NASA Publishes Report on Link Between Sun and Climate

page: 1
28
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+9 more 
posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   
I know most people realize that there is a connection between the sun and our climate, but this new NASA report puts things in a much different perspective. They are attempting to fully establish the connection as being more than just anecdotal and that there are real and observed changes in climate that have been measured with respect to changes in the sun. (something us laymen couldn't figure out)


There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate. A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate," lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet.


The interactions and changes are so complex, that it requires scientists from multiple disciplines to come together in a workshop-type project to make progress in such a new area of study:


Understanding the sun-climate connection requires a breadth of expertise in fields such as plasma physics, solar activity, atmospheric chemistry and fluid dynamics, energetic particle physics, and even terrestrial history. No single researcher has the full range of knowledge required to solve the problem. To make progress, the NRC had to assemble dozens of experts from many fields at a single workshop. The report summarizes their combined efforts to frame the problem in a truly multi-disciplinary context.


This part, I though, was a pretty noteworthy realization of the study:


Of particular importance is the sun's extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere.


Another significant thing that is posited is how the sun impacts La Nina and Pacific cooling, which plays a major role in how the US climate is effected.


Indeed, Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) presented persuasive evidence that solar variability is leaving an imprint on climate, especially in the Pacific. According to the report, when researchers look at sea surface temperature data during sunspot peak years, the tropical Pacific shows a pronounced La Nina-like pattern, with a cooling of almost 1o C in the equatorial eastern Pacific. In addition, "there are signs of enhanced precipitation in the Pacific ITCZ (Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone ) and SPCZ (South Pacific Convergence Zone) as well as above-normal sea-level pressure in the mid-latitude North and South Pacific," correlated with peaks in the sunspot cycle.

The solar cycle signals are so strong in the Pacific, that Meehl and colleagues have begun to wonder if something in the Pacific climate system is acting to amplify them. "One of the mysteries regarding Earth's climate system ... is how the relatively small fluctuations of the 11-year solar cycle can produce the magnitude of the observed climate signals in the tropical Pacific." Using supercomputer models of climate, they show that not only "top-down" but also "bottom-up" mechanisms involving atmosphere-ocean interactions are required to amplify solar forcing at the surface of the Pacific.


This is, in a nutshell, a definitive observation linking several climate changes to highs and lows in the sunspot cycle, something that has been hinted at for quite some time. What's even more interesting, is that the Pacific sits on top of the Ring of Fire, so the "bottom-up" mechanisms could very well be the volcanism around the ring, under the ocean, which may be strengthened during strong magnetic solar activity? Hmmmmm.....


Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion.


Another Maunder, or mini-Maunder as they refer to it? Basically, a short ice age? Or the beginning of one? The Maunder minimum was not pleasant from what I have read. Has anyone else honestly ever heard of helioseismology? It appears that others in various fields of study support this conclusion about the current and coming lows in sun activity.

I have always known, without the scientific nod of approval, that there is a strong link between solar activity and climate. Having lived in Florida for most of my life, and gone through over a dozen hurricanes, I can attest personally to how vulnerable Florida is during La Nina / El Nino, and have seen the changes driving hurricanes either toward or away. I've also lived in California for several years and observed the stronger effects of La Nina and El Nino.

I'm happy to see that science is taking the climate discussion to the correct venue, which starts with understanding the sun. Figure that out first, and then start looking at the terrestrial side before jumping straight to blaming humans. I hope others will take the time to read this and understand what a positive step this is.


Article

Full Report

~Namaste




posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Is this why all the other planets are also heating up? Or are they? All this proves is how little we know and how everything is a theory and accepted until something better comes along.
Here is an article outlining how little we know from 2007.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Hats off to a very good and interesting post. I agree that the sun does indeed have a great effect on Earth's climate and that we may be in for a cyclical cooling trend. However, the massive amounts of greenhouse gases pumped into the atmosphere of Earth will limit its effect. We should be really concerned with the on-going US drought and its duration. If it to is cyclical and will continue it doesn't bode well for world wide food production as we are the world's bread basket.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 07:56 PM
link   
I think the biggest take-aways I had from this report, are two things:

1) A major cooling is on the way due to a very weak solar magnetic field. Many scientists agree from their shared observations of the sun. The forecast is for this pattern of weak activity to continue, and may be one of the weakest solar cycles in 200 years, definitely in the last 50. Depending on how long this continues, we could see a downward trend for global temps. While it might not be an ice-age, it could be cold enough to seriously alter agriculture in a short enough time to trump our ability to adjust, in which case, you run into possible food shortages world-wide.

