Improved measurements of sun to advance understanding of climate change

Jan 14, 2011
Better satellite instruments are improving measurements of solar energy reaching Earth, scientists report in Geophysical Research Letters. Exactly determining the contribution of solar fluctuations to rising global temperature is expected to become possible as new instruments, such as the Total Irradiance Monitor above, further refine solar measurements. The device is scheduled to launch next month on NASA's Glory spacecraft. Credit: NASA

Scientists have taken a major step toward accurately determining the amount of energy that the sun provides to Earth, and how variations in that energy may contribute to climate change.

In a new study of laboratory and , researchers report a lower value of that energy, known as total solar irradiance, than previously measured and demonstrate that the that made the measurement—which has a new optical design and was calibrated in a new way—has significantly improved the accuracy and consistency of such measurements.

The new findings give confidence, the researchers say, that other, newer satellites expected to launch starting early this year will measure total solar irradiance with adequate repeatability – and with little enough uncertainty – to help resolve the long-standing question of how significant a contributor solar fluctuations are to the rising average global temperature of the planet.

"Improved accuracies and stabilities in the long-term total solar irradiance record mean improved estimates of the sun's influence on Earth's climate," said Greg Kopp of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP) of the University of Colorado Boulder.

Kopp, who led the study, and Judith Lean of the Naval Research Laboratory, in Washington, D.C., published their findings today in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.

The new work will help advance scientists' ability to understand the contribution of natural versus anthropogenic causes of , the scientists said. That's because the research improves the accuracy of the continuous, 32-year record of total solar irradiance, or TSI. Energy from the sun is the primary energy input driving Earth's climate, which scientific consensus indicates has been warming since the Industrial Revolution.

Lean specializes in the effects of the on climate and space weather. She said, "Scientists estimating Earth's climate sensitivities need accurate and stable solar irradiance records to know exactly how much warming to attribute to changes in the sun's output, versus anthropogenic or other natural forcings."

The new, lower TSI value was measured by the LASP-built Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) instrument on the NASA Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) spacecraft. Tests at a new calibration facility at LASP verify the lower TSI value. The ground-based calibration facility enables scientists to validate their instruments under on-orbit conditions against a reference standard calibrated by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Before the development of the calibration facility, solar irradiance instruments would frequently return different measurements from each other, depending on their calibration. To maintain a long-term record of the sun's output through time, scientists had to rely on overlapping measurements that allowed them to intercalibrate among instruments.

Kopp said, "The calibration facility indicates that the TIM is producing the most accurate total solar irradiance results to date, providing a baseline value that allows us to make the entire 32-year record more accurate. This baseline value will also help ensure that we can maintain this important climate data record for years into the future, reducing the risks from a potential gap in spacecraft measurements."

Lean said, "We are eager to see how this lower irradiance value affects global climate models, which use various parameters to reproduce current climate: incoming solar radiation is a decisive factor. An improved and extended solar data record will make it easier for us to understand how fluctuations in the sun's energy output over time affect temperatures, and how Earth's climate responds to radiative forcing."

Lean's model, which is now adjusted to the new lower absolute TSI values, reproduces with high fidelity the TSI variations that TIM observes and indicates that solar irradiance levels during the recent prolonged solar minimum period were likely comparable to levels in past solar minima. Using this model, Lean estimates that solar variability produces about 0.1o Celsius (0.18o Fahrenheit) global warming during the 11-year solar cycle, but is likely not the main cause of global warming in the past three decades.

Explore further: NASA's HS3 looks Hurricane Edouard in the eye

More information: Paper: dx.doi.org/10.1029/2010GL045777

Related Stories

SORCE's solar spectral surprise

Dec 16, 2010

Two satellite instruments aboard NASA's Solar Radiation & Climate Experiment (SORCE) mission -- the Total Solar Irradiance Monitor (TIM) and the Solar Irradiance Monitor (SIM) -- have made daily measurements ...

Why NASA Keeps a Close Eye on the Sun's Irradiance

May 25, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- For more than two centuries, scientists have wondered how much heat and light the sun expels, and whether this energy varies enough to change Earth’s climate. In the absence of a good method ...

Evidence shaky for Sun's major role in past climate changes

Sep 30, 2004

Computer models of Earth's climate have consistently linked long-term, high-magnitude variations in solar output to past climate changes. Now a closer look at earlier studies of the Sun casts doubt on evidence of such cycles of brightness, their inten ...

Recommended for you

NASA's HS3 looks Hurricane Edouard in the eye

3 hours ago

NASA and NOAA scientists participating in NASA's Hurricane and Severe Storms Sentinel (HS3) mission used their expert skills, combined with a bit of serendipity on Sept. 17, 2014, to guide the remotely piloted ...

Tropical Storm Rachel dwarfed by developing system 90E

8 hours ago

Tropical Storm Rachel is spinning down west of Mexico's Baja California, and another tropical low pressure area developing off the coast of southwestern Mexico dwarfs the tropical storm. NOAA's GOES-West ...

