except by the use of questionable proxies.
I suggest you revisit the work of Willie Soon and others to give a balanced viewpoint on what the sun is capable of effecting.
“studying the sun and its effect on climate and on human activities”
Ummm, let’s see.
Closer to the sun = warmer, farther = colder
Summer = warmer, Winter = colder
Stand in the sun = warmer
Stand in the shade = colder
Warmth and sun = plants grow
Cold and no sun = plants die
Warmth and sun = fewer clothes, more air conditioning, the beach
Cold and no sun = more clothes, more heat, the fireplace
I think humankind figured this out a millennia ago.
He and colleagues have established a link between low solar activity and a phenomenon known as “jet stream blocking”. “The big thing people need to appreciate is the weather they experience on a local or a regional scale is not the same thing as global temperatures,” he said. “Our colder winters mean almost nothing in terms of global averages. That is why climate change is a better term than global warming.”
Oh dear Prof MIKE LOCKWOOD since when has the jet stream not had a global effect? The postioning of the jet stream changes weather patterns all around the NH and SH. It effects large areas of the globe, so not really a local effect is it? So when the sun wasn’t weak and the jet stream wasn’t blocked, this had no effect on local or global NH and SH weather patterns? Yes of course it did, so can we start doing proper science without the politics. It is really embarrassing reading some of these conclusions, which the result doesn’t reflect.
The UK had periods of colder winters with little change in summer temperatures during colder global climate back in the past too and this wasn’t a coincidence. (CET record for example) The reason why its not a local event for this is because Europe, North America and Asia for example joined in too. Finally, when areas start having a number of similar seasons it becomes the climate and effects the 30 year mean temperatures. (just like when the jet stream was increasingly moving North with less blocking and the recent higher solar activity in this case the likely cause.)
So what is the pre-defined conclusion that this “science” is supposed to validate? The sun does not effect the climate?
If they come up with any other conclusion I would be very very shocked indeed.
Baa Humbug says: …
1-) The sun is a variable star.
No it isn’t.
2-) There is MORE to the sun than just TSI
Yes there is.
3-) The sun is to the earth as the stove element is to the pot.
False analogy and not particularly meaningful, in any case.
The Sun has no effect on the Earth’s climate.
Or, if it has any, it is infinitesimal and negligible.
The science is settled.
Any further discussion is voodoo talk.
As Dr. Leif Svalgaard told us repeatedly.
The jet stream was discovered in the final days of World War II, therefore if we know the jet stream is blocked today would it be to difficult to study any blocking from 1943 to present and relate that to weather patterns.
In 1974, I was an NCO and graduated from Chanute AFB’s Wx Forecasting school as my class’s top graduate. I was then offered an opportunity by the USAF to go into a ‘newly developing field’ of solar weather forecasting.
The deal was that, for three years, I would spend 6-months’ TDY (Temporary Duty) at every solar observatory in the world they could get me into including, if possible, even those behind the then existing ‘Iron Curtain’ to learn ‘solar forecasting’.
The indications then were to help develop the ‘tools’ of correlation/integrating known/unknown solar impacts & effects on our terrestrial weather forecasts for the USAF operational requirements.
The catch was that after the three years of TDY traveling/learning, I had to agree to come back to Chanute AFB and teach ‘Solar Forecasting’ to all new classes. Suffice to say, being youthful, single, having already chosen a base in southern California and being faced with an additional 6-year military commitment, I foolishly passed on the offer. The position was then offered, and accepted, by the #-2 graduate in my class.
To now read of this same ‘new’ endeavour, nearly four decades later, begs quite a few questions…
The change comes as a result of a link between the sun and the high altitude jet stream winds, explained Prof MIKE LOCKWOOD of the department of meteorology at the University of Reading.
The winter of 1946–1947 was a harsh European winter noted for its effects in the United Kingdom.
During 1947 sunspots were more numerous than during any other year of the past century?
“The big thing people need to appreciate is the weather they experience on a local or a regional scale is not the same thing as global temperatures,” he said. “Our colder winters mean almost nothing in terms of global averages. That is why climate change is a better term than global warming.”