2) The effects of the sun on our climate have been completely downplayed and outright ignored for political and monetary gains for people who know nothing about climate. It's about time the focus shifts to understanding the problem rather than placing immediate blame.

We are ruled by our sun. If it dies, so do we. If it explodes, we perish. If it gets too quiet, we perish. You would think that we'd be a bit more interested in understanding it and how we are sensitive to its changes, but instead, we spend billions on entertainment while scientists starve.

It's sad.


~Namaste



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by airforce47
Hats off to a very good and interesting post. I agree that the sun does indeed have a great effect on Earth's climate and that we may be in for a cyclical cooling trend. However, the massive amounts of greenhouse gases pumped into the atmosphere of Earth will limit its effect. We should be really concerned with the on-going US drought and its duration. If it to is cyclical and will continue it doesn't bode well for world wide food production as we are the world's bread basket.


Yes. This is what I should have said as well. I also found this interesting and thanks for bringing this up!



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 09:47 PM
link   
I read a scientific report of some kind 20 years ago that said the sun is growing in size.

Can anyone verify that?



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne
I'm happy to see that science is taking the climate discussion to the correct venue, which starts with understanding the sun. Figure that out first, and then start looking at the terrestrial side before jumping straight to blaming humans.


This is an interesting article, but you are conflating two seperate things and trying to drag one away into the shadows of the other.

Obviously the Sun affects our climate and yes, we do still have a lot to learn about it. But just because that's still an enigmatic science doesn't change the fact that we have a very solid understanding of the connection between greenhouse gases and terrestrial climate.

Nobody EVER "jumped straight to blaming humans". This has actually been studied for well over a hundred years now, the underlying physics on it are basic and axiomatic, and the evidence is rampant all across the board - so changing the subject doesn't suddenly make that any less valid.

But this is the fatal mistake that most climate skeptics seem to constantly make when trying to drag the discussion away into all the "natural cycle" rhetoric.

You can't just ignore everything we do know about A, and then try to rationalize it by saying well we don't know enough about B, so therefore how can we be sure about A. It doesn't work that way.

Yet how convenient this is exactly how the oil companies and the professional deniers want you to see the problem. Confuse the facts, use that confusion to manufacture doubt, and then spoonfeed your audience some easy answers in their place about how it's probably just the Sun, or some natural cycle or something.

It's funny too because the case they always try to make is that "well we shouldn't do anything because we just don't know enough to take action". But the reality is we absolutely do know that greenhouse forcing is warming the planet. This is again basic physics. More energy trapped = more heat. IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE.



So the only real case the skeptics can even make is that *maybe* some mysterious natural mechanism - that we don't know anything about - will come along and magically save us from the underlying warming we know is definitely happening.

And because we don't know enough about this, that's why the best course of action is to just sit around and hope that everything somehow works itself out? C'mon...




Meanwhile this report in itself just re-confirms the fact that solar activity has actually been on the downturn now for the last 50+ years now, and yet in that time global temperature has shot up like whoa.




So if climate skeptics are seriously going to keep clinging to this inane argument as an excuse to sit around and do nothing, then either at least pick one that actually makes sense, or just get out of the way of those of us who have better things to do.




posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by pacifier2012
 


Nobody is collecting that specific sun data, so, no. I think climate change includes a myriad of evils we humans and outworldly events inflict upon this planet.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 11:25 PM
link   



Oh this is just too priceless....

Sounds to me like NASA is starting to take its first steps in back-peddling out of the ridiculously unproven AGW religion hypothesis. But of course they have to step very carefully in tiny bits and bites so as to not drop the political hot potato too fast.

They're slowly, but surely tossing Hansen under the bus.

Mark my words.








"Garsh golly gee, Billy Bob... ya mean the sun pumps out more than jest sunshine ?!"

"Why yes, John Boy, yes it does. How do we knows this ? Cause we's got us some real real smart science type folk gathered together in a group now so's we can study this sun-type stuffs further."


Congratulations NASA and the NRA for finally stepping out of the pulpit and back into the science lab of studying complex climate mechanisms and their physics.

30 years of science completely frozen in a standstill because of unscientific dogma playing out in the political arena.

Such a shame.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


Glad to see you started a thread on this.