NASA ocean data shows 'climate dance' of plankton

11 hours ago

The greens and blues of the ocean color from NASA satellite data have provided new insights into how climate and ecosystem processes affect the growth cycles of phytoplankton—microscopic aquatic plants ...

Glaciers in the grand canyon of Mars?

12 hours ago

For decades, planetary geologists have speculated that glaciers might once have crept through Valles Marineris, the 2000-mile-long chasm that constitutes the Grand Canyon of Mars. Using satellite images, ...

NASA support key to glacier mapping efforts

12 hours ago

Thanks in part to support from NASA and the National Science Foundation, scientists have produced the first-ever detailed maps of bedrock beneath glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica. This new data will help ...

User comments : 72

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

lengould100
3.1 / 5 (18) Jan 14, 2011
So another one bites the dust. Denier's need another tactic now to cause scientists to waste more money on researching possibilities rather than addressing the problems.
ryggesogn2
3.3 / 5 (17) Jan 14, 2011
"Using this model, Lean estimates that solar variability produces about 0.1o Celsius (0.18o Fahrenheit) global warming during the 11-year solar cycle, but is likely not the main cause of global warming in the past three decades."
GIGO
geokstr
3.1 / 5 (21) Jan 14, 2011
"Scientists estimating Earth's climate sensitivities need accurate and stable solar irradiance records to know exactly how much warming to attribute to changes in the sun's output, versus anthropogenic or other natural forcings."

Really? I thought they already had perfectly "accurate and stable solar irradiance" records and knew precisely how much they affected global climate. After all, the debate is already over, consensus has been reached, and all intelligent, sentient beings agree 100% with the apocalyptics, while all skeptics are capitalist-roader shills and retards.

But even this new ability to measure irradiation will only be useful going forward. If it wasn't accurate before, then past estimates of their effects are useless. We have no idea whatsoever what the lag time is for "irradiation" and will not until we can get real time accurate measurements over decades and compare them to actual changes in climate, not to conveniently tweaked computer models.
Modernmystic
3.9 / 5 (14) Jan 14, 2011
Don't bother spammer, we're all doomed anyway and, hence, you pushing your wares is futile...
SteveL
3.1 / 5 (14) Jan 14, 2011
I tend to agree with geokstr. This new equipment wouldn't be needed if the present equipment were accurate. This tells me that years ago NASA knew their readings were not reliable, and as the old information is unreliable, only the new information will be viable. And, it will likely take decades before we have a data set that is in any way useful.

That said, there is a lot we can do to conserve our resources without over-reacting to sound bites from faulty science.
Lordjavathe3rd
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 14, 2011
Why are we paying attention to the sun. We should be focusing on CO2 emissions!
geokstr
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 14, 2011
That said, there is a lot we can do to conserve our resources without over-reacting to sound bites from faulty science.

Agreed. But we need to do it in a rational, reasonable way. Simply dumping fossil fuels for new technologies that are proving to be extremely expensive and much more ineffiecient, without any transition plan is a guarantee for disaster.

Though prior methods of measuring irradiation were inaccurate, they were, for the last several decades anyway, much more accurate than those we have for, say, 1,000 years ago.

That didn't stop another commenter here, who shall go unnamed, from making claims about said ancient irradiation. First, he grudgingly admitted, that, yes, Mann had deliberately falsified his "hockey stick" by airbrushing out the Medieval Warm Period, when climate worldwide was much warmer than today, and good for life to boot.

But then he claimed it was due to "solar forcing", i.e., irradiation, based on what, tree rings from specially selected trees?
eachus
3.6 / 5 (10) Jan 14, 2011
Why are we paying attention to the sun. We should be focusing on CO2 emissions!


A bit backwards. We should be focusing on reducing CO2 levels because of their effect on human, not because of any contribution to global climate. So build those nuclear power plants now! (Yes, solar and wind power are nice, but they can't replace base load power plants which too often burn coal. We need about 10 new large nuclear plants per year to get CO2 levels under control.)

Then focus on measurements of solar irradiance so we know what we are doing when choosing how to change global temperatures makes sense. (Choosing the right greenhouse gasses should allow climate engineers to heat the poles and cool the tropics. How you get the world to decide what the appropriate settings are is a topic for another time.) Of course, you need a good historical record of SI, so putting instruments up now is needed.
ChiRaven
5 / 5 (13) Jan 14, 2011
Why are we paying attention to the sun? Well, because whether you want to admit it or not, virtually 100% of the energy that affects the earth COMES from the sun. Other sources (volcanos, manmade heat, etc.) don't amount to a tiny fraction of 1% of the energy that the sun supplies to this planet.

Since that is the case, it is reasonable to want to know just how much VARIATION there is in this incoming energy (and outgoing ... lots of it gets reflected back into space). If this amount varies a great deal, it could be a significant factor in changes in climate. It certainly HAS been in the past ... ice ages have been primarily due to such changes.

