The fact that there’s a scientific workshop discussing the solar-climate relationship at all, especially when doomsayers like Hansen say there’s no solar connection, should tell you something.
I got a chuckle out of the final slide in Dr. Judith Lean’s presentation. First the workshop program:
The 2nd Nagoya Workshop on the Relationship between Solar Activity and Climate Changes
16-17 January, 2012 | Noyori Conference Hall, Nagoya University (Nagoya, Japan)
Session I: Opening and Keynote Talk (Chair: Kanya KUSANO)
- Judith LEAN (Naval Research Laboratory, USA)
Session II: Solar & Heliospheric Activity (Chair: Kanya KUSANO)
- Leif SVALGAARD (Stanford Univ., USA)
- Munetoshi TOKUMARU (Nagoya Univ., Japan)
- Ayumi ASAI (Kyoto Univ., Japan)
Session III: Cosmic Ray and its Influence (Chair: Kimiaki MASUDA)
- Martin BODKER ENGHOFF & Henrik SVENSMARK (National Space Institute, Denmark)
- Hiroko MIYAHARA (Univ. of Tokyo, Japan)
- Shigeo TOMITA (Univ. of Tsukuba, Japan)
==============================================================
Here’s the Judith Lean presentation: Variations in Solar Irradiance and Climate. WUWT is prominently referenced on slide #23.
But the final slide is what really caught my attention, because I was surprised to see what is in the upper right corner:
I asked Dr. Svalgaard via email:
With the end slide, saying “It’s the sun stupid” I wonder how well she was received?
He replied:
She’s an authority on this and was well received.
Well allrighty then.
Footnote: While I can’t be sure if someone said it before me, or if Dr. Lean got the phrase from me (I did reference her 2000 solar irradiance graph) the phrase “It’s the Sun, stupid” first appeared on WUWT on April 6th, 2007:
The unraveling is worse than we thought.
This is nothing short of awesome.
JimB
What is the last slide? Unable to download, the site may be overloaded. Can you post?
Of course, we all know that if it’s the SUN…well…there’s just simply nothing for any politician or ideological group to control…there is no power to wield and there is no amount of lifestyle change that will alleviate that part of the problem.
Nothing to see here…move along.
JimB
It amazes me that this is considered radical thought.
Now we all know why so many Warmistas have started popping up on WUWT.
I guess we all now know why Japan pulled out of Kyoto (the accord). It looks like it’s all about Nagoya in the future.
“Now we all know why so many Warmistas have started popping up on WUWT”
Our sunny dispositions???
I asked Dr. Svalgaard via email:
With the end slide, saying “It’s the sun stupid” I wonder how well she was received?
He replied:
She’s an authority on this and was well received.
Well, it probably isnt just that she is an authority that caused it to be well received. It was at least in part (about 71%) that she was ridiculing the notion that it is the sun, and pretty much saying that the people who think so are stupid. Look at the context the pull quote is presented in:
“The sun could account for as much as 69% of the increase in Earth’s average temperature” West noted.
With:
West himself said during a Thursday conference call that global warming is at least partially man-made — and maybe as much as “70 percent” due to human intervention.
It sounds like Judith Lean is making fun of this guy with the use of these materials. Which doesn’t sound all that difficult, given that his answer to just about every question on “global warming” attribution seems to be “oh, about 70%”.
And it seems her point in including the “Its the sun stupid” graphic is to make fun of that too.
Why is this surprising?
The implications of the decrease in grain crops like wheat and corn from even a slight cooling, are, um, chilling, and no laughing matter.
@Brad, the last slide is the “Danger Room” photo above towards end of blog post.
Without the Sun, there is no weather or humans to worry about it.
Kudos to Andy!
Great that prominent scientists are starting to say it ever louder. Over at Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth (NYT), bloggers have been addressing the subject of climate science in the classroom. Any course on the subject should have the first week devoted to the sun.
The IPCC approach merely mentions the sun matter-of-factly, before diving into detail with,”One of the most important [Climate Drivers] is Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” This mentality has been there since day 1. No doubt, Climate Science courses do the same thing.
Perhaps in a few years, the course syllabus will quietly change, with more time devoted to the sun and less time to electric cars, windmills & cattle farts.
Kurt in Switzerland
If we assume Judith Lean is correct and the sun is responsible for much of the variability, I feel it might be a little like sanding on the beach watching with fear as the ocean recedes and fretting you no longer have beach front property. Your relieved for a brief period of time as the ocean comes back, and then keeps coming and coming and coming ….
Cold periods are times of war, revolutions, shortages and starvation.
Oops!
Meant to say Anthony, not Andy.
I’ll try harder next time.
Kurt in Switzerland
It’s taking ages to download the slides can anyone tell me what the proposed mechanism is for how sunspots increase average global temperatures.
Perhaps Anthony you can clarify the 69% attributed to the Sun and the 70% attributed to “man”. Seems to me a misquote somewhere ??
“Well, it probably isnt just that she is an authority that caused it to be well received. It was at least in part (about 71%) that she was ridiculing the notion that it is the sun, and pretty much saying that the people who think so are stupid. Look at the context the pull quote is presented in:..”
Perhaps Dr. Svalgaard will chime in at some point and supply the correct contest for that graphic? And anything else that needs proper context?
Sorry. The above comment was referencing JJ’s remark
JJ says:
February 8, 2012 at 10:29 am
Slide #23 mentioned, is a screen shot of this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/14/the-major-aas-solar-announcement-suns-fading-spots-signal-big-drop-in-solar-activity/
As long as the sun is looked in isolation from the rest of solar system it is likely not be fully understood.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7a.htm
Watts is the MAN. Even though I’m on third string, it’s nice to be on the winning TEAM.
JJ says:
February 8, 2012 at 10:29 am
It was at least in part (about 71%) that she was ridiculing the notion that it is the sun, and pretty much saying that the people who think so are stupid.
That is my take too, albeit a bit less emphatic. Both Lean and I believe the sun has an influence, but that it is small, cf. her slide 11.
Solar Shift Rocks Germany
http://www.thegwpf.org/international-news/4923-solar-shift-rock-germany.html
Maybe Hansen, Gore and Branson can make an expedition to the sun to check it out, afterall, according to Gore, just below the surface it’s much hotter here on earth.
If only the Sun could be as colorful as Dr. Lean’s presentation!!
It is difficult to grasp all the meanings one might have gotten having actually heard the presentation. For example, one slide – mostly black with an orange title has the paper of Lean and Rind, GRL, 2008 indicated. Below that ref. in the lower left is a 2-bullet-point “fundamental puzzles” statement, one of which says that (in essence) to claim 70% of global warming on the Sun requires that “Earth’s climate be insensitive to well-measured increases in greenhouse gases at the same time that it is excessively sensitive to poorly known solar brightness changes.”
Well, the WUWT post just 2-before this one suggests the first part of the above quote is true. Also, the second part seems to imply one ought to question the 70% claim and to (a) look at other factors, and (b) keep studying the sun.
Maybe there is a better source than a slide but without more information there isn’t much to get excited about.
It should be:
“It’s the MAGNETIC sun stupid”
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Spc.htm
as far as global temperatures are concerned.
Graph shows very little response to the sun at 11 year cycle. However at 22 year the response suddenly shoots up.
Why is that?
Sun changes its magnetic polarity with Hale cycle (22 years), so for 11 years the sun and the Earth have same magnetic polarity, and for following 11 the opposite, creating the sun-Earth link as a 22 year cycle one.
Yeah, um guys…I think she has the last slide in there to make fun of it. Here’s what she actually has to say about the sun and global warming:
“But we’ve done a great deal of modeling, and the Sun doesn’t explain the global warming that’s occurred over the last century. We think changes in irradiance account for about 10 percent global warming at most. Of course, there are also longer cycles that may have an impact on climate, but our understanding of them is limited.”
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Interviews/lean_20100525.php
Dr. Leif Svalgaard says: – JJ says:
It was at least in part (about 71%) that she was ridiculing the notion that it is the sun, and pretty much saying that the people who think so are stupid.
That is my take too, albeit a bit less emphatic. Both Lean and I believe the sun has an influence, but that it is small, cf. her slide 11.
Now I’m confused. Dr. Lean’s final slide shows a clear correlation between sunspot activity that implies causation. Next to that is a graphic “It’s The Sun Stupid”. Yet Dr.s Lean & Svalgaard believe the sun has an influence, but that it is small? The download of Dr. Lean’s presentation is locked up for the moment.
Dr. Svalgaard, could you please clarify this for us? What is your (& Dr. Lean’s) take on the correlation/causation between sunspot activity and the Earth’s temperature?
Correction to previous post:
Dr. Lean’s final slide shows a clear correlation between the Earth’s temperature and sunspot activity that implies causation.
I note that Dr Svensmark was a presenter at the conference, Long-term Evolution of the Global Solar Wind Structure. I recall that Dr Svalgaard is skeptical about Dr Svensmark’s theory. I am very interested in and hope that Dr Svalgaard will comment upon Svensmark’s presentation.
As Leif points out, Judith was not suggesting that solar accounts for much of modern warming (e.g. 1970-present) given that TSI has not noticeably increased during that period.
Judith Lean has argued in the past that TSI may have driven some of the 1900-1940 warming, something that was echoed in past IPCC reports. More recently there has been a bit of a vigorous debate about the magnitude of TSI changes during that period, with Judith on the side of larger TSI changes and others (say, Lief) on the side of smaller ones. I’m not sure if that debate has had much resolution in the past few years; perhaps Lief could comment on it.
Louis Hooffstetter says:
February 8, 2012 at 11:40 am
Dr. Svalgaard, could you please clarify this for us? What is your (& Dr. Lean’s) take on the correlation/causation between sunspot activity and the Earth’s temperature?
Her last slide was not intended to show her own research or opinion, but simply to show that there is interest ‘out there’ in the Danger zone, but also that there is conflict and poor science, i.e. the same person [West] claiming 69% solar and 70% man-made.
