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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.