But what is the short-term variation? Right now, no one has FACTS about this. To state categorically that this is not important without facts to back it up is to attempt to convert "science" into a religious doctrine. We've seen quite enough of that, on both sides of this debate.
GSwift7
2.5 / 5 (6) Jan 14, 2011
Oh, beautiful. Lengould, did you read the article at all? The lady said that she can't wait to see what the real models produce when the new data corrections are made. Nothing has bitten the dust yet. Let's do like the scientist said and wait to see what the other scientists say. Your knee-jerk reaction is premature. Wait till they re-run the models and then have your knee-jerk reactions please. Also, if you read it carefully, the lady from NASA just said that .1 degree of the recent warming was caused by variations in the sun, so that's part that wasn't caused by man made co2. That's the only thing she's saying may have bitten the dust at this point, based on her basic model.
Parsec
4.4 / 5 (9) Jan 14, 2011
Better measurements means we know the real values more accurately. It doesn't mean that no one knew what the TMI was before, and now we know.

Its important to read the article before criticizingly it. Otherwise when you comment you sound like an idiot.

Modernmystic
2.4 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2011
It certainly HAS been in the past ... ice ages have been primarily due to such changes.


Not to mention I believe that it's about 10% hotter now (or perhaps even more?) than when the planets formed. It's my understanding that we have about 500-800 million years before its continual heating up renders the planet sterile

Long time, but there it is.
GSwift7
3.2 / 5 (10) Jan 14, 2011
Well, the sun is getting hotter as it ages, but the earth is getting cooler at the same time. The following is a quote from a NASA news story:

"First, the influence of a man-made doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is small compared to the Earth's natural cooling rate, on the order of only a percent"

That's something you don't hear climate scientists talk about very often. We're much more likely to freeze from an ice age on a much shorter scale than the time scale of planetary cooling or solar warming though. Heck, I wonder what the time frame is from the Yosimite Volcano to erupt again, or an asteroid impact of significant size. Certainly a shorter time than solar death or planetary cooling.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 14, 2011
"First, the influence of a man-made doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is small compared to the Earth's natural cooling rate, on the order of only a percent"

That's something you don't hear climate scientists talk about very often.
Well the reason for that is the fact it's complete humorous bullshit, granted via satire of denialists.

That particular quote comes from a conversation between John Christy of U of Alabama, and Roy Spencer of NASA. That is a fully anecdotal conversation, primarily making fun of denial based blogs and should not be entered in as fact.

I know you know this, and I got the intense amount of humor from it, but I think you and I in particular should hash out the factual aspect more than the humorous.

I'd recommend the rest of you gents put it in quotes and press, "I'm feelin' lucky" on google and get a good overview of what was known and unknown of climate overall a few years ago. It's refreshingly genuine and non-pa
Howhot
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2011
Feeling Lucky gets me to a 1997 way-back NASA SCIENCE article discussing a paper published in Nature with a discussion between John Christy of U of Alabama and Roy Spencer of NASA. 1997 mind you.
jyro
2 / 5 (7) Jan 15, 2011
we have yet to discover all the particles Earth is bombarded with from the sun. The Sun affects radioactive decay, how?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 15, 2011
we have yet to discover all the particles Earth is bombarded with from the sun. The Sun affects radioactive decay, how?

Not at all.
CarolinaScotsman
4.6 / 5 (7) Jan 15, 2011
We'll know for sure what the future holds when we get there. Until then, even the best predictions are just guesses. As of now, it is conceit to think we know all the questions, much less all the answers.
geokstr
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 15, 2011
We're much more likely to freeze from an ice age on a much shorter scale than the time scale of planetary cooling or solar warming though.

There was an article published here in the last year about how ice ages can become full blown on very short time scales of less than a decade. Another Ice Age, for which we are about due based on past cycles, would be far more disastrous to polar bears and puppies and children than the mild warming predicted by the IPCC if we do nothing. That's why the apocalyptics are now screeching at full volume that Venus is coming to Gaia unless we let algore destroy our economies.

But, based on the scientific hubris that we know everything there is to know about "climate", we are about to do everything we can to make sure it gets colder. What could possibly go wrong?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 15, 2011
But, based on the scientific hubris that we know everything there is to know about "climate", we are about to do everything we can to make sure it gets colder. What could possibly go wrong?
Well that'd be because you're entirely incorrect. There's no comming ice age just around the corner that we know about, not for at least another few thousand years.
maxcypher
4.4 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2011
I've noticed that in these comments, one must forget science and engage in cultural opinions, instead.
Skepticus_Rex
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 15, 2011
Feeling Lucky gets me to a 1997 way-back NASA SCIENCE article discussing a paper published in Nature with a discussion between John Christy of U of Alabama and Roy Spencer of NASA. 1997 mind you.


"I'm feeling lucky" gets me the same NASA page, with text stating "Last Updated: April 5, 2010."

Look's like it still might apply to the discussion and is not satire...