There is definitely a causation between solar output and temperature. The solar cycle produces a temperature cycle of the order of 0.1C. On the longer term, the sun does not vary enough to be important, e.g. solar activity is now what it was around 1900, but the climate is not. This does not deter people to believe otherwise especially if it fits their personal [or cult-induced herd-] bias and agenda. My own presentation at the very same meeting was intended to show that the Modern Grand Maximum that some take as indication of a solar cause of recent warming probably didn’t happen, i.e. that the Sun had not been markedly different than during times of the 18th and 19th centuries. What happened during the Maunder Minimum is less clear and is an active area of research, cf. my last slide.
Mr Vukcevic, I am always most fascinated with your stuff, you demonstrate a clearer thought process than most. Kudos, sir!
You guys need to learn to distinguish between a person’s talk, and the images that they use to dress it up. It isnt the pictures she shows that are important, it is what she says about those pictures, as she points and giggles.
On a related note, I think the current practice of submitting these powerpoint slide shows – without the associated commentary – in lieu of text is very sloppy and unscientific practice. It used to be, when you presented a paper at a conference, you were required to provide the paper itself or the text of your talk, which would be included in the proceedings. Increasingly, all you get are these freaking slide shows. These can be useful if they present data, but (as demonstrated here) they are next to useless without the verbage.
paddylol says:
February 8, 2012 at 11:45 am
I am very interested in and hope that Dr Svalgaard will comment upon Svensmark’s presentation.
Unfortunately Henrik couldn’t make it to the workshop [poor health was the official excuse], so a collaborator [Enghoff] talked instead about some correlation between Forbush decreases and clouds, but with such a small number of cases that it was not convincing. Other scientists looking at this have found no effects, so the opinions are divided.
I have posted a second article on Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc.
Head of Space Research Laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory,
Head of the Russian/Ukrainian Joint Project Astrometria:
“Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age”.
“From early 90s we observe bicentennial decrease in both the TSI and the portion of its energy absorbed by the Earth.
The Earth as a planet will henceforward have negative balance in the energy budget which will result in the temperature drop in approximately 2014.
Due to increase of albedo and decrease of the greenhouse gases atmospheric concentration the absorbed portion of solar energy and the influence of the greenhouse effect will additionally decline.
The influence of the consecutive chain of feedback effects which can lead to additional drop of temperature will surpass the influence of the TSI decrease.
The onset of the deep bicentennial minimum of TSI is expected in 2042±11, that of the 19th Little Ice Age in the past 7500 years – in 2055±11.”
Dr. Abdussamatov is able to very precisely measure TSI from his solar telescope permanently mounted on the ISS.
Dr. Svensmark has experimentally corroborated his theory about the Sun’s magnetic influence.
Yes, I think it is the Sun!
http://www.oarval.org/ClimateChangeBW.htm
M.A.Vukcevic says:
February 8, 2012 at 11:35 am
It should be:
“It’s the MAGNETIC sun stupid”
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Spc.htm
as far as global temperatures are concerned.
Graph shows very little response to the sun at 11 year cycle. However at 22 year the response suddenly shoots up.
Why is that?
Sun changes its magnetic polarity with Hale cycle (22 years), so for 11 years the sun and the Earth have same magnetic polarity, and for following 11 the opposite, creating the sun-Earth link as a 22 year cycle one.
~
Didn’t Dr. S. explain to us a few times that when the north solar pole is positive, we see more reconnection events at earth, Vuks.
Dr. David McComas, recently explained the current magnetic pressure surrounding the heliosphere in this way..”like a beach ball being squeezed when someone sits on it.”
Well gee I say to myself, sounds like the current polar configuration of the sun. Stonger source surface field than polar fields. The system is being squashed more in the southern heliosphere than in the northern heliosphere from what I can see..
IBEX spacecraft measures ‘alien’ particles from outside solar system
January 31, 2012
http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-01-ibex-spacecraft-alien-particles-solar.html
..IBEX data reveal that interstellar neutrals enter the heliosphere at a speed of about 52,000 mph, roughly, 7,000 mph slower than inferred from Ulysses observations, and that they enter from a somewhat different direction.
Magnetic forces play a major role in the interactions of the charged particles at the heliosphere’s boundaries. As the overall particle speeds drop, however, the magnetic forces play an even more dominant role. “With this lower speed, the external magnetic forces cause the heliosphere to become more squished and misshapen,” says McComas. “Rather than being shaped like a bullet moving through the air, the heliosphere becomes flattened, more like a beach ball being squeezed when someone sits on it.”
Based on the older Ulysses data, researchers had theorized that the heliosphere was leaving the local galactic cloud and transitioning into a new region of space. However, while the boundary is very close, IBEX results show the heliosphere remains fully in the local cloud, at least for the moment..
And Vuks..you know how they report on those unexplained shifts in some neutral atom data, well may have shifted again..Gee to think the reconnection region to interstellar space shape shifts and moves..
Zeke Hausfather says:
February 8, 2012 at 11:50 am
More recently there has been a bit of a vigorous debate about the magnitude of TSI changes during that period, with Judith on the side of larger TSI changes and others (say, Leif) on the side of smaller ones. I’m not sure if that debate has had much resolution in the past few years; perhaps Leif could comment on it.
Judith herself were with time advocating a smaller and smaller variation [although not as extreme as I], but the debate is not over. Partly [I think] because there is a strong feeling that in order to explain ‘global warming’ people need the sun to vary [sort of circular argument]. My last slide [before the abstract] mentions a workshop to discuss the problem.
JJ says:
February 8, 2012 at 12:02 pm
On a related note, I think the current practice of submitting these powerpoint slide shows – without the associated commentary – in lieu of text is very sloppy and unscientific practice.
My own presentation shows that it is possible to add enough explanatory text so people can follow the presentation. In [weak] defense of Lean, I’ll point out that the presentation was not for a general audience, but for scientists actively studying the topic and thus already familiar with a lot of the background.
How about getting some ‘It’s the sun, Stupid!’ t-shirts made?
“Earth’s climate be insensitive to well-measured increases in greenhouse gases at the same time that it is excessively sensitive to poorly known solar brightness changes.”
There is no direct scientific evidence for the IPCC claimed GHG sensitivity, and the solar brightness changes is largely a strawman argument, as few people think changes in total solar irradiance drive climate change.
As for as much as “70 percent” due to human intervention. That covers a lot of ground in addition to GHGs.
I am always amazed at how people who really have no evidence for their theory can contemptously dismiss the effect of the Sun. Even a one tenth of one percent of the solar constant is a similar “radiative forcing” as the amount claimed by the AGW crowd – Kiehl & Trenberth altered their “budget” to show a 0.9 W/sq m imbalance.
It is arrogance to dismiss any effect of the Sun in the contemptous manner the proponents of the theory display.
However time will tell – if the Sun continues in a state of reduced activity for a significant period lots of reputations will either be made or destroyed.
My tip – look for many proponents facing a career crisis.
It’s your money!
http://www.zazzle.com/its_the_sun_tshirt-235117679919995426
Carla says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
February 8, 2012 at 12:13 pm
M.A.Vukcevic says:
February 8, 2012 at 11:35 am
It should be:
“It’s the MAGNETIC sun stupid”
~
So if we follow this out one step further and let’s say that the current Interstellar Magnetic Field is positive, would that squish more in the southern heliosphere then? Or is all an orbital mechanical thing or both?
In her last slide shown above, Lean is clearly referring to an interview to Bruce West who was asked to comment the results of our papers. For example:
Nicola Scafetta, and Bruce J. West, “Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the NH surface temperature records since 1600.” J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S03, doi:10.1029/2007JD008437 (2007).
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2007JD008437.pdf
where it is clearly proven that solar activity could count between 40% and 70% of the warming since 1850 according to whether PMOD or ACRIM total solar irradiance are used.
Indeed, our results contradict Lean’s estimate of a small secular solar effect on climate in Lean and Rind (2008). However, the reason why Lean gets a smaller contribution is because she uses her TSI proxy model that would agree with PMOD TSI composite and, more importantly, she uses a purely linear model to determine the secular solar impact on climate, which has nothing to do with physics because a purely linear regression model assumes that the heat capacity of the climate system does not have a relaxation time response.
A detailed rebuttal of Lean linear regression model argument is not only present in my papers, but it is explicitly presented in my later paper:
N. Scafetta, “Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change,” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 71 1916–1923 (2009), doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2009.07.007
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/ATP2998.pdf
Lean essentially appears to move away from her previous claims and she is moving to acknowledge our empirical results.
Unfortunately, Leif does not read with fairness my papers, nor he undestands the issue.
Other papers of mine can be downloaded fro my web-site where there are also figure updates with my latest models
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/
so IF it IS the sun (stupid) does that give Gates et all permission now to go ahead with geoengineering to save us from the stupid sun and destroy our planet? You say they cannot tax the sun, but are you so certain. Exactly who will be paying the bill for the geoengineering?
ANd the cold weather the planet is experiencing (this winter) is it the stupid sun has now gone asleep? the solar maximum has ended earlier than expected? And if we had in place geoengineering (in space) how damn cold would we really be……..
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 8, 2012 at 11:57 am
Well, there you have it. When added up, I get 139% warming. No wonder things are getting so “hot” out there even though temperatures throughout the world are falling.
It’s the stupid, son.
One of the main problems with the current models, as used by Lean and others is that they use the same (or similar +/- 10%) sensitivity for all types of forcings. Thus 1 W/m2 change by CO2 has the same effect as 1 W/m2 change of solar input. But there are huge differences in effect: While CO2 has its main effect in the lower troposphere, IR enters the oceans only for the upper fraction of a mm, partly re-emitted, partly converted in evaporation energy and partly absorbed down. Solar has a lot of effects: UV (+/- 10% over a solar cycle) is absorbed in the lower stratosphere, heating it up and pushing the jet stream position polewards, including changes in cloud and rain patterns, NAO, AO,… In the troposphere, it changes cloud cover and in the seas, sunlight penetrates to lower depths, heating the ocean surface layer.
Even a test of the HadCM3 model with enhanced solar (and volcanic) forcing indicates a larger sensitivity for solar, be it within the constraints of the model (like a fixed influence of aerosols):
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/StottEtAl.pdf
There may be hope, as the next round of models will include the variation of the sun’s output over its spectrum, not only as TSI. But even so, the one sensitivity for all can’t be right.