I think it's great, time and effort is being put into discovering, and measuring the effects the sun has on our climate, for too long the sun has not been given significant attention to what impact its very presence has on our long term climate, perhaps now, we can get some more accurate predictions, now we are no longer ignoring the very source which makes life possible.

I think you are right about the beginings of a new maunder minimum type scenario.

A few weeks ago a short article on spaceweather.com, talked about the possibility that we may not have a solar maximum this year, I wrote a thread about it.

Whether we do or not is yet to be determined, but with the way things are presently I think all bets are off in determining anything solid.
edit on 10-1-2013 by solargeddon because: typo



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 06:34 AM
link   
Having seen Lord Christopher Monckton's lecture basically countering Al Gores 'teachings', Monckton established even then that solar activity was the driver and not us and that the percentage of CO2 within the band of all the greenhouse gasses was very small and of that small percentage the amount made by man, compared to that released by things like volcanoes, forests, seas, was even more tiny.
He also established the warming/co2 correlation as being true but being the opposite way round to that which Gore presented and he shows that it is the warming from the sun heating things like the sea that then release more co2 into the atmosphere rather than the co2 making the everything warm up.
I found his lecture very very convincing and the fact that Al Gore has gained and is set to gain masses of income from a co2 credits scam also makes me suspicious of the AGW story.

Good to see NASA finally adding weight to what a lot of people have already felt was the real deal and which also backs up the whole 'climate-gate' scandal where it came out that the scientists at the university studying this could not find all the global warming that the politicians said was happening.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 07:09 AM
link   
For the people who didnt bother to read the article, but just instead jumped on their own personal hobby horse, the report does NOT say the sun is the cause of anything at all.

It is a report about a meeting of various different people who could contribute knowledge about sun-climate interaction, and...


does not provide findings, recommendations, or consensus on the current state of the science,

... briefly introduces the primary topics discussed by presenters at the event.

report also summarizes some of the science questions explored by the participants as potential future research endeavors.


The report that everyone is bashing so hard, is just a summary of reported presentations at an event.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 07:55 AM
link   
To some of you, I can safely say:

Let's agree to disagree, OK?

This thread was not meant to descend into a finger pointing of who won the global warming debate. It is to show that scientists are working together and doing workshops to come up with answers and NEW ways of looking at the problem, instead of just taking the word of other groups whose intentions are less than pure when it comes to helping us understand the root of the problem.

Immediately, the AGW advocates jump on here and start in on how it was "just a report", "contains no findings"... this is semantics and word-playing. Yes, it does state that in the paper, but apparently, you don't know what a workshop or ideation session is about. The purpose of the workshop is very clear - (perhaps if you all actually READ the full report, not just the NASA summary you'd see this)


An ad hoc committee will plan and conduct a public workshop that will examine the state of knowledge regarding the climate response to solar variability and will explore some of the outstanding scientific issues that might guide future research thrusts.

The committee will hold a data-gathering meeting in the process of developing the agenda for the workshop and defining the specific topics for invited presentations and discussions. The committee will subsequently select and invite speakers and other participants and moderate the discussions at the event. The committee will prepare a workshop report that will summarize what transpired at the event but will not contain any findings or recommendations.


Deny Ignorance folks. Go read the actual report and the science that was presented during the workshop, and you can follow up on the individual work of each presenter separately to come to your own conclusions. The data is pretty sound and regardless of consensus being stated in the report or not, it is present between the groups of scientists who feel very strongly about the sun's role in climate change. You can argue it with them.


I never once said anything about human contribution to some of the problems on this planet, so saying I'm conflating this workshop with AGW is just ridiculous, as I don't support the latter.

I also didn't sell the world global warming and then sell my TV station to a foreign country that throws televised parties for guys who stomp little girls' heads in, so please don't shoot the messenger.


~Namaste
edit on 10-1-2013 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 


You are about 10 years behind on your science.

You should look at the link in my signature, as there are several papers that have been published all over the world that completely destroy your position.

I didn't write this thread to present any of that, but if you are genuinely interested in a non-biased examination of the science, I suggest you look through the sources I provided.

Also, your video of the guy showing the CO2 and the candle is so incredible flawed, it's silly to even watch.

CO2 being pumped into a chamber, demonstrates NOTHING when the gas is not under atmospheric pressure and the amount of CO2 being pumped out of the tank is FAR greater than the amount that exists in the atmosphere. Under such pressure, CO2 behaves differently and is dispersed among other gases which interact with it in different ways than at the surface. Chemists and Physicists have worked together to show that CO2 under atmospheric pressure works to COOL, not heat.