It is interesting that the page discusses the convection of heat to the upper atmosphere and its effect on cooling the planet. I said the same thing elsewhere. How it works is that convection takes the heat into the upper atmosphere, where CO2 actually has a known cooling effect.

CO2 has increased in the upper atmosphere as well. Of course, no one really knows the precise amount of cooling CO2 contributes to the upper atmosphere but it has been estimated to be somewhere around 10% of the cooling effect. That number could well be revised in the near future with new satellite data from GLORY and others.
Skepticus_Rex
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 15, 2011
So another one bites the dust. Denier's need another tactic now to cause scientists to waste more money on researching possibilities rather than addressing the problems.


See also /news194025410.html on the physorg.com website for the reason why they want to look further into the question of the Sun in relatio to climate change.

In the thick of things, if you think about it, this really is a way to improve data and remove this as an excuse, if it can be removed from the discussion as an excuse.

My preliminary prediction is that it will not give them the data they want and a news article will later appear detailing some one or other materials failure, like what happened with the ARGO network when it, like tree-ring proxies, displayed a decline in temperatures in contrast to land observations. :)
omatumr
2.7 / 5 (12) Jan 15, 2011
I am pleased that NASA is finally paying attention to
"Earth's heat source - the Sun"
Energy & Environment 20 (2009) 131-144.

NASA's leaders learned from the climate scandal !

Congratulations,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
ECOnservative
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 16, 2011
I'm suspicious when warmists claim 2010 was the warmest year in 130 years, conveniently ignoring the temperatures in the previous 10,000 years. Vast conclusions from half-vast data..

I'd love to see their faces in about 20 years when they realize the solar data tracks with terrestrial temperature variation.
Polestar
3.3 / 5 (8) Jan 16, 2011
The fact that we do not understand all the components of the sun's output, or its levels, and we have no direct records of its long term fluctuations, is but an inconvenient truth.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (8) Jan 16, 2011
I'm suspicious when warmists claim 2010 was the warmest year in 130 years, conveniently ignoring the temperatures in the previous 10,000 years.
So when scientists say that it is the warmest year of the instrumental record, which is 130 years long, you tell us it was hotter 10,000 years ago.

That's great. We didn't have an instrumental record 10,000 years ago. You're not paying attention to the actual research.

I'd love to see their faces in about 20 years when they realize the solar data tracks with terrestrial temperature variation.
We know the temperature record tracks with solar output. Can you explain why it hasn't tracked with solar output for the past 5 decades? Or are oyu happy ot just spew stuff you heard on FOX?
omatumr
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 16, 2011
The fact that we do not understand all the components of the sun's output, or its levels, and we have no direct records of its long term fluctuations, is but an inconvenient truth.


You are right. "Life evolved on a planet that is connected gravitationally, magnetically and electrically to a central star - obscured from view by waste products (H and He) in the photosphere that migrate out as the heliosphere to engulf the planet."

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
treemikey
3 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2011
"You are right. "Life evolved on a planet that is connected gravitationally, magnetically and electrically to a central star - obscured from view by waste products (H and He) in the photosphere that migrate out as the heliosphere to engulf the planet."

He's taking the p**s....surely?
ECOnservative
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2011
"Scientists studying climate, particularly paleoclimates, must always bear in mind the unknowns and uncertainties involved with the data, particularly when attempting to match up records from different types of proxies or different regions. The challenge is especially difficult when correlating millennial scale oscillations when the resolution of the data is low and uncertainty is high." //www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/clisci10k.html

More instrumental data is welcome - till that's in, I'll reserve judgment. In the meantime, running around like chicken little or praying at the altar of Saint Gore is just silly.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2011
"Scientists studying climate, particularly paleoclimates, must always bear in mind the unknowns and uncertainties involved with the data, particularly when attempting to match up records from different types of proxies or different regions. The challenge is especially difficult when correlating millennial scale oscillations when the resolution of the data is low and uncertainty is high." //www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/clisci10k.html

More instrumental data is welcome - till that's in, I'll reserve judgment. In the meantime, running around like chicken little or praying at the altar of Saint Gore is just silly.

So what are your other objections to a theory that has been in existence for over 200 years?
Smoulder
3.2 / 5 (5) Jan 16, 2011
live evolves continuously to cope with climate changes. if not, we wouldn't be here. it's incredible to me that people can take their "environmental consciousness" from the media and marginalize the heinous forms of pollution and environmental destruction that are happening all around us just so that they can gratify themselves with a delusional sense of environmental curatorship that informs them that "temperature" is somehow in the top 100 environmental concerns of our age. get over it - earth warm, earth cool, don't matter, life goes on.
soulman
3 / 5 (12) Jan 16, 2011
ive evolves continuously to cope with climate changes. if not, we wouldn't be here.

Well duh, but are you somehow removed from 'the environment'? Are you a time traveler that can simply dial in any year and observe the environment for kicks and then move on to a different epoch?