Andres Valencia says:
February 8, 2012 at 12:08 pm
“Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age”.
Unfortunately, the purported decrease is due to calibration errors [uncompensated sensor degradation] and didn’t happen on the sun, cf. slide 31 of http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2011ScienceMeeting/docs/presentations/1g_Schmutz_SORCE_13.9.11.pdf
From slide 33:
“Observed data do not support a measureable TSI trend between the minima in 1996 and 2008 !”
I see Leif and friends have had the historical data on the ironing board again, smoothing out the wrinkles.
Given the error bars inherent in the TSI measurement of the last 30 years, and the uncertainty in the use of the geomagnetic field to calibrate the deeper heliomagnetic past, I’d say all options are still open. Especially considering we know so little about effects such as joule heating in the outer reaches of the atmosphere and the effect it may have on the radiative balance of our planet.
Anyone who tells you that they are sure the Sun has little effect on Earth’s climate variation deserves the full sceptical treatment.
Given that the average surface temperature may have only changed 1.5C between little ice age and modern warm period, it wouldn’t take much solar variation to account for all of it, given that 1.5C is a ~0.5% change in absolute temperature terms. We do know with certainty that solar output changes 0.1-0.13% during the 11 year cycle. We know that the effect of the Sun’s variation is amplified by feedbacks such as cloud albedo and ozone levels. Researcher’s pooh poohed by Phil Jones and his cargo cash cult followers have discovered other interesting amplification mechanisms too.
For example:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/12/12/n-f-arnold-solar-modulation-of-transport-processes-in-the-winter-middle-atmosphere/
Carla says: February 8, 2012 at 1:04 pm
…………..
Hi Carla
I am sure that the Interstellar Magnetic Field must be an important component in the chain of the interplanetary magnetic events.
M.A.Vukcevic says:
February 8, 2012 at 11:35 am
It should be:
“It’s the MAGNETIC sun stupid”
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Spc.htm
___________________________________________
This is a valid point, but the chart you link shows a cycle closer to 20.5 years, maybe 21 years at the most as a mean for the last 130 years or so.
However, I believe there could be a longer-term influence perhaps with a lead-time of about 45 to 50 years. If sunspot activity peaked around 1950, why did temperatures only peak around 1998? Has anyone investigated this over 130 years or more?
Nicola Scafetta says:
February 8, 2012 at 1:27 pm
where it is clearly proven that solar activity could count between 40% and 70% of the warming since 1850 according to whether PMOD or ACRIM total solar irradiance are used.
Unfortunately, neither of those is any good for this.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
February 8, 2012 at 1:34 pm
There may be hope, as the next round of models will include the variation of the sun’s output over its spectrum, not only as TSI.
Current models do consider the spectral variation, not only TSI.
tallbloke says:
February 8, 2012 at 2:18 pm
Anyone who tells you that they are sure the Sun has little effect on Earth’s climate variation deserves the full sceptical treatment.
But the Sun has a 0.1C effect
Given that the average surface temperature may have only changed 1.5C between little ice age and modern warm period, it wouldn’t take much solar variation to account for all of it, given that 1.5C is a ~0.5% change in absolute temperature terms.
It would take a 2% change in solar variation, which is ~20 times the cycle change.
Always keep in mind: J. Lean’s forecast for the temp in 2014 is 0.14 C temp INCREASE compared
to 2010…..this with knowledge of a true specialist on solar cycles and other solar activities!
…… Therefore, the Sun produces 70% of this forecast increase…..(is clear) and this forecast
0.14 C-temp increase will take place IN SPITE of energy HIDING both 1. in the pipeline (did not escape Hansens eyes) and 2. on the bottom of the oceans (according to studies of 1. NASA GISS and of 2. NASA JPL)……
…… which clearly means that the Sun will strongly PERFORM and OUTPERFORM, and not getting weak and tired until 2014……..therefore the exact forecast of global temps by specialist LEAN….!
No problem….if no spots, then we with have a good solar spotless performance….. this can be proven with satellite data of TIM V7-0702 ( please compare in tables/text, link: www. LISIRD-LASP) and just pick daily
measured values…. they are about 1 W/m2 higher than 6 years ago, for example….
JS
@ Leif: “Unfortunately, neither of those is any good for this.”
Leif still does not get the point of my fair choice of using PMOD and ACRIM alternative scenarios. It is to give a range, Leif. Your model falls between.
My 2009 paper I reference above is discussed here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/18/scafetta-on-tsi-and-surface-temperature/
Please, Leif, look at the pictures. By using your record I would get something between case [C] and [B].
Doug Cotton says: February 8, 2012 at 2:23 pm
This is a valid point, but the chart you link shows a cycle closer to 20.5 years, maybe 21 years at the most as a mean for the last 130 years or so.
Hi Doug
If you take another look at the SSN spectral composition
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Spc.htm
you can see that the SSN peak is at 10.5 years, while the temperature peaks are at 21 years exactly twice.
But the SSN runs at 11 years?
Not exactly, the sun moves its average period every 100 or so years, take a look at the 200 year response at http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7a.htm
found towards the end of the webpage, you will note that the sun changes average rate of oscillation between 19th and 20th century (periods of these two peaks were verified with Dr. Svalgaard some time ago during an exchange of views on a WUWT thread.
I also wrote about this some time ago at the tallbloke’s talkshop; the effect can be clearly seen if the sunspot cycles are displayed in a polar diagram instead of the usual deCartesian.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Sg.htm
Nicola Scafetta says:
February 8, 2012 at 2:57 pm
Please, Leif, look at the pictures. By using your record I would get something between case [C] and [B].
It is not only the TSI-record that you misuse, the rest of your papers are just curve fitting at times on astrological basis and at times to flawed data [e.g. the auroral data]. “Frankly, my dear” I don’t place any value on any of them, but so what, there are hundreds of nonsense papers out there [several hyped on this very blog] so you are in ‘good’ company. And you can always chalk it up to my not understanding anything.
Carla says:
February 8, 2012 at 12:13 pm
……….. Didn’t Dr. S. explain to us a few times that when the north solar pole is positive, we see more reconnection events at earth.
Precisely. It is the geomagnetic storms that do the work in shifting the Earth’s magnetic field, one step at the time:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Tromso.htm
and for the rest: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
M.A.Vukcevic says:
February 8, 2012 at 3:08 pm
you will note that the sun changes average rate of oscillation between 19th and 20th century
The sun is not an ‘oscillator’ and it it were it couldn’t change period that abruptly.
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 8, 2012 at 12:14 pm
… Partly [I think] because there is a strong feeling that in order to explain ‘global warming’ people need the sun to vary [sort of circular argument]….
———————————-
1. I thought the issue is not TSI, not magnetic field variation.
2. In Hiroko MIYAHARA’s presentation, pages 2 and 3, cosmic rays (described through C14, Be10) and temperatures proxies show spectacular correlation almost coherence. How does that match with your opinion ?
M.A.Vukcevic says:
February 8, 2012 at 3:26 pm
Precisely. It is the geomagnetic storms that do the work in shifting the Earth’s magnetic field, one step at the time
This is total nonsense [as opposed to usual nonsense]. The storms are not ‘shifting the Earth’s magnetic field’. They briefly populate the ring-current causing a temporary very small change [less than 1%] in the combined field at the surface. After a few days the field is back where it was. Any longer-term changes you see are due combined yearly and secular changes [the latter originating in the core of the Earth].
Oh my Lord! I saw the graph of solar wind flow pressure on slide 12 of Dr Tokumaru’s presentation and thought,”That looks familiar. That looks like one of my slides.” And so it is, from 2009: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/09/solar-wind-flow-pressure-another-indication-of-solar-downtrend/
Dr Tokumaru recycled a graph of mine on WUWT from three years ago! This has many implications. Firstly, the science on WUWT is good enough to be served up at international conferences, even years later. Instead of making their own update, scientists would rather use WUWT graphics because of their authenticity. Secondly, WUWT is running world climate science now. No international conference has any standing unless there is a reference to WUWT’s guidance. This imposes a great responsibility on us all. The leadership role of this blog means that we must strive to do the best science and the best grahics, and keep them up to date, because we will see them again.
The solar wind flow pressure has been doing some interesting things, so I will send in an update soon.
What is more flattering? The Daily Mail plagiarising my Solar Cycle 25 graph for 16 million readers, or being present in spirit at Nagoya? I think I will take a couple of days to decide that.
David Archibald says:
February 8, 2012 at 3:46 pm
Instead of making their own update, scientists would rather use WUWT graphics because of their authenticity.
No, simply because it is easier to ‘lift’ a Figure that is already there.
Manfred says:
February 8, 2012 at 3:45 pm
2. In Hiroko MIYAHARA’s presentation, pages 2 and 3, cosmic rays (described through C14, Be10) and temperatures proxies show spectacular correlation almost coherence. How does that match with your opinion ?
apart from the hockey stick on slide 4 I don’t see any that is relevant.
“The fact that there’s a scientific workshop discussing the solar-climate relationship at all, especially when doomsayers like Hansen say there’s no solar connection, should tell you something.”
No climate scientist, least of all James Hansen, says that there is no solar connection.
To SOLAR CONNECTION:
This is where you, and many more, need additional insight and where you are wrong:
The TSI concerns the SOLAR OUTPUT calculated for a fixed distance of 150 Mio km….
but.,…. the distance Sun Earth varies from day to day with 1. the advance of the planet Earth in
its orbit and 2. contains substantial trajectory LIBRATIONS (oscillations/perturbations,ligation, osculation)……
And point 2. is NOT contained in any of all AGW GCM models….thus ALL wrong….
.Orbital trajectory librations produce substantial radiative forcing (“RF”)
and Hansen, the IPCC AR4 and all Warmists [recognize they exist] but refuse
to investigate and quantify them because they [know and] are afraid of public presentation
of other substantial warming sources, in order to claim this orbital RF as an CO2-effect…..
If you read German, please see ISBN 978-3-86805-604-4….transparently
written and unrefuted/unrefutable, since only based on hard core facts…
JS author
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 8, 2012 at 3:55 pm
Manfred says:
February 8, 2012 at 3:45 pm
2. In Hiroko MIYAHARA’s presentation, pages 2 and 3, cosmic rays (described through C14, Be10) and temperatures proxies show spectacular correlation almost coherence. How does that match with your opinion ?
apart from the hockey stick on slide 4 I don’t see any that is relevant.