Also, since AGW proponents love to quote the IPCC, this is from the IPCC Report (Figure 3.1, p. 188.):


Carbon Dioxide Source: Annual Million Metric Tons / % of Total
- Natural: 770,000 / 97.1%
- Human Made: 23,100 / 2.9%
- Total: 793,100 / 100%
- Absorption: 781,400 / 98.5%


The amount of CO2 in the Earth's entire atmosphere is approximately .03% for ALL sources, and of that, 2.9% is man-made. If you do the math on that, it is .0087 percent of all the inert gases in our atmosphere derived from man-made sources. Scientists have shown that .0087% of the atmosphere is NOT going to change temperature, and with that low a presence, it would be almost physically impossible with a total emissivity of CO2 at 1 atm (atmospheric pressure) for that amount of CO2 at that amount of emissivity to effect the surface temperature in any measurable way.

Here is a full report from a very reputable chemist who demonstrates the behavior of CO2 and explains it very elaborately, which nobody in the field of climate science has disputed - Source.

I strongly suggest checking out the more recent science. The Vostok ice cores alone, blow the entire AGW theory out simply because it shows warming came BEFORE CO2 increases, at a time when humans weren't present on Earth. (as far as we know)

A little critical thinking goes a long way.

~Namaste



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 10:09 AM
link   
A mini-Maunder and yet one of the Hottest summers in America on record and the hottest summer to point of adding more colors on the map in Australia...


3rd Hottest Year on Record in USA

Australia adds colors to map for record heat wave!


If we are in a Global cooling period being caused by the sun (which I am sure we are) our Goose is as good as cooked when it gets back to normal because of the impact we have had on the environment (Which I am positive we have...)!

Ponder that for a minute...we are cooling but have had some of the hottest weather on record...seriously ponder it.
edit on 10-1-2013 by abeverage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


Pretty sure I can destroy your "facts" as evidence against AGW with very simplistic reasoning.

The earth has an ability to absorb a certain amount of CO2 each year. It does this by sucking it up in the ocean, and via photosynthesis in vegetation. This rate is limited by natural factors. We add to this natural balance. The result is that it matters not what percent we add onto it, rather merely the fact that we're destabilizing that which was once pretty damned solid in it's ways.

It's like this:

subtract 5 million from 5 million and what have you got
zero

That is before the industrial revolution, roughly speaking.

now, add a few hundred onto that 5 million figure, and subtract that 5 million figure.

What do you have? Something that is infinitely larger than zero.

Not a perfect example, but it does the job.

The simple fact is that atmospheric CO2 is rising. It was ~280ppm 150 or so years ago, and now is over 390ppm. The way in which you're reasoning doesn't provide an explanation for this. It's incorrect thinking.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


Yes I noticed the link in your signature after I posted my last reply, at which point I realized you unfortunately don't have much of an idea what's actually going on here (which would explain why you tried to use the OP to build a strawman on anthropogenic global warming, then immediately backpedaled away from it, and then dove in anyway).

So thanks for the tip on critical thinking, but maybe you can follow your own advice considering how painfully obvious it is you are just regurgitating a bunch of denier mush that you quite clearly don't fully understand, but are apparently more than willing to stand behind anyway.


...
Where do I even start?

First off your "signature thread" has already been posted on ATS. Here: Global Warming Violates the Basic Laws of Physics. You want to see a position truly get "destroyed", then go ahead and read it.

The whole idea is based on an embarassingly bad paper from someone who obviously has a piss-poor grasp of global warming and thermodynamics. First of all - the "greenhouse effect" has nothing to do with the Earth acting like an actual greenhouse. This is just an analogy.

The greenhouse effect traps radiation, not convection, and the fact that the Earth is not an isolated system is the very reason why this process does *not* violate any particular Laws of Thermodynamics. The entire premise of that so-called "paper" is utterly absurd, since it effectively argues that covering yourself in a blanket can't possibly make you warm, since it apparently goes against the principle of entropy too.



As for the gish gallop of fossil-fuel sponsored talking points you unwittingly endorsed in the post above:

- I already left you a link before showing a first principles calculation on how the Greenhouse Effect makes the planet 33 degrees C warmer than it's supposed to be. This is despite the fact that ALL greenhouse gases make up less than ~1% of the atmosphere.

This is not from any fake paper either - it is from a homework problem. You know how I know? Because I solved these exact problems while earning my own degree in Physics.