Climate change won't eradicate all life on Earth of course, but it will make things a hell of a lot tougher on current life (including us) and succeeding generations, which you seem to be trivially discounting.
GSwift7
2 / 5 (5) Jan 17, 2011
That particular quote comes from a conversation between John Christy of U of Alabama, and Roy Spencer of NASA. That is a fully anecdotal conversation, primarily making fun of denial based blogs and should not be entered in as fact


Oh really? Google the following for my source. It's a NASA news article authored by Horack and Spencer himself. I don't see anything indicating that he was joking. Google the following and pick the first link:

Accurate "Thermometers" in Space

It's a little old, but mostly still true. The improvements since that was written just reduce the uncertainty a little. Aeorsols and cloud formation are still huge questions. Ocean circulation and stratification are also big question marks, but they don't mention that.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2011
Oh really? Google the following for my source. It's a NASA news article authored by Horack and Spencer himself. I don't see anything indicating that he was joking. Google the following and pick the first link:

Accurate "Thermometers" in Space

This is the original, a repro of the Nature article.
htt://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd12mar97_1/

In your source it points directly to the statements of how satellites aren't relibale. Trying to disprove satellite measurements, but what Christy and Spencer came upon is called fingerprinting. Each potential source of warming would warm differently. CO2 would produce a hotter surface and cooler tropopause.

Christy and Spencer came upon it by measuring the first 4 miles of the troposphere and finding a cooling at the top. CO2 induced warming would continue to increase the disparity between tropopause temperatures and surface temperatures by retarding the escape of IR. It is evidence for AGCC, not against.
Skepticus_Rex_
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 17, 2011
It is all lies, Oliver is correct...otherwise how could Adam and Eve have eaten pineapples in Greenland?
PaulieMac
3 / 5 (6) Jan 17, 2011

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo


"Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo "

I was always curious about this, given the crankish posts. On a quick investigation - i.e. googling a bit ;-) - it would seem that the only references to this claim appear on his posts to various forums and on his own website...

So.. Active imagination, or fraudster?
GSwift7
3 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2011
In regard to Dr. Manuel's credentials, google the following and select the second thing on the list. You'll see his name in the credits on page two:

case file copy NASA-NGR-26-003-057

Looks like I am more capable of doing a simple google search than you are. :P

That was a joke, btw. The problem is that if you try to google stuff from way back before the computer age, you're not going to get much of what you're looking for. Google just brings up the most commonly viewed stuff, and a 50 year old nasa file document probably isn't all that popular. lol. I had to dig quite a bit to find that, but I'm just good that way.
GSwift7
3 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2011
It is evidence for AGCC, not against


No, it is evidence for some AGCC, not evidence that all GCC is A. The magnitude isn't indicated by the data, and both Spencer and Christy continue to say that the satellite data do not support AGW alamism. They both agree, as I do, that climate is changing. They both clearly state that other factors are at work besides human influence.

Regarding science and prooving a theory:

Twice I have testified in congress that unbiased funding on the subject of the causes of warming would be much closer to a reality if 50% of that money was devoted to finding natural reasons for climate change. Currently, that kind of research is almost non-existent


That's from Spencer's latest blog entry, Jan 3. How is anyone going to notice the gorilla if all the research is counting the people throwing balls, or even worse, figuring out why the people are throwing the balls?
Skepticus_Rex
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2011
It is all lies, Oliver is correct...otherwise how could Adam and Eve have eaten pineapples in Greenland?


Yep, MikeyK is at it again...complete with his collection of rear-underscore trolls trotting about in exercises of futility in the form of vocal masturbation.

I, for one, am looking forward to the new satellite going up. It is likely to give us some interesting information--so long as another 'materials error' does not crop up.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 17, 2011
Well duh, but are you somehow removed from 'the environment'? Are you a time traveler that can simply dial in any year and observe the environment for kicks and then move on to a different epoch?
What a crock! People change climates all the time! It's called "globetrotting." Heck, my grandparents were snowbirds (wintered in Florida and summered up north).
Climate change won't eradicate all life on Earth of course, but it will make things a hell of a lot tougher on current life (including us) and succeeding generations, which you seem to be trivially discounting.
Bull-oney. A warmer earth is historically much more hospitable to life, not less.
PaulieMac
4.7 / 5 (3) Jan 18, 2011
In regard to Dr. Manuel's credentials, google the following and select the second thing on the list. You'll see his name in the credits on page two:

case file copy NASA-NGR-26-003-057

Looks like I am more capable of doing a simple google search than you are. :P

That was a joke, btw. The problem is that if you try to google stuff from way back before the computer age, you're not going to get much of what you're looking for. Google just brings up the most commonly viewed stuff, and a 50 year old nasa file document probably isn't all that popular. lol. I had to dig quite a bit to find that, but I'm just good that way.


:) I bow to your google-supremacy!