————————————————–
I can’t follow here. Even if anyone would cherrypick data, they would never ever get such a correlation without causation, except it is a cheat. But again, these are papers from good universities and Heidelberg among the best.
Shaviv has this data as well
http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate
@ Leif Svalgaard says: February 8, 2012 at 3:17 pm
Leif, if there is a curve fitting that is Lean linear regression model that assumes that that the forcing functions are direct temperature constructors without any physical procesing from the climate system, by example through the heat capacity of the climate.
In my papers I take into account such physical properties, while Lean does not.
So, your behavior just further proves your personal prejudice and biases. By adding that last slide, Lean herself is moving toward my direction. When will you stop to be unfair?
tallbloke says:
February 8, 2012 at 2:18 pm
////////////////////////////
Based upon present knowledge, it does appear difficult to argue that changes in TSI during the course of the last century has had a significant effect on temperatures during that period. As far as changes in solar irradiance is concerned, it is changes in cloudiness which would have by far the greatest effect on how much solar energy reaches the ground/oceans. Whether solar cycles or other unknown activities in some way drives changes in cloudiness is a moot question.
If the sun does go quiet for an extended period and assuming no significant volcano activity, we will get a chance to see whether there may be some correlation between a quiet sun and cooling temperatures.
At this stage, it is too early to call.
Rich, spots or no spots…. if it were the spots which cause warming, we would be in a
Maunder minimum with minimum spots and bitter cold of more than 2.5 C less in GMT as in the
17 Cty…..forget the spots…..
the real driver is oscillations of the Earth’s orbit: The Earth’s trajectory contains
planetary Librations (see Wikipedia for the Moon), which vary the distance Sun-Earth, and
which is being kept secret at all cost by the IPCC…they put their mails as “Classified” and
refuse astronomical advice and expertise, as the IPCC TSU replied a few weeks ago onto my AR4 error submission….
The orbit is the place to search and find find the source of global warming and of global warming
standstill since 2001…..
JS
I am so praying for global warming.
That cold stuff is a real stinker.
Before the full brunt of cold will get you, the Warmists will pull the money out of your
pocket which you actually will need to be prepared…..
……somebody said once: No new taxes…no gas/electricity price hike….
But Warmists will empty out your pockets and will not feel sorry if their hype does not
materialize….. they can always put it off into the distant future and claim they are
ahead of their times instead of admitting, they are the real climate villains…
….. to be locked up if you will do good for mankind….too bad….
JS
This is just another excuse to promote more AGW propaganda on WUWT, I wonder if Anthony was slightly tricked? The Sun has no effect on climate and the PDO is just the same…. this mantra is what we seem to get from some of the guest posters.
Meanwhile the Sun is basically blank and the PDO negative while Europe is experiencing the big freeze of 2012.
REPLY: Really? Sheesh! Geoff you really need to get your conspiracy theories outta your noggin. I got a link, and made one email exchange, and I decided today would be the right day to publish it. No pressure to publish at all. -Anthony
M.A.Vukcevic says:
February 8, 2012 at 2:22 pm
Carla says: February 8, 2012 at 1:04 pm
…………..
Hi Carla
I am sure that the Interstellar Magnetic Field must be an important component in the chain of the interplanetary magnetic events.
=============
@ M.A.Vukcevic
“It’s the magnetic sun”. I believe that this will one day come to pass as accepted science.
It’s the magnetic sun from one point of relativity. When multiple ‘views’ are taken in the grand association of things universally they must each be viewed from the relative perspective being observed. For example, the Interstellar Magnetic Field or fluxes from that or even cosmic winds we are not aware of, may have an effect on the sun, causing changes in the sun’s magnetic field. A perspective of relativity closer to earth would likely reveal that the sun’ magnetic field / solar eruptions or changes thereof has an effect on the Earth’s magnetic field. Yet another perspective of relativity would be the effects on the Earth would / could be observed as a result of these changes in the magnetic fluxes and lines / directions of these. There are powerful forces holding the universe together. These don’t stop just for us here on planet Earth, whether one would choose to believe it or not..
The exchange between, and comments of, the solar physicists Leif Svalgaard, Nicola Scafetta and David Archibald are entertaining and enlightening. If I wasn’t a sceptic I would suggest we follow usual practice, form a committee of experts to review the literature, have bureaucrats write a summary, and then declare the matter settled ex cathedra.
Anthony says:
REPLY: Really? Sheesh! Geoff you really need to get your conspiracy theories outta your noggin. I got a link, and made one email exchange, and I decided today would be the right day to publish it. No pressure to publish at all. -Anthony
I am not blaming you Anthony….just making an observation. That observation is that there is an under current at WUWT working hard to put out certain fires. All good in a forum of scientific free speech.
So Anthony, when do the “Its the sun, stupid!” T-Shirts go on sale?
M.A.Vukcevic says:
February 8, 2012 at 3:26 pm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
================
Is there a coincidence that the two NH regions of increased strength in the magnet field vertical height are both on seperate and large land masses One that could be viewed as North and South America, the other being Europe, Asia, and possibly Africa combined. Seperated by vast oceans of salt water.
View the tetonic plate lines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Plates_tect2_en.svg ). To the south (from a relative perspective of the Earth) there is the Antarctic plate isolated by oceans (at least as far as land mass is concerned) and the magnetic pole is stable as far as location. To the north artic region there are two geographic locations where there is variability with regards to the magnetic pole flux, if you will. Just a curious observation on my part.
Geoff Sharp says:
February 8, 2012 at 6:39 pm
Is anybody else gobsmacked with the abject stupidity of that statement?
Oh, I get it–we’re supposed to laughing so hard we’re all rolling on the floor without recollection. Yup, I get it.
Tying to follow here but very confused. Earth just got out of a solar minimum and temperatures might have taken a little wobble but are still trending up. Jim Hansen says solar not the “dominant-driver” of warming. To Richard Verney’s point == isn’t that the proof? What is the issue here??!!!
So Leif, what are we to make of the Abdussamotov paper? His calculations estimate a TSI change of around 2.65 Wm-2 assuming cycles 25 and beyond drop off into a Dalton or Maunder type minimum. If we are talking about wavelengths that get into solar IR, visible and UV, the energy density of these is larger than IR, and solar shortwave is absorbed to much deeper depths in the ocean than IR energy is by the time it is absorbed and converted to heat.The respone time to warming or cooling by the oceans is obviously much shorter for solar variation than IR. There are also four distinct water vapor bands in the solar IR wavelengths ranging from 700-1200 nanometers that would heat atmospheric water vapor.
The negative feedbacks referencing water vapors optical depth from even small changes in TSI causing a greater amplification of cooling by unspooling the water vapor optical depth and increasing OLR in the earths infrared makes a lot of sense to me as a meteorologist. I think you are making a mistake to conclude small changes in TSI at the solar wavelengths don’t much matter.
Joachim Seifert says:
February 8, 2012 at 6:12 pm
the real driver is oscillations of the Earth’s orbit: The Earth’s trajectory contains planetary Librations (see Wikipedia for the Moon), which vary the distance Sun-Earth, and which is being kept secret at all cost by the IPCC…they put their mails as “Classified” and refuse astronomical advice and expertise, as the IPCC TSU replied a few weeks ago onto my AR4 error submission….
The orbital parameters change slowly over tens of thousands of years and need not be taken into account in models on the time scale of centuries. The day-to-day changes are fully accounted as Steven Mosher pointed out in another thread http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/07/nasa-climate-model-shows-plants-slow-global-warming-by-creating-a-new-negative-feedback-in-response-to-increased-co2/
steven mosher says:
December 8, 2010 at 10:40 am
“do their climate models rotate at at? Do they vary their distance from the sun annually? ”
DAFS : do a search. This code has been available for years now. The code browser
is very nice and people should do more reading and less speculation. I cannot be the only person on WUWT who knows how to read code. It’s only 100K or so LOC
doesnt take very long.
SUBROUTINE ORBIT (OBLIQ,ECCN,OMEGT,DAY,SDIST,SIND,COSD,LAMBDA) 1,1
!@sum ORBIT receives the orbital parameters and time of year, and
[…]
!@+ returns the distance from the sun and its declination angle.
RETURN
END SUBROUTINE ORBIT
Nicola Scafetta says:
February 8, 2012 at 5:08 pm
So, your behavior just further proves your personal prejudice and biases.
I do indeed have a strong bias against poor science.
By adding that last slide, Lean herself is moving toward my direction.
The last slide was a bit of mockery… of poor West and his ilk
When will you stop to be unfair?
Fairness has nothing to do with it. Bad science must always be opposed.
Chuck Wiese says:
February 8, 2012 at 7:35 pm
So Leif, what are we to make of the Abdussamotov paper?
since it is based on an extrapolation of a decrease that didn’t even happen, not much can be made of his paper. Of course, if the paper supports somebody’s an agenda, that person will make the most of the paper [at his peril, but perhaps he doesn’t care].
RockyRoad says:
February 8, 2012 at 7:31 pm
Oh, I get it–we’re supposed to laughing so hard we’re all rolling on the floor without recollection. Yup, I get it.
I am not sure I understand your point?
I commented on an eariler thread about a little ‘experiment’ I did several years ago. Using a compass (needle type) I played around with it on my car. I did the same thing again a couple of days ago. Holding the compass a couple of inches off the hood it remained reasonably accurate. As I move it to the edge of the hood and the edge of the car the needle aligned with the edge of the metal. It was the same effect that I had noticed years ago. The magnetic lines were dramatically altered at the edge.
Thoughts to ponder:
(1) Would the same effect occur with regards to the tetonic plates?
(2) Would altering the magnetic field over a relative short period of time on a much larger scale, Earth, be important?
(3) Would the Earth, in a sense, act as a capacitor of sorts with the potential ‘charge’ being held by magnetic fluxes?
(4) If these magnetic fluxes were to undergo change could it impact / cause earthquakes or volcanos?
So many questions.
Leif:
The last slide was a bit of mockery… of poor West and his ilk
===========
“poor”? That’s a bit rich.