So the winters of 1996/91/87/86/85/62/79/63/56/47/42/41/40 were on a “local or a regional scale” and “mean almost nothing in terms of global averages”
(?!) and the last thing we would expect to see is the S.H. cooling off at the same time
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
That is why climate change is better termed global weather.
The Sun will always be a significant factor in the Earth’s climate, if for no other reason than that if it were absent there would be no climate, other than a big snowball. But the Earth is called “the Big Blue Marble” for a reason. Almost all of what we refer too when we speak of climate is the result of H2O, in its various phases, transitions, and capacities, interacting with the energy that the Sun provides. It has always seemed to me that, if the vast amounts of time, effort, and money that have been squandered in trying to demonize CO2, had instead been invested in expanding our understanding of H2O’s role, that we would be almost infinitely closer to “knowing” what is actually going on with the climate. Unfortunately, the consensus climate community has spent the last several decades trying to convince themselves that, in the great drama of planetary climate, CO2 is Hamlet and H2O is Rosencrantz or Guildenstern. I’ll be willing to get excited when they launch a PR to announce a big multidisciplinary program to solve the riddle of water. This plan smells like just more of the same rent seeking that has defined climate science from the get go.
There are scientists – in Boulder Colorado of all places -who are of the opinion that the Sun might actually have a significant influence on our climate?
There is still hope!
Excuse, me Ulric—it is “climate disruption”…Ahem.
bubbagyro says:
November 30, 2010 at 12:55 pm
UV, especially at high energies, varies as much as 8-10% cycle on cycle. X-Rays, gamma rays, etc. vary by as yet unknown amounts, depending on the sun’s inherent activity at any time, and that appears to be variable by cycle. When we next consider the variable solar magnetic field strength, and the influence of that strength on cosmic bombardment by extrasolar sources, all bets are off.
And we cannot, even in 100 years of solar study, deduce these variances, except by the use of questionable proxies.
On the contrary we have a good understanding of the long-term variations of UV, particles and magnetic fields for the past 170 years, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/IAGA2008LS.pdf
Well one way to find out if the sun affects climate would be to turn it off. Well I mean on your PlayStation of course, since we can’t really do it in practice; Mother Gaia won’t let us do that experiment.
I’m of the opinion (and that’s all it is) that the sun does have some effect on climate; but that whatever it is, is likely being masked by things like cloud variations. I still believe that the H2O molecule with its high polar moment and dielectric constant, is pretty much in control of the whole system; but it does require some range of TSI energy input to keep the system running.
I’m not surprised that the system still seemed to operate ok even millions of years ago, when the TSI was much lower than it is now; but I think that plate tectonic motion of the land masses has played some role in determining earth climate specifics, at different epochs.
Baa Humbug says:
November 30, 2010 at 4:26 am
This uneducated layman can give these science types a head start with 3 pointers.
1-) The sun is a variable star.
2-) There is MORE to the sun than just TSI
3-) The sun is to the earth as the stove element is to the pot.
There endeth the lesson.
————–
Very slightly variable.
————-
so scientists discover this stuff, and now humbug recons that the scientists have some how forgotten it or that he discovered it all by himself.
Yeah sure!
I thought you guys had gone off the sun because we have just been through a severe solar minimum without any sign of massive cooling. In science land the [snip] “the sun has the biggest effect” theory would now considered to be invalidated by the evidence.
Apparenly in [snip] land the evidence does not count for much.
So we are now heading for another solar cycle maximum. The “[snip] sun theory” predicts that the temperature should be rising. But [snip] are busy claiming that the temperature is falling. Seems like you have a bit of a problem either with the theory or the evidence being presented.
In fact I have my suspicions that the currently popular [snip] land “ocean epicycle” theory was popular because the “it’s the sun stupid” theory had fallen out of fashion due to evidence problems.
I guess it’s case of so many [snip], so many inconsistent views.
[You are free to post your contrary views here, but lighten up on the insults. ~dbs, mod.]
Thanks for the paper Leif.