And, of course, I retract my unfounded statements regarding Dr Manuel, with apologies
omatumr
3 / 5 (4) Jan 18, 2011
"You are right. "Life evolved on a planet that is connected gravitationally, magnetically and electrically to a central star - obscured from view by waste products (H and He) in the photosphere that migrate out as the heliosphere to engulf the planet."

He's taking the p**s....surely?


What is p**s?

Is a p**s dead nuclear embers, or highly energized material?

Was there a report on 15 October 2010 of a "Mysterious p**s with hidden powers discovered" [ScienceDaily]?
Skeptic_Heretic
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 18, 2011
That's from Spencer's latest blog entry, Jan 3. How is anyone going to notice the gorilla if all the research is counting the people throwing balls, or even worse, figuring out why the people are throwing the balls?
Ok, here's some of ROy Spencer's other thoughts on, let's say, evolution...

"Does not classical evolutionism, based almost entirely upon faith, violate the same clause? More importantly, what about the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion?"

I'm sorry, I'm not going to consider him an expert in anything pertaining to the natural world if he's going to state that "belief in evolution is religion". Beyond that, his funding has come purely from the oil research labs, primarily Exxon Mobil.

Christy has a strong history of lack of bias. Spencer, not so much.
GSwift7
2.6 / 5 (8) Jan 18, 2011
his funding has come purely from the oil research labs


Really? So NASA and UAH are just oil company pupets, and Exxon is the real source of funding for our climate satellite network. No wonder climate science is so bad; the ebil oil companies are running the show!!! Read the first paragraph of his wiki page. That's not oil funding.

In fact, his January blog entry talks about funding quite a bit. You're on the losing side of that battle. Big oil isn't the one causing the bias in climate research, it's government funding at fault there.

As for his religious beliefs, if believing in religion makes people a bad scientist, then you better toss out a lot more science than just Spencer's. Need I make a list of great thinkers with strange beliefs? I think you know you're out of your mind trying to discount him on that basis. Stick to the science and stop the stupid mud flinging please.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Jan 18, 2011
Really? So NASA and UAH are just oil company pupets, and Exxon is the real source of funding for our climate satellite network. No wonder climate science is so bad; the ebil oil companies are running the show!!! Read the first paragraph of his wiki page. That's not oil funding.
That isn't what I said, and you know it.
In fact, his January blog entry talks about funding quite a bit. You're on the losing side of that battle. Big oil isn't the one causing the bias in climate research, it's government funding at fault there.
And there is absolutely zero evidence of this outside fo the claims of those who receive funding directly from the oil industry. What is the last peer reviewed paper that Spencer published?
As for his religious beliefs, if believing in religion makes people a bad scientist, then you better toss out a lot more science than just Spencer's.
When a scientist says evolution is false he's no longer a scientist regardless of faith.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Jan 18, 2011
Now Christy himself agrees with the Theory of Anthropocentric Climate change.

Christy was brought in as an expert witness for the opponents to the Vermont emissions regulations case and said directly that he agreed with the premises of the IPCC and the current AGCC research statements.

This is available here: htt://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2007/VermontDecision_20070912.pdf

It's very clear that even the last of the climate skeptics are no longer skeptical unless there is an economic incentive to be so.
GSwift7
2 / 5 (5) Jan 18, 2011
What is the last peer reviewed paper that Spencer published?


"On the diagnosis of radiative feedback in the presence of unknown radiative forcing"

That one came out in August, in the Journal of Geophysical Reasearch. Funded by the DOE and NOAA.

That looks like government funding to me. He also maintains the UAH satellite record, which is entirely government funded.

Once again, you attack the people rather than the facts when a reputable scientist speaks out. Most people on the left and right extremes do that, so you aren't alone. I have come to expect it, like I have come to expect the personal attacks from howhot and others here. It doesn't make me wrong when they call me names and it doesn't make Spencer wrong when you question his religious beliefs. Newton believed in some really strange stuff. I guess we shouldn't trust calculus.
omatumr
1 / 5 (2) Jan 18, 2011
Evolution:

Life evolved on one side of the photosphere.
Subatomic particles evolved on the other side.
But the photosphere is not the Sun.

Life evolved here, in the heliosphere,
Driven by energy from the photosphere.
But the photosphere is not the Sun.

We see the photosphere,
As a fish sees an iceberg.
Not the water that engulfs it.
GSwift7
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 18, 2011
And if you're going to attack skeptics, what about Lindzen? I think he is a reputable scientist and a formidable expert in the field. I suppose he's bought and paid for by the oil companies too.

Ever notice how there's a sourcewatch page for all the skeptics, but no sourcewatch page for michael mann or gavin schmidt? Hmmm, isn't that curious? I guess that's oil company conspiracy too.

No wait. I take that back. There's no conspiracy, those guys are just THAT squeaky clean.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 18, 2011
And if you're going to attack skeptics, what about Lindzen? I think he is a reputable scientist and a formidable expert in the field. I suppose he's bought and paid for by the oil companies too.
No, Lindzen is just pounding on old science. His hypothesis of radiative forcings involving clouds was great work, unfortunately it had the opposite effect of what he predicted when tested in the days after Sept 11th when noise from contrails was eliminated with the grounding of all air activity.