That fallacy is called “appeal to ridicule.”
It is a very popular fallacy. But popular doesn’t mean scientific.
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 8, 2012 at 7:52 pm
“The last slide was a bit of mockery…”
=============
Define “a bit”, then I would ask why she would include “mockery” in her presentation, it seems rather unprofessional, and misleading enough for a post ???
God help us all.
Khwarizmi says:
February 8, 2012 at 8:22 pm
It is a very popular fallacy. But popular doesn’t mean scientific.
But claiming 69% for and 70% against is scientific in your opinion?
eyesonu says:
February 8, 2012 at 8:10 pm
So many questions. [about magnetic fields]
The magnetic field exerts a VERY weak force, so none of the effects you mention are important for earthquakes and the like.
“If I were to hide out on the sea,
you’d be whisperin’ from the westerlies.” — Lights
u.k.(us) says:
February 8, 2012 at 8:25 pm
it seems rather unprofessional, and misleading enough for a post ?
My take on it [I was there] is that all she wanted to do was to show some of the [from her point of view] absurdness of the reporting. The sun cult is a rabid as the AGW cult; just look at some of comments here. True skepticism is the poorer because of this.
No blank sun, see http://spaceweather.com/
Leif Svalgaard says: “But claiming 69% for and 70% against is scientific in your opinion?”
Leif, you should read my papers before criticizing them. Unfortunately, you are not sufficiently honest to be fair. You are just interested in defaming and distort the facts. You should joint the “team” before that it is too late!
As I said above, in my papers the calculations are done by adopting both ACRIM and PMOD as the exstreme cases.
In my papers published before 2008, the results is that if we use ACRIM with its increasing trend it was found that up to 70% of the warming since 1850 could be solar induced, which leaves to the antropogenic component the 30%.
If one uses PMOD with its decreasing trend, the sun could csause 30-40% of the warming, which means that human could have caused 60-70% of the warming since 1850
So, there is no contraddiction in the statement about the 69% for and 70% against. The two estimates refers to the two extreme cases.
Unfortunately, you are filled with prejudices, so I do not expect that you apologize.
However, my explanation will surely help the readers of this blog to better realize your lack of fairness and that nobody should trust what you say.
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 8, 2012 at 9:44 pm
=================
Thanks Leif, I knew you were there, and appreciate the reply and your participation.
I am saddened that the good Dr. Lean, has somehow left us with so many interpretations to be made.
It can be hard to keep up.
Nicola Scafetta says:
February 8, 2012 at 10:25 pm
better realize your lack of fairness and that nobody should trust what you say.
I think that the folks here are capable of making up their minds without your help [and without my help]. Your attempts to make this a personal vendetta fall flat, although you may a few sycophants out there.
The real issue with TSI is not how it has varied the last 20 years, but how it has varied the last 110 years or 300 years. There are good reasons to assert that TSI now is on par with TSI a century ago and that solar activity in the 20th century was similar that that in the 18th. Your numerological curve fitting should then also lead you to the conclusion that climates should be equal as well. But I think we have discussed all that at great length before and there seems little justification to try to hijack this thread too.
u.k.(us) says:
February 8, 2012 at 10:41 pm
I am saddened that the good Dr. Lean, has somehow left us with so many interpretations to be made.
As always people will choose an interpretation that supports their own agendas and ignore the rest.
Eric Priest had a good recent overview of the bleeding edge of solar physics:
http://iaus286.iafe.uba.ar/Charlas/Monday1/1-Eric%20Priest/Mendoza.pdf
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 8, 2012 at 11:02 pm
“As always people will choose an interpretation that supports their own agendas and ignore the rest.”
==============
Now you’re into politics, and speaking truth.
The scientific elite, trying to convince to the unwashed masses, that they can’t stop the funding any time they want.
In this complex case, I suggest that the best test of one’s scientific credibility is the degree to which one can accurately predict future global temperatures.
How many of you are prepared to go on record with your best estimate?
Let’s use the decade from begin 2001 to end 2010 as a reference and UAH satellite Lower Troposphere temperatures; you may revise this multiple-choice answer list if you wish:
In the decade from 2021 to 2030, will average global temperatures be:
1. Much warmer than the past decade (similar to IPCC projections) ?
2. About the same as the past decade?
3. Moderately cooler than the past decade?
4. Much cooler than the past decade (similar to ~~1800 temperatures, during the Dalton Minimum) ?
5. Much much cooler than the past decade (similar ~~1700 temperatures, during to the Maunder Minimum) ?
Ladies and Gentlemen, faites vos jeux!
Nicola?
Leif?
Anthony?
Joe?
I would appreciate an answer from anyone who chooses to respond.
I promise not to take all the results and average them (like the IPCC allegedly does with climate model outputs).
My assumptions:
Changes in atmospheric CO2 are an insignificant driver of global temperature.
Changes in Solar output have a significant influence on global temperature, probably through some amplifier effect such as proposed by Svensmark.
I say:
1. 0% probability of occurrence
2. 20%
3. 40%
4. 25%
5. 15%
In summary, I say it is going to get cooler, with a significant probability that it will be cold enough to negatively affect the grain harvest.
I’d like to be wrong in my outlook – bring on the global warming – we can live with that.
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 8, 2012 at 3:46 pm
M.A.Vukcevic says:
February 8, 2012 at 3:26 pm
Precisely. It is the geomagnetic storms that do the work in shifting the Earth’s magnetic field, one step at the time
…………..
This is total nonsense [as opposed to usual nonsense]. The storms are not ‘shifting the Earth’s magnetic field’.
Hi doc. Nice to have you back.
I just deal with data as published, the rest is matter of interpretation.
After a few days the field is back where it was.
Apparently not here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Tromso.htm
on the other hand the amateur snoops should ‘mind their own business’ and keep out of the what is already ‘the settled science’.
I am thinking our scientists have very little knowledge of old Sol. That the L.I.A. occurred when people were actually observing the sun and found to their dismay that it was on holidays with no spots.
Scientists say the TSI doeth not vary much, I say to them in all earnestness keep looking, for whatever. some thing in the suns behaviour caused the L.I.A.
All those years with little or no sun spots and a mini ice age would tend to suggest that the sun has every thing to do with our climate, after all, it is our one and only power station?
How any one could think that the sun is like a 100 watt bulb that is unvarying is beyond belief, science is yet to explain gravity, magnetism, electricity and the light spectrum not to mention matter and they wish us to believe they understand the sun, good grief!!
If the sun is responsible for 69% of temperature where does the 31% come from? Since the sun is the only source of heat available, ignoring the small geothermal input, I recon it is responsible for 100%.
Dan says:
February 8, 2012 at 12:02 pm
……….
Hi Dan
Thanks.
If there is a connection between visibility of spots and earth’s temperature, Livingston and Penn help me understand the large, and sparse sunspots during the Maunder Minimum. But why were those large, sparse spots primarily southern hemispheric?
===============================
@ Leif Svalgaard says: February 8, 2012 at 10:44 pm “The real issue with TSI is not how it has varied the last 20 years, but how it has varied the last 110 years or 300 years.”
You need to read my papers. It is evident that you are trying to defame. It is hard to be honest, for you, isn’t it?
In my papers I have used only ACRIM and PMOD, but also the major TSI proxy reconstructions by Lean and Solanky. And my reconstructions are maded for centuries. Your flat TSI is not believed by anybody but yourself. Not even the IPCC believes your solar model made of a linear rescaling ofthe sunspot number series without any backgroud solar irradiance variation variation.
About my papers, just go to my web-site and/or look here
Nicola Scafetta, and Bruce J. West, “Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the NH surface temperature records since 1600.” J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S03, doi:10.1029/2007JD008437 (2007).
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2007JD008437.pdf
N. Scafetta, “Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change,” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 71 1916–1923 (2009), doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2009.07.007
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/ATP2998.pdf
About the latest paper with a possible forecast for the future. Look here
N. Scafetta, “Testing an astronomically based decadal-scale empirical harmonic climate model versus the IPCC (2007) general circulation climate models” Journal of Atmospheric
and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, in press. DOI: 10.1016/j.jastp.2011.12.005.
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Scafetta_models_comparison_ATP.pdf
Nicola Scafetta says:
February 9, 2012 at 7:51 am
Your flat TSI is not believed by anybody but yourself.
Figure 3 of http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL046658.pdf
The “uniform 0.1K” solar narrative is razed by observational data.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Spc.htm
I don’t have a problem looking at graphs
but please let us be clear on what we are looking at:
a) title?
b) x?
c) y/
Sorry. just to be a bit clearer on my last post
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Spc.htm
the title does not correspond with years on the x
there is nothing on the y
I don’t know waht is SSN and I don’t know what we are looking at
‘
Hi Henry
From the website linked to your name I assume you are in SA. That makes it a fascinating coincidence, since in less than an hour my daughter (recent graduate from Oxford) will be boarding flight to Jo’burg, on a working visit to the Cullinan Diamond Mines, with two weekends at the Kruger Park. Here are some details relating to your question:
Title it should be something as ‘Sunspot and the global temperatures spectral analysis output comparison’ since the graphs represent spectral analysis output for 3 variables;
– Sunspot number (shown in green) data from: http://sidc.oma.be/DATA/monthssn.dat
– Land and Ocean global temperatures (blue colour) from: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
– Land only global temperature (red colour) from: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt
X-axis: Spectral response in engineering is usually given as a frequency graph of components, but where frequency is very, very low as in this case, it is given as a period corresponding to the frequency (T = 1/F), so you get a reasonable number, here expressed in years.
Since the GISS temperature data is only available since 1880, in order to use a fair comparison I used Sunspot number data also from 1880 only.
For this period of time strongest component for the SSN is about 10.5 years which may sound as a bit strange considering that it is usually assumed to be ~ 11 years, but that is what the analyser comes up with.
To get clearer view I split graph in two portions, 6-13 and 17-29 years where the most of frequencies are concentrated. Further up there are more components but solar spectrum response falls off rapidly, so it’s of a less importance.
For a data set of limited length the reliability of the analysis becomes questionable ( here data is 130 years long, so I would consider anything with period above 40 years not reliable), there are good reasons for this but rather complex.