I’m assuming that they will conclude in a consensus that the sun revolves around the earth and man is the center of the universe. He is also fatter and therefore hotter. Thus hot air comes out of his mouth when he speaks.
Agenda-driven government science is integrity-challenged. With Hansen’s assistance, NASA has lost all credibility, and this new program is unlikely to restore it — no matter what their “findings” turn out to be.
Dave Wendt (November 30, 2010 at 2:42 pm)
C O 2 or not C O 2: that is the question;
Whether ’tis quicker in the media to stifle
The slams and errors of outrageous skeptics,
Or go to town against a handful of their papers,
And by opposing censor them? To try: to settle;
No more debate; and by settle to say we end
The correlations of the thousand natural factors
That warmth is heir to, ’tis a consensus, amen;
George E. SmithNovember 30, 2010 at 4:44 pm
George,
Except at polar regions, your experiment is demonstrated every day, and once a year at the poles. On a cold winter night with no wind and no clouds, the earth’s surface cools rapidly as heat is radiated to space. If CO2 has a measurable greenhouse effect, it will be under those conditions. If measurable, it should reduce the difference between station daily recorded minimum and maximum temperatures. As to climate change, compare 60s winter data with winter data for the 2000 decade. Inland stations between 40 and 60N should give you the greatest temperature drops in January on clear, no wind nights. For a CO2 effect to be measurable, there should be no fog or frost formation during cooling.
Alexander Feht says: {November 30, 2010 at 1:55 pm}
“The Sun has no effect on the Earth’s climate.”
The CHANGES in the Sun have no effect on the Earth’s climate would be a more accurate expression of what Dr S says. It that light, your second statement now makes sense:
“Or, if it has any, it is infinitesimal and negligible.”
Good stuff Leif ,but yes, plenty more to be researched and found yet, we have only scratched the surface of solar-climate-weather interactions. Much to be found yet that will surprise us all greatly (yes, even you as well, I would say with a high confidence) , and surprise many AGW CO2 folk even more greatly!
Leif, thanks very much for that link. That’s a lot of information to absorb.
And thank you for taking the time to contribute here. I hope you will continue to do so.
Ian Holton says:
November 30, 2010 at 6:44 pm
plenty more to be researched and found yet, we have only scratched the surface of solar-climate-weather interactions.
But since we are not there yet, we cannot just assume that it will be as some hope. We have to go by what we know [or strongly surmise] at the moment, not by what some hope to find.
Sounds like Goddard (Hansen and Schmidt, et al) are trying to cover both sides.
Either it’s CO2 or the sun.
They’ll get research grants no matter which one is right.
Yes Lief I agree, but I am privy to some info that I cannot reveal that suggests that
the solar side may well be smiling more than the AGW CO2 side in the end. Anyway will be good to see what Colorado-NASA come up with. It is a step in the right direction and should have been done well earlier imo.
Figures 13 & 16 are noteworthy:
Gray, L.J.; Beer, J.; Geller, M.; Haigh, J.D.; Lockwood, M.; Matthes, K.; Cubasch, U.; Fleitmann, D.; Harrison, G.; Hood, L.; Luterbacher, J.; Meehl, G.A.; Shindell, D.; van Geel, B.; & White, W. (2010). Solar influences on climate.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009RG000282.pdf
Paul Vaughan says:
November 30, 2010 at 8:53 pm
Figures 13 & 16 are noteworthy
Yes for the smallness of the correlation [only about 10-20% for R^2] for only some 30-40 cases.
Robuk says:
November 30, 2010 at 2:24 pm
The change comes as a result of a link between the sun and the high altitude jet stream winds, explained Prof MIKE LOCKWOOD of the department of meteorology at the University of Reading.
The winter of 1946–1947 was a harsh European winter noted for its effects in the United Kingdom.
During 1947 sunspots were more numerous than during any other year of the past century?
1957 would be more correct for the highest sunspot number, but 1947 was near cycle max of a reasonable cycle (SC18). Dont make the mistake of putting all your eggs in one basket, there are many factors that contribute to a change in climate. The PDO which correlates most closely with the temperature record was negative in 1947. World temps continued to drop further as the PDO and AMO went further negative towards 1970 which also had low solar output contributing to the decline.