And I'm not saying anyone is squeaky clean. If you want to say someone has been dishonest or disingenuous I simply ask for an example tied to the individual or the scientific statement.
GSwift7
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 18, 2011
Newton believed in some really strange stuff. I guess we shouldn't trust calculus


lol, I was doing some reading on Gavin Schmidt, and just saw that he used that same argument to defend the CRU people involved in the email thing. Well, he said something slightly different, but close enough.

His comment:

Gravity isn't a useful theory because Newton was a nice man
GSwift7
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 18, 2011
If you want to say someone has been dishonest or disingenuous I simply ask for an example tied to the individual or the scientific statement


Well, that's a little hard when all the supposedly neutral sites have been scrubbed of any criticism of the AGW proponents. For example, compare the profile pages of the skeptics and the alarmists on wiki. All the skeptic pages include detractor statements, but none of the alarmist pages do. Schmidt's page doesn't even mention that he's an outspoken proponent of AGW, or that even fellow AGW believers have called him too extreme. There's quotes from people on his side who call him "the best thing to happen to AGW deniers" because his comments are so far fetched that they spur public backlash.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 18, 2011
Schmidt's page doesn't even mention that he's an outspoken proponent of AGW, or that even fellow AGW believers have called him too extreme. There's quotes from people on his side who call him "the best thing to happen to AGW deniers" because his comments are so far fetched that they spur public backlash.
I thought you said no one ever spoke out against the alarmists. It appears you have direct quotations of people doing so.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (3) Jan 18, 2011
It appears you have direct quotations of people doing so


lol. That's only because he is tipping the boat so far that they are afraid he will sink them all. Their statements are the equivelant of saying "Shshsh, you're going to mess it up for the rest of us, you dolt"

He's the equivalant of nut cases like Seitz and Limbaugh who frequently make easily refuted statements. It just encourages polarization.
geokstr
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 18, 2011
Well, that's a little hard when all the supposedly neutral sites have been scrubbed of any criticism of the AGW proponents

I already explained that.

Wikipedia allowed a rabid AGW fanatic, with connections to East Anglia, one William Connolley, to have complete control over anything on their site concerning Global Whatever for many years. He personally scrubbed, edited, wrote, rewrote and deleted every one of over 5,000 relevant pages. He removed anything even remotely critical of the AGW religion or uncritical of skeptics.

It took a long time, but there was such a stink over it that last year (IIRC), wikipedia ownership, not exactly rightwingers themselves, had to remove him from their site.

But ALL the science is on their side, dontcha know?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 18, 2011
lol. That's only because he is tipping the boat so far that they are afraid he will sink them all. Their statements are the equivelant of saying "Shshsh, you're going to mess it up for the rest of us, you dolt"

He's the equivalant of nut cases like Seitz and Limbaugh who frequently make easily refuted statements. It just encourages polarization.
Yes so ignore Schmidt, how much more of the science can you refute once you remove him? None of it. The whole field is saying the same thing. This is now becomming like questioning genetic mutation with biologists.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 18, 2011
There are some whacky ideas here:
htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_We_Believe_But_Cannot_Prove

People's work should stand on its own merit.

Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 18, 2011
There are some whacky ideas here:
htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_We_Believe_But_Cannot_Prove

People's work should stand on its own merit.


The Edge Foundation are a group purposefully dedicated to bringing science together with the humanities. ie: semi new age garbage.
ECOnservative
5 / 5 (2) Jan 19, 2011
Science is skepticism quantified and formalized. It's *never* settled because there's always more to learn about anything. We should all keep that in mind when we make grand claims about any subject that's under heavy research.

Theorize, prove, disprove - lather, rinse, repeat..
GSwift7
2.9 / 5 (7) Jan 19, 2011
how much more of the science can you refute once you remove him? None of it


I would not use the word refute, but I appreciate your attempt to frame the question in a way that makes it impossible to answer.

In stead I think I would say the following:

"it's reasonable to question the degree of certainty on various specific issues, especially where opinions differ amongst even the experts".

For example, I can question the parameterizations in CGCM's (don't you think it's less than ideal to use parameterizations for some of the big parts of the models?). I can question assumptions about solar variation. I wonder about the effects of aerosols, clouds and the terrestrial carbon cycle. I wonder about decadal scale oceanic cycles like Nino and NAO.

All of those things are open questions in the science, and could have profound implications. In regard to Schmidt, I think it's troubling that he is the head of a major NASA climate group and runs a major model.
GSwift7
2.9 / 5 (7) Jan 19, 2011
ow much more of the science can you refute once you remove him


Continued:

To illustrate my point about that being an impossible proposition, let me turn it around and ask you:

How much of the science can you prove?