Y-axis is a non-dimensional number, sometimes 0-1 or 1-100, sometimes as 0-100%, depending on the software, but value is not particularly important since you are comparing relative values (sometime power, others just intensity or correlation with an ideal sine-wave).
I do not put any numbers since they are most of time meaningless, just show relative value of the relevant components.
I hope that is of some help.
Well, Cullinan Diamond Mines, is 40 km east from where I live. I know exactly where she is going. Kruger Park is where we all go for holidays (if you want to see some game)
I am afraid the explanation of the graph is not yet too clear to me.
The only thing I understand now from your graph is that sunspot activity seems to cause cooling?
If that be true, then somehow, sunspot activity must cause more clouds.
Dr. Svalgaard, your presentation was an outstanding aid in understanding how measurement instrument and process changes over time may affect perceptions about what trend did or did not exist, particularly for a layperson, albeit well-educated. I would assume, however, that the same excellent analysis should be done of all the other measurements that are relevant to weather and climate, such as temperature, particularly any such measurements that are proxies and no actual direct measurements. If the same level of analysis were done on these measures that you did on sunspots, etc., I suspect we would wind up where we should, which is recognizing that we have very little fully trustworthy data and the most trustworthy is for incredibly short periods of time in the scheme of things. Temperature, being the most important, is an excellent example of lack of trustworthy data. Systematic comprehensive temperature taking, using exactly the same methods and instruments, and taken uniformly over land and water and at various heights and depths of each, is still nonexistent. Coverage and process have improved recently, but not for any truly extended period of time. Therefore, I would find it just as hard to accept a supposed increase in the Earth’s “temperature”, whatever that means, as you found it to accept that solar activity had actually increased in recent decades. To take any kind of remedial steps, with potentially unknown consequences, in the absence of better data and better hypothesis about causation, feedbacks, etc., seems very foolish. So I would hope that the main effort climate scientists should be making is to set up systems to gather good useful data which can support a better understanding of the overall climate system, which is by every account incredibly complex.
Or, when the cycle changes (magnetic polar solar change?) it does the opposite, causing warming?
Leif Svalgaard says:
Figure 3 of http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL046658.pdf
———————————————————————-
Oh, THEY expect a Maunder type minimum, while the Met Service just published a statement, that we may run into a Dalton type minimum with 92% probability. Where do solar scientists agree and where not ?
HenryP says:
February 9, 2012 at 11:06 am
……………
The way I see it, global temperature changes respond to solar magnetic cycle which has period around 22 years which is twice the sunspot cycle period , and do not react to any significant degree to the TSI (total solar irradiance) changes associated with 11 year cycle, so Dr. Svalgaard may have a point about 0.1 degree change due to the SSN.
Problem with the magnetic cycle effect is the non-existence of a viable physical process acceptable to the science to account for the corresponding temperature changes.
Leif Svalgaard says:
My own presentation shows that it is possible to add enough explanatory text so people can follow the presentation. In [weak] defense of Lean, I’ll point out that the presentation was not for a general audience, but for scientists actively studying the topic and thus already familiar with a lot of the background. .
Reality check, Leif – over on her blog, Judith Curry says:
“Svalgaard’s ppt file is less easy to interpret in stand alone form, with little text, but I reproduce his conclusions here:”
She finds Lean’s slide show easier to interpret than yours. Must be a Judy thing, we wouldn’t understand ;^)
HenryP says: February 9, 2012 at 10:47 am
…………..
hi again
I think you may benefit from reading on the spectral analysis, it is somewhat complex subject to start, but once it is understood, its basics are really simple.
Take SSN data
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
this is something happening in a ‘time domain’, i.e. changes with time.
Spectral analysis process changes data from a ‘time domain’ to a ‘frequency domain’.
Now imagine above graph as a sound you here from someone playing piano, that is also in time domain, however the keyboard is arranged in the ‘frequency domain’, each key plays always just one note (frequency), regardless when it is hit during piece played.
So, a piano keyboard represents a frequency domain of any music ever composed for, or played on a piano.
Now think of sun as having basically just two keys, middle C or C4 (261.6Hz), represented by sunspot cycle with 11 year period, and the other key ‘small C’ or C3 (130.8Hz) half the frequency-twice the period (octave lower) now represented by the twice as long magnetic 22 year cycle.
The green lines here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Spc.htm
are then analogues to C4 and C3 piano keys, so we have achieved a transformation of something that changes in time, to something which doesn’t.
There is much that falls into place when one realises that weather and climate simply represent changes in the rate of energy flow through a part of the system (the troposphere) and not any change in system energy content or equilibrium temperature.
To the extent that atmospheric gases slow down the rate of energy flow from surface to space there is a speeding up of all the other energy transfer processes that serve to speed it up again just as much for a zero or near zero net effect on system energy content.
Sources of solar irradiance variability are spectral dependent, which is much more difficult to measure than TSI. Spectral variations are seen on the 27 day solar rotation cycle and also on the 11 year sunspot cycle.
Solar cycle irradiance modulates:
• stratospheric vortex
• tropospheric circulation
• NAO (solar min) AO (solar max)
What’s on offer:
• Decadal trends in solar irradiance are not yet detectable from uncertainties caused by instrument instabilities in observations: historical irradiance reconstructions are very uncertain
• Natural influences, including solar irradiance variations, alter Earth’s surface temperature, atmosphere and ozone.
• Natural influences and anthropogenic influences have different strengths in the stratosphere relative to the surface
• Surface temperatures will continue to increase Lower stratospheric temperature will remain at about current levels Total ozone will increase, exceeding 1980 levels as soon as 2025
• Current understanding assumes that climate response to solar radiative forcing is thermodynamic
• Empirical evidence suggests it is dynamic, rather than (or as well) as thermodynamic
• Irradiance decrease from 1996 to 2008 solar minimum claimed to produce global cooling . . . but decrease in PMOD and ACRIM composites is instrumental in modelling climate
• Irradiance increase from 1986 to 1996 solar minimum claimed to produce 20-30% of recent global warming . . . but increase in ACRIM composite is instrumental in modelling climate.
There is significant uncertainty with solar reconstructions, and the interpretation of satellite measurements since 1980. There isin the baseline measurements across different satellite systems.
While this uncertainty seems generally acknowledged in the solar community, the concern is that the CMIP climate model experiments for the IPCC uses only one solar reconstruction.
The IPCC has framed the climate change problem in the context of anthropogenic forcing, There has been far too little emphasis on understanding the sun and solar-climate interactions.
For what’s it worth, I’m in Dr Scafettas’ camp.
I think it’s very important to note Judith Lean’s position on the role of the sun and climate change. She seeks to find the most accurate percentage of attribution of climate change to various forcings and in no way denies the role of anthropogenic forcing, nor indeed, the increasing influence of anthropogenic forcing in the later part of the 20th century versus the early part. For her it is a question of putting a fine point of understanding on the mechanisms behind solar influences, so that greater certainty can be given when contrasting the role of the sun versus anthropogenic and other factors.
She certainly would not agree with the statement: “It’s (just the sun) stupid”, as she fully understands that humans are playing a role in altering Earth’s climate.
R. Gates says:
February 9, 2012 at 4:08 pm
“For her it is a question of putting a fine point of understanding* on the mechanisms behind solar influences, so that greater certainty* can be given when contrasting the role of the sun versus anthropogenic and other factors.”
She could have noted that the AO and AAO have a direct response to trends in solar wind speed, and that ENSO has an inverse response (consistently), and that they are all externally forced. You can largely ignore TSI when you know that.
“”R. Gates says:
February 9, 2012 at 4:08 pm She certainly would not agree with the statement: “It’s (just the sun) stupid”, as she fully understands that humans are playing a role in altering Earth’s climate.””
How long have you had the ability to read minds? I have now instructed my mind, to divert from any of your future comments, as reading them causes a dumbing down of intelligence.
To Leif Svalgaard ….. you state:
“…….quote: (1) The orbital parameters change slowly over tens of thousands of years and (2) need not be taken into account in models on the time scale of centuries. The day-to-day changes are fully accounted……..”….
….. I am incredibly amazed, how a scientist can repeat this absolute nonsense [because this
concerns only the 5 Keplerian elements…but…NOT PERTURBATION PARAMETERS] …
This is lower than high school level….. either we take our time and get to the bottom of subject or stay shallow on the surface, which also your exchange with Nicola proves….. too bad the low level of your knowledge……unexpected to me….therefore,
……. a little extra help is necessary to broaden your knowledge:
(1) This slow change concerns ONLY theoretical 2-D ellipse calculations with 5 Keplerian
elements and your proposed data for
the distances Sun-Earth are given in NASA JPL Horizons….. your wonderful
Earth-Sun distance list are NOT measurements (!) and most of all: Leaving completely
unconsidered:
Orbital oscillations, perturbations, ligations, Librations and the J_2-motions…..
(2) …. You should know this NASA list is NOT the REAL TRAJECTORY and you can see
this as well by the “Formal definition of 1 AU”, given by the International Astronomical Union
(IAU) of 1 AU: “1 AU is defined as the radius of an UNPERTURBED circular orbit that a
massless body would revolve about the Sun……etc”…. but the Orbit is PERTURBED,
too bad for the IPCC/Warmists……
(3) The wrong IPCC/AGW/Warmist/Your views cannot be upheld: It is necessary to calculate
the annually changing ORBITAL PARAMETERS of Perturbations, Osculations, Librations,
J_2-motions as enumerated above…..
I am quite certain, that you either have never heard of those and that you will not be able
to give sizes, dimensions, periods of these orbital perturbation parameters….
……………….you just repeat nonsense of AR4, wg1, chapter 6, 2 and 9, while the IPCC
error complaint TSU already agreed to my view…..
Sorry, no better opinion possible….if you had anything substantial to add to point (3) I would
be very obliged….
JS
Ulric Lyons says:
February 9, 2012 at 5:12 pm
She could have noted that the AO and AAO have a direct response to trends in solar wind speed, and that ENSO has an inverse response (consistently)
Supporting evidence for this statement Ulric?