Meanwhile the rest of your points are well-known denier memes that have been peddled across the internet, but they are throughly debunked by people who actually take the time to look at the WHOLE story, instead of just the cherry-picked bits the contrarian shills want you to see:

CO2 is just a trace gas

Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions

CO2 lags temperature


But from reading your diatribe on CO2 it's apparent you don't really understand how heat trapping actually works, so why am I even bothering...


I have had enough of these pointless debates with you guys and it's such a waste of time.

It's amazing how much you're all so convinced that the whole of mainstream science and academia are all lying to you, but completely ready to accept anything a small echo chamber of totally unqualified "blog scientists" are ready to spoon feed your way (please show me the peer-reviewed papers your so-called "reputable chemist" Nasif Nahle has published for example lol).

I just can't fathom how much you supposed "skeptics" are so ready to judge and scrutinize and sniff out a conspiracy, but completely unable or unwilling to consider the possibility it's actually these self-promoting kooks, charlatans, and paid off shills who are the actual frauds here.

Frankly I could care less at this point - I'm just so sick of listening to people preach about critical thinking while simultaneously making a total mockery of it.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Did that report also include: chemtrails and weather modification?


Oh wait.....my bad. Chemtrails and weather modification are science fiction; a figment of one's imagination.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


Pretty sure I can destroy your "facts" as evidence against AGW with very simplistic reasoning.

The earth has an ability to absorb a certain amount of CO2 each year.


Please, enlighten me with your "facts" and show me what this amount is determined to be, and who derived it and how?


It does this by sucking it up in the ocean, and via photosynthesis in vegetation. This rate is limited by natural factors.


Again, please provide your sources... I have done my due diligence and am happy to show you how science has proven anecdotal evidence wrong. CO2 HELPS the fauna on this planet, it is what they live on. Do you like the air you are breathing right now? Thank CO2 for that, because without it, the plants, grass and trees you are surrounded by would not be providing you with enough OXYGEN to breathe. If you did a bit of research instead of drinking the kool-aid, you would find that in 1942, CO2 levels were higher than today (over 400ppm) and the world didn't end.

That is my simplistic reasoning.


We add to this natural balance. The result is that it matters not what percent we add onto it, rather merely the fact that we're destabilizing that which was once pretty damned solid in it's ways.


Again, I mention 1942 where we were well over where we are today, and the temperature of the planet COOLED, so much so, that in the 1960's and 70's, there was talk of a coming ice age.

I simply can not agree with you. If you are so inclined, I URGE you to look at the real science. Not summaries and bits and pieces of blogs, or major media outlets, but talk to the guys doing the actual work. Nobody disagrees that the planet is warming, but to think that .87% (yes, that is less than 1% of the total amount of all atmospheric gas) being contributed by humans will change the course of our climate is irrational thinking in itself.


The simple fact is that atmospheric CO2 is rising. It was ~280ppm 150 or so years ago, and now is over 390ppm. The way in which you're reasoning doesn't provide an explanation for this. It's incorrect thinking.


The incorrect thinking here is believing that CO2 will not rise and fall as it has since before the dawn of humans, and that we're not going to change that.

The current levels are still dwarfed by what they were in prehistoric times before humans were around. There have been several inter-glacial periods between ice ages where CO2 ppm has risen to over 600ppm, and had it not been for the large increases in CO2 during those times, there would not have eventually been the dawn of agriculture and farming and we would still be in an ice age. Also, if you look at the historical records that we have found in ice and rock, you can find that CO2 levels had to fall BELOW 760 ppm, with the tipping point around 600ppm in order for glaciation to occur. What this means is that for us to fully melt the ice sheets, we have to push CO2 to over 600ppm, which is FAR from where we are right now.

With humans contributing to .87%, please demonstrate or extrapolate how we are going to reach 600ppm before other natural processes take hold?

You should look around for the more recent studies and findings in the field, because there have been a lot of advances. I'm happy to provide sources if you'd like.

~Namaste



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne

If you did a bit of research instead of drinking the kool-aid, you would find that in 1942, CO2 levels were higher than today (over 400ppm) and the world didn't end.

......
Again, I mention 1942 where we were well over where we are today, and the temperature of the planet COOLED, so much so, that in the 1960's and 70's, there was talk of a coming ice age.


I'm not going to waste my time shredding up your poor reasoning bit by bit. I'll just ask that you provide a source for this. If it's true, I would like to know.

Thanks!
edit on 10-1-2013 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
28
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join