The whole field is saying the same thing


That's an absurd claim. Shall I start quoting differences of opinion amongst experts? I've never seen any two people who totally agree about all the different aspects of climate theory. The only sense in which you can say there is agreement is on the most broad and preliminary concepts. A 2009 survey by the American Meteorological Society resulted in about 50% of those who responded disagreeing with AGW theory in general, and only about 25% agreeing. The whole field is saying the same thing? Hardly.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Jan 19, 2011
That's an absurd claim. Shall I start quoting differences of opinion amongst experts? I've never seen any two people who totally agree about all the different aspects of climate theory. The only sense in which you can say there is agreement is on the most broad and preliminary concepts. A 2009 survey by the American Meteorological Society resulted in about 50% of those who responded disagreeing with AGW theory in general, and only about 25% agreeing. The whole field is saying the same thing? Hardly.
Go ahead and link that survey.

In the meantime, is the theory of antropocentic climate change universally acknowledged within the field of climatology?

The answer is yes. Even Lindzen and Christy agree that AGCC is occuring, their only disagreement is the mechanism.
GSwift7
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2011
Okay, google the following and pick the first link:

AMS Survey of Weathercasters on Climate Change

their only disagreement is the mechanism


That's a clever way of phrasing it, but I think a more complete way of describing variations of opinion would be more like this: While everyone does acknowledge that human co2 must have some effect, the magnitude of that effect relative to other factors and the results of the effect are disputed.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2011
AMS Survey of Weathercasters on Climate Change
Most weathercasters are not scientists. The most common degree they have is in Joournalism. I'm sorry, but that's explicitly dubious.`
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2011
In the meantime, is the theory of antropocentic climate change universally acknowledged within the field of climatology?

The answer is yes. Even Lindzen and Christy agree that AGCC is occuring, their only disagreement is the mechanism.


Is the theory of Horoscopes universally acknowledged in the field of Astrology?
GSwift7
1 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2011
Most weathercasters are not scientists


94% of the respondents have at least one of three AMS certifications. I looked up the AMS certifications. You can find them by googling American Meterological Society Certification.

If you don't like that study, then try this one. It's another AMS survey related to GCC, but in relation to the CRU emails.

Google the following:

Climategate undermined belief in global warming among many American TV meteorologists

You'll notice that they found that education/certification doesn't seem to be a factor in people's opinion about climate change. Rather, it's a function of political affiliation for the most part. That seems to me to indicate that your concensus is the only thing here that's dubious.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2011
from your source:
We conclude that, at least temporarily, Climategate has likely impeded efforts to encourage some weathercasters to embrace the role of climate change educator. These results also suggest that many TV weathercasters responded to Climategate more through the lens of political ideology than through the lens of meteorology.
So they suspended their scientific understanding (if they had one) and followed political ideology...

Great, don't care how they feel about who should be their senator, and what tlaking points they enjoy, it's about the facts. For example, the fact that Weathercasters, for the most part, are not educated in science.

As for your prior post, also from the AMS, if you follow the link, that paper was retracted.
Beyond that a seal of approval from the AMS does not certify one as a scientist. To gain AMS certification you need merely to complete a single 3 hour college course in one of a very narrow field of subjects. ie: hydrology.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2011
Even Lindzen and Christy agree that AGCC is occuring, their only disagreement is the mechanism.


If I recall correctly, they also disagree with the IPCC's use of so-called 'exaggeration factors' and do not hold as high a regard for CO2 being the so-called 'primary driver' as many in the field are wont to do.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2011
If I recall correctly, they also disagree with the IPCC's use of so-called 'exaggeration factors' and do not hold as high a regard for CO2 being the so-called 'primary driver' as many in the field are wont to do.
CO2 is not "the primary driver" of the system. It is the "primary driver" of the current change we're seeing.

Lindzen thinks it's a matter of cosmic rays seeding cloud nuclei. Which has been refuted everytime he's published a paper on the topic.

Christy doesn't doubt AGCC theory. He doubts the potential rammifications of AGCC.

"it is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way."
The above is John Christy from the SF Chronical Dec 18, 03. "Article: Earth warming at a faster pace, say top science group's leader
Skepticus_Rex
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2011
Cristy also decries the kinds of claims for increases of temperatures that some have posited.

In a recent interview he stated that many of the claims are exaggerated and that the level of quantification often expressed is unwarranted. His interview in 2009 is here:

htp://money.cnn.com/2009/05/14/magazines/fortune/globalwarming.fortune/?postversion=2009051412

He does hold that there may be some influence. I agree with you there. But, he does not agree with the rest as to how much. I actually lean more toward his position in that I still do not see mankind as having all that high of an influence at the moment. I agree that there may be some. But, I at this point do not see eye to eye with those who give so much influence to mankind over that which is warranted (which does not seem to me to be very much at the moment).
Skepticus_Rex
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2011
Linzen's views as of November 30, 2009:

htp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html

He also holds a view that is far less alarmist than the view of the IPCC and others who agree with them.