Markus Fitzhenry says:
February 9, 2012 at 5:26 pm
“”R. Gates says:
February 9, 2012 at 4:08 pm She certainly would not agree with the statement: “It’s (just the sun) stupid”, as she fully understands that humans are playing a role in altering Earth’s climate.””
How long have you had the ability to read minds? I have now instructed my mind, to divert from any of your future comments, as reading them causes a dumbing down of intelligence.
——–
A quick selection of just a few of her latest paper would quickly tell you that mind reading is not necessary.
Manfred says:
February 9, 2012 at 11:25 am
Oh, THEY expect a Maunder type minimum, while the Met Service just published a statement, that we may run into a Dalton type minimum with 92% probability. Where do solar scientists agree and where not ?
No, they do not expect a Maunder type minimum. What they said was that the current minimum was not any deeper that the Maunder minimum, specifically “Therefore, the best estimate of magnetic activity, and presumably TSI, for the least-active Maunder Minimum phases appears to be provided by direct measurement in 2008-2009”. The Met Service are not solar scientists.
JJ says:
February 9, 2012 at 1:28 pm
She finds Lean’s slide show easier to interpret than yours. Must be a Judy thing, we wouldn’t understand ;^)
Likely because Lean’s is closer to Curry’s own field.
Joachim Seifert says:
February 9, 2012 at 5:35 pm
your proposed data for the distances Sun-Earth are given in NASA JPL Horizons
Which are the best available and include the perturbations, etc from all the planets, moons, and all the larger asteroids and are of very high accuracy [meters] and are based on all available measurements and continuously updated as new data becomes available. Consult: http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?horizons
Leif,
wonderful, the JPL data, including perturbations….. but, but:
the data of JPL Horizons are NOT employed in IPCC AR4 wg1-chapt 2, 6 and 9 analyses…..
and therefore the perturbations are missing and, see chapt 2 of Mr. Forster: We all “assume”
a “Invariance of the orbit”!! … ???……. Is this “IPCC warmist science” to continue assuming and assuming and rejecting orbit research [TSU error reply: “no ACTION warranted”]
Please read more accurately……
In order to deprive the orbit its due RF, the IPCC uses the old-fashioned Belgian stuff,
based on Berger, A, 1978, and of orbit RF deniers, the, in due course advanced
vice-presidente Ypersele, then Goosse, Cruzifix, Bertrand, Loutre etc….
……. Further: your relevance milleniums quote for glacial times….quote taken from chapter 6,
there even more rigid : “SOLELY” the “eccentricity”.!!….
They TSU replied to my complaint about “Solely”: “Solely” because the simulation study “solely” used Bergers 1978 eccentricity parameters and nothing more” [no perturbations, librations, osculations of the orbit…they were all left out….AGW says Hallo!]
…..This was all done on purpose in order to oversell CO2……but this will not
continue, because they cannot hide the truth anymore, just continue with arrogance combined
with ignorance, as they do…..and climate villains as Mr. Cruzifix inflates himself in his blog as a great, true scientist, to whom student may come with humble questions but he will never look
into another blog for advances in science….. he knows everything….I heard this before…..
Make sure you dont associate with the wrong kind of “”Scientists”” because this word slowly
loses its brilliance…..JS
R. Gates says:
February 9, 2012 at 4:08 pm
She certainly would not agree with the statement: “It’s (just the sun) stupid”, as she fully understands that humans are playing a role in altering Earth’s climate.
———————————————————————–
She would then be the only person on the planet with this ability, perhaps besides R.Gates.
Why don’t we then shut down the IPCC and their satellite institutes and just ask Lean or Gates if there is a problem ?
Allan MacRae says: February 9, 2012 at 12:36 am
In this complex case, I suggest that the best test of one’s scientific credibility is the degree to which one can accurately predict future global temperatures.
How many of you are prepared to go on record with your best estimate?
__________________________________________________________
So far, none of you have accepted my challenge.
It’s all very nice to argue about the infinite number of arcane details within this complex subject, but why not provide your best estimate of the important bottom line?
If you don’t like the way I worded the question above, then please change it.
Will the next few decades be warmer, about the same, or cooler?
If you have no opinion, based on all your work, that also is worth noting.
___________________________________________________________
I say there is no probability of more warming in the next few decades, since Earth is at the plateau of a natural warming cycle, and global cooling, moderate or severe, is the next step.
It is notable that those such as the IPCC team who predict catastrophic global warming have had to invent reasons (and fabricate data) to support their cases and hindcast their deeply flawed computer models – for example, inventing alleged (and non-existent) aerosol data to explain the global cooling that occurred from ~1945-1975. Expect more phantom aerosols to suddenly materialize as global cooling resumes.
These IPCC arguments have no scientific basis – they are religious dogma, that say: “Since we KNOW that the manmade increase in atmospheric CO2 is a dangerous driver of Earth’s temperature, then there MUST BE an explanation such as aerosols to explain the cooling.”
Furthermore, when confronted with the fact that CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales, they say it MUST BE a feedback effect. There is a much simpler explanation.
The IPCC arguments also assume that the Uniformitarian Principle has been rescinded, and Occam’s Razor can safely be ignored (but just for them).
Allan,
in temp forecasting, we are 4: You, Nicola Scafetta, the Russian Abibullov and me
in Amazon.de ISBN 978-3-86805-604-4 (In German)
The booklet concerns Earth’s orbit perturbations and Librations, because the real
Earth’s trajectory is not the mathematically calculated mean progressive path but
rather a ligation spiral flight around this orbital path…..
Looking into this…. the forecast until 2100 is undisputably clear…temps are going down ..
Greetings
JS
Allan MacRae says:
February 10, 2012 at 7:55 am
…………
I don’t do predictions, only use extrapolations, these can be used for far more accurate forecasts based purely on numerical analysis of the historical data.
You can see some here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Fc.htm
@Geoff Sharp says:
February 9, 2012 at 7:15 pm
“Supporting evidence for this statement Ulric?”
Eyeball the OMNI and the ENSO/AO/AAO data Geoff, the correlation is overwhelming. I can`t see any evidence for changes in UV impacting ENSO/AO/AAO in the short term.
Joachim Seifert says:
February 10, 2012 at 9:07 am
the forecast until 2100 is undisputably clear…temps are going down ..
Is that based on the orbital parameters?
I am happy to agree, as based on the CET’s natural variability, see the second large graph here
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NV.htm
Yes, this is based on orbital parameters…….but not on the 2-D ellipse eccentricity Keplerian
5 elements (Oblq/Ecc…etc. ) but on parameters of the real 3-D-trajectory i.e. orbit perturbation- libration-, and orbit osculation- parameters, which the IPCC knows but not talk about in
public, the IPCC TSU-answer to me says : Its “classified” – cant even say what that should mean to me…..
….. I also do NOT derive conclusions from statistical climate performance of the past 150 years
and trying to extend results into the future….which is the case with Warmism:.They.extend the
20 Cty trend into the 21 Cty, which must fail, when the trend top plateau is reached and
temps will/must/can only go flat for awhile and then downwards….
Obvious to see….. the prove is at hand and CO2 is nothing but a hoax and scam….
See Lit: ISBN 978-3-86805-604-4 (at Amazon.DE)
JS
Joachim Seifert says:
February 10, 2012 at 8:49 am
wonderful, the JPL data, including perturbations….. but, but:
the data of JPL Horizons are NOT employed in IPCC AR4 wg1-chapt 2, 6 and 9 analyses…..
Climate models use a good approximation fitted to the VERY accurate JPL computations. Over the period that the models cover the perturbations etc are small enough that they don’t matter. For example, over the period 1900 to 2100, the average distance decreases over the 200 yrs by 0.000003245 AU, corresponding to a temperature increase of 0.0009K. This graph http://www.leif.org/research/Distance-from-Sun-1900-2100.png shows how the distance varies month by month over 1900-2100. The red curve is a 1-yr running mean and the thick black line is the trend. The fluctuations of the red curve corresponds to temperature fluctuations of the order of 0.02K. None of these changes need be included in models over a century.
For calculating the Milankovitch cycles the full accuracy [not the approximation] is used.
I slowly lose interest to reply….
(1) ……What has to be determined are the size, dimension and the period of Librations, osculations, perturbations (too general this term) the J_2-motion etc.
Just to say: They are included in JPL Horizons….then: we cannot determine their effect if
they are included….we have to separate, to filter them out in order to assess their
effectiveness…… where are the MEASUREMENTS for these?
Your values given are based on nothing else than the 5 elliptic Keplerian elements….
sure, with those you will reach your minuscule temp effects….. I do NOT TALK about
2-D flat surface KEPLERIAN Elements….. but of parameters of the real 3-D-trajectory
LIGATING around your 2-D Keplerian orbit line….
(2) The AR4 chapter 2,6,9 are based in their astronomic assessment on all the
Belgian stuff !!!!! and not on NASA JPL…..
(3) GCMs are “Circulation” models, they let a lot of atmospheric/ocean tropospheric
causes circle, but the only thing ALWAYS MISSING is planetary circling in its orbit…and
detailed circling measurements…….
(4) To your distances Sun-Earth: It is only believed that the semi-MINOR axis has the
length of 1 AU…..pure assumptions…..therefore your graph is nothing more
than assumption….
JS
Mr. VUKCEVIC, my reply of 12:56 pm is for you, it somehow did not go under your comment….
JS
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 10, 2012 at 10:00 am
This graph
The red curve and black curve use a different scale [on the right] than the blue monthly curve. If I didn’t do that you could hardly see the variation: http://www.leif.org/research/Distance-from-Sun-1900-2100-x.png as the variation though the year completely dominates over the insignificant perturbations. That yearly variation must be taken into account by the models and it is. BTW the variation of TSI due to the variation through the year is almost 100 times larger than that due to solar activity.
Ulric Lyons says:
February 10, 2012 at 8:37 am
Eyeball the OMNI and the ENSO/AO/AAO data Geoff, the correlation is overwhelming. I can`t see any evidence for changes in UV impacting ENSO/AO/AAO in the short term.
You will need to plot the 4 sets of data and show us, eyeballing is not good enough. I cant see any trends in the solar wind speed that would match anything.