Nearly all the factors are in place right now including modified jet streams that should give the NH a hiding this winter.
Sun only provides the energy for heating the Earth. Energy is stored in the oceans and taken back and forth by ocean currents, and this process takes decades and even centauries. Ocean currents are not constant, and are affected by number of factors too. There also volcanoes, geo-tectonics and astronomy (Milankovic).
Some of these come together in the North Atlantic as:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NAP.gif
and central Pacific as:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PDOc.htm
Do not be mislead: part of the heat affecting today’s temperatures have arrived here from the sun, long before any of us were born.
In long term (within Milankovic formula) the energy from the sun is probably nearly constant , it is just its distribution in time and space that varies, it is all down to the ‘mother Earth’ what she does with it. Humans and CO2 are nothing but a flee in the elephants tail.
The sun affects climate?
Layman Lurker says: “I think the foundations are already starting to fall into place (via: Guan and Nigam; & Pavlakis et al) for the connection between DLR /ENSO and the distribution of this stored ocean heat over space and time.”
A typo? Shouldn’t that be DSR? Pavlakis et al 2008:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/8/6697/2008/acpd-8-6697-2008-print.pdf
clearscience says: “If you can prove that go right ahead..”
Been working on it for two years.
As an aside here and as a practical engineer, if one looks at the earth from outside it can only be concluded that the temperature control system for the earth is both simple and robust.
The only robust maintenance free system that could possibly be imagined is a heat actuated refrigerator. The sun is the heat source, water is the refrigerant and the atmosphere is the plumbing.
Perturbations to the system such as major volcanic activity are forcibly corrected as the heat source is returned.
Living inside the plumbing as we do makes it seem more chaotic than is the reality. Until recent times most equations for fluid dynamics could not be used as they were non linear. Chaos maths shows they explain perfectly the turbulence that results from too much flow or pressure differential.
Living in the plumbing we see these sometimes severe turbulent flows but they help balance the temperature.
That it comes as a surprise to some climate scientists that small variations in the heat source can make a difference to how many ice cubes can be be made, say’s much of the quality of the scientists rather than the efficiency of the refrigerator.
All energy comes from the sun and the cosmos, take away the sun and our planet not only cools on the outside but the core dies also, one bloody cold iron cored ice ball.
Theories that tend over time to more and more complexity are heading in the wrong direction, all things in the universe tend to the least amount, which tends to simplicity and harmony from chaos. Science in many fields has taken some very serious wrong turns. Climate science is only one of them, but alas hijacked by international politics.
They already have a website.
http://sunclimate.gsfc.nasa.gov/
Geoff Sharp says:
November 30, 2010 at 10:28 pm
The winter of 1946–1947 was a harsh European winter noted for its effects in the United Kingdom.
During 1947 sunspots were more numerous than during any other year of the past century?
The PDO which correlates most closely with the temperature record was negative in 1947. World temps continued to drop further as the PDO and AMO went further negative towards 1970.
———————————————————————————–
Over the last 50 years prior to 2002 the sun was at its most active for more than 11500 years.
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/ThesunNOAA.jpg
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/Thesun.jpg
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/pdo.jpg
That being the case once the PDO and AMO went positive around 1975 the steady temperature increase driven by a very active sun continued, nothing to do with CO2.
In the Maunda min and the Dalton min the suns activity was low and I presume the PDO and AMO could also have been mainly negative producing a prolonged cold period. After the Dalton min the sun becomes more active again and continues with increasing activity up to 2002.
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/400yearsofsunspots.gif
It appears to me that the steady temperature increase during this century has been caused by a very active sun with excursions caused by the PDO and AMO.
Maybe.
1. Bob Tisdale: while you’re around, I asked a question of you on a sea ice thread. It is “where is the graph/article on your website which demonstrates a lagged correlation between ENSO and North polar ocean temperatures?” I’d be very grateful if you could post that here.
