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.
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.