2. I see a lot of cynicism here. It’s sad that climate science has come to this pass. Here’s my own version of their thinking: “Hell-it’s-a-travesty-that-we-can’t-explain-the-cold-winters-it-must-have-something-to-do-with-the-big-solar-minimum-so-we-need-to-show-folk-we’re-onto-it-and-make-sure-we-can-prove-it’s-just-a-temporary-aberration-with-global-warming-resuming-in-5-years-time”. That’s a rolling 5 years of course.
3. To LazyTeenager. Even as we rise towards solar maximum, the theory of Friis-Christensen & Lassen means we are going to pay for the long solar Cycle 23, period. It’s a battle between that and the CO2 which is rather fun to watch – if only it weren’t so effing cold in this corner of England just now. This battle should lead to better estimates of sensitivity to doubling CO2, within about 10 years. I vote we put up our feet, not pay our carbon taxes, until then. The really big lie is that we can’t afford to wait a few years before deciding on CO2 policies.
Rich.
See – owe to Rich says:
December 1, 2010 at 12:38 pm
3. To LazyTeenager. Even as we rise towards solar maximum, the theory of Friis-Christensen & Lassen means we are going to pay for the long solar Cycle 23, period.
The F-C&L theory is just plain wrong. If anything the correlation is the opposite of what they claim, but since it is not significant, that doesn’t really matter.
http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%20Length%20Temperature%20Correlation.pdf
1) Figure 7:
Meehl, G.A.; & Hu, A. (2006). Megadroughts in the Indian Monsoon Region and Southwest North America and a mechanism for associated multidecadal Pacific sea surface temperature anomalies. Journal of Climate 19, 1604-1623.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3675.1
2) Figure 1c:
Meehl, G.A.; Arblaster, J.M.; Branstator, G.; & van Loon, H. (2008). A coupled air-sea response mechanism to solar forcing in the Pacific Region. Journal of Climate 21, 2883-2897.
http://www.cawcr.gov.au/staff/jma/meehl_solar_coldeventlike_2008.pdf
3) Figure 1:
Roy, I; & Haigh, J.D. (2010). Solar cycle signals in sea level pressure and sea surface temperature. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 10, 3147-3153.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/10/3147/2010/acp-10-3147-2010.pdf
4) Figure 4:
White, W.B.; & Liu, Z. (2008). Non-linear alignment of El Nino to the 11-yr solar cycle. Geophysical Research Letters 35, L19607. doi:10.1029/2008GL034831.
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/RoddamNarasimha-SolarENSOISM-09-d/WhiteLiu08-SolarHarmonics+ENSO.pdf
[You are quoting links and references, but please explain your reason for creating these references. Robt]
Moderator Robt wrote, “[You are quoting links and references, but please explain your reason for creating these references. Robt]”
Apologies Robt. Elaboration will have to wait for another day &/or thread – (not enough hours in the day). For now, please consider these to be figures which I have shortlisted as worthy of careful consideration &/or audit (after digging into references from the article to which Leif Svalgaard linked). Thank you.
@bubbagyro says:
November 30, 2010 at 3:51 pm
“Excuse, me Ulric—it is “climate disruption”…Ahem.”
Either way it`s predictable.
Re Leif: The F-C&L theory is just plain wrong. If anything the correlation is the opposite of what they claim, but since it is not significant, that doesn’t really matter.
Ah Leif, don’t you remember that paper I put up on the old Climate Audit forum? You even subscribed to the forum to look at it. It included a CO2 element as well as cycle length, and came up with a significant t-statistic for the cycle before the temperature observations, with the same sign as F-C&L. I’m currently trying to smarten it up a bit.
I looked at your analysis, and the problem might be removing a linear trend when the trend hasn’t been linear. Without further work I can’t be sure about that, though. Anyway, we have different analyses and they come to different conclusions.
Cheers,
Rich.
See – owe to Rich says:
December 2, 2010 at 11:28 am
I looked at your analysis, and the problem might be removing a linear trend when the trend hasn’t been linear.
My basic analysis did not remove any trend. I only [additionally] removed the trend to pacify people who would argue that such a trend should be removed.