The AO/AAO are ultimately controlled by the polar vortexes associated with each. There is not one function that controls a polar vortex, but UV is involved in the process in the north at least. Solar wind speed also plays a part in UV modulation by creating NOx from aurora type action (EPP) that destroys ozone at higher levels, but due to all the other factors required to break down the polar vortex I would be very surprised to see the AO and solar wind speed having any correlation.
Geoff Sharp says:
February 10, 2012 at 2:07 pm
“You will need to plot the 4 sets of data and show us, eyeballing is not good enough. I cant see any trends in the solar wind speed that would match anything.”
They are all available, this 3 month running mean AO plot is workable if you zoom in on it:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/month_ao_index.shtml
and here are temporary plasma speed plots:
http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/tmp/images/ret_23114.gif
http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/tmp/images/ret_25572.gif
and what you are looking for them rising and falling at the same time, best done in one year chunks. Exceptions occur briefly from El Chichon and Pinatubo.
Geoff Sharp says:
February 10, 2012 at 2:07 pm
“The AO/AAO are ultimately controlled by the polar vortexes associated with each.”
The state of the vortex is down to the pressure differential between the polar region and beyond, eg the AO, which also affects the ozone concentrations.
Joachim Seifert says:
February 10, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Yes, this is based on orbital parameters…….but not on the 2-D ellipse eccentricity Keplerian
5 elements (Oblq/Ecc…etc. ) but on parameters of the real 3-D-trajectory i.e. orbit perturbation- libration-, and orbit osculation- parameters
The plots I showed you include all the perturbations etc and give the true distance to meter accuracy. I don’t know where get the ‘it’s classified’ idea from, but it is dead wrong.
You seem to be well acquainted with orbital data…
I am open to learn…. please let me know the perturbation, or libration or oscillation size (in km)
deviating from the mean progressive orbital line…… for just one day in September or October (this is the km-distance of the real planetary flown trajectory to the calculated center line of the mean progressive path)… you may select the day…..no problem….
We are not talking about the distances to the Sun (they are listed in JPL Horizons…).
Thanks a lot….I am keen to know…..
JS
Joachim Seifert says:
February 11, 2012 at 3:34 pm
We are not talking about the distances to the Sun (they are listed in JPL Horizons…).
What is of interest for the climate is the distance to the Sun. The deviation from the Keplerian orbit is not of interest, but those perturbations [as you can see from my graph] are typically +/-750 km or 0.005% of 1 AU.
To Leif……
Wonderful, with which parameters or variables were those 750 km determined?
I am sure, its not guesswork, you have it all well documented……
On which days of the year exist the maximum 750 km orbit oscillation and on which days
is the oscillation, lets say, only half or nil?
How do these oscillations from the orbit change from year to year….?
The equation for calculating the orbit oscillation would be of interest for me……
I am not so good at measuring graphs with the millimeter stick….
Thanks again..
JS
Ulric Lyons says:
February 10, 2012 at 6:39 pm
I looked long and hard and saw no correlation between the 2 datasets. I think you are drawing a very long bow Ulric. You need to be more careful when making statements that have no empirical evidence behind them.
Geoff Sharp says:
February 10, 2012 at 11:16 pm
“I looked long and hard and saw no correlation between the 2 datasets.”
Start with ENSO then, note the falling (and lower) SW speed from late `96 through 97 = strong Nino.
Then SW speed rises from `98 through to 2000 = strong Nina. Now see the same Nino/Nina pattern going `09/10/11, which was preceded by the sharp rise in `07 = strong Nina. That`s the most obvious features in the data, and most of the rest of it maps very well by this relationship. Yes there is inertia and lags involved so the correlation is not perfect season by season as can be seen when an El Nino is in full swing, eg. at the end of `94, `02 and `04.
http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/tmp/images/ret_25572.gif
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
“You need to be more careful when making statements that have no empirical evidence behind them.”
Now it can`t be just me that thinks that is a projection lol !
This was to Leif,
thanks a lot……
JS
Joachim Seifert says:
February 12, 2012 at 11:06 am
Wonderful, with which parameters or variables were those 750 km determined?
The equation for calculating the orbit oscillation would be of interest for me……
The JPL Horizon system does the calculation, not by solving one equation, but by integrating the movement of the Earth around the Sun by adding up all the gravitational forces from all the bodies in the solar system large enough to have any significant influence: http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?horizons
I told the system to calculate the position of the Earth for every month for the year 1900-2100. Here are the first few lines of the output:
1900-Jan-01 00:00 18 50 14.22 -22 56 58.4 -26.78 -10.59 0.98326627309651
1900-Feb-01 00:00 21 02 17.53 -16 53 28.6 -26.77 -10.59 0.98551482453572
1900-Mar-01 00:00 22 51 15.01 -07 18 13.6 -26.76 -10.59 0.99113596193580
1900-Apr-01 00:00 00 44 54.95 +04 49 48.5 -26.74 -10.59 0.99963460093765
1900-May-01 00:00 02 36 27.32 +15 18 25.2 -26.72 -10.59 1.00792490800743
etc, the bold [last] column shows the distance in AU, which is what I plotted as the blue curve on http://www.leif.org/research/Distance-from-sun-1900-2100.png. If you computed the 1-year running mean of this curve you would get no variation at all if the orbit was just a fixed Keplerian ellipse. The red curve is the actual running mean and shows that there are variations [see scale on the right of the order of up to 0.00005 AU, which is 750 km.
blue curve on http://www.leif.org/research/Distance-from-Sun-1900-2100.png.
On the [red] curve you can see the recurring spikes due to each planet, e.g. the largest ones by Jupiter.
[Fixed]
To Leif:
Your insistence on JPL as only source does NOT get you to the bottom of orbit and
climate related aspects….
…and you can see it that you cannot quantify for example the ORBITAL OSCULATION,
not to confound with “oscillation” and 750 km in deviation…..!
The Osculation is NOT the apsidal (perihelion-aphelion) precession, also NOT an axial
precession, but the ecliptic precession or precession of the ecliptic plane, which is
the largest at both ends of MINOR axis (tipping axis is the line of apsides)
…. since this movement is slow from decades to
centuries, it does NOT figure within JPL calculations…. therefore also not in yours….
The Osculation of the Earth’s orbit, however, is a long known fact and was already detected by
Kepler, followed by Newton and Carl Gauss, who, with simple telescopes, tried to
calculate and derive formulae for this osculation….
Reason for the osculating flight of the planet is the SPIRAL form of the flight around
the mean calculated orbital path…..
Have a look into this and you will see as one of the first, that there is PLENTY of RF
in the orbit trajectory and that “CO2-warming” means only a “stealing of RF” from the
orbit, as your genuine osculation calculation progresses….
JS
Joachim Seifert says:
February 13, 2012 at 12:39 pm
Your insistence on JPL as only source does NOT get you to the bottom of orbit and
climate related aspects….
…and you can see it that you cannot quantify for example the ORBITAL OSCULATION,
not to confound with “oscillation” and 750 km in deviation…..!
The Osculation is NOT the apsidal (perihelion-aphelion) precession, also NOT an axial
precession, but the ecliptic precession or precession of the ecliptic plane, which is
the largest at both ends of MINOR axis (tipping axis is the line of apsides)
…. since this movement is slow from decades to centuries, it does NOT figure within JPL calculations…. therefore also not in yours….
First: the perturbations you mention ARE included in JPL’s calculation [why do you persist in believing they are not, even when told they are?].
Second: What is important for the climate is the distance to the Sun which is independent of the tilt of any planes.
You need to be sure that you know what the osculating elements are, but just to show you that those are calculated as well, here is a sample output from JPL:
Output type : GEOMETRIC osculating elements
Coordinate systm: Ecliptic and Mean Equinox of Reference Epoch
2415020.500000000 = A.D. 1900-Jan-01 00:00:00.0000 (CT)
EC= 1.766239635827109E-02 QR= 9.832643247375470E-01 IN= 1.380877565143005E-02
OM= 3.460758839043527E+02 W = 1.163342171060913E+02 Tp= 2415021.342553801369
N = 9.842160804813462E-01 MA= 3.591707450001798E+02 TA= 3.591407921352151E+02
A = 1.000943383509277E+00 AD= 1.018622442281007E+00 PR= 3.657733369118866E+02
2415051.500000000 = A.D. 1900-Feb-01 00:00:00.0000 (CT)
EC= 1.749700629408761E-02 QR= 9.834227708682879E-01 IN= 1.365423862667881E-02
OM= 3.518583973415131E+02 W = 1.124759745522640E+02 Tp= 2415023.237860533874
N = 9.842267390312531E-01 MA= 2.781635336480077E+01 TA= 2.877036546105614E+01
A = 1.000936157109207E+00 AD= 1.018449543350127E+00 PR= 3.657693758191714E+02
etc
where
Coordinate system description:
Ecliptic and Mean Equinox of Reference Epoch
Reference epoch: J2000.0
xy-plane: plane of the Earth’s orbit at the reference epoch
x-axis : out along ascending node of instantaneous plane of the Earth’s
orbit and the Earth’s mean equator at the reference epoch
z-axis : perpendicular to the xy-plane in the directional (+ or -) sense
of Earth’s north pole at the reference epoch.
Symbol meaning [1 AU=149597870.691 km, 1 day=86400.0 s]:
JDCT Epoch Julian Date, Coordinate Time
EC Eccentricity, e
QR Periapsis distance, q (AU)
IN Inclination w.r.t xy-plane, i (degrees)
OM Longitude of Ascending Node, OMEGA, (degrees)
W Argument of Perifocus, w (degrees)
Tp Time of periapsis (Julian day number)
N Mean motion, n (degrees/day)
MA Mean anomaly, M (degrees)
TA True anomaly, nu (degrees)
A Semi-major axis, a (AU)
AD Apoapsis distance (AU)
PR Orbital period (day)
Leif…..
you see, this astronomical side is very complex to judge…..
I appreciate your effort to share your knowledge…… since we get more and more
into specific details and you maintain the “IPCC assumption” (see AR4-wg1-chapter 2:
“”it is only assumed that there is no RF to be found in the orbit””)….. let us rather
email: weltklima (at) Gmail to continue, we do not want to bore the post readers…..
Thanks anyway, the best would be you get a copy of my booklet on the subject
only 15 $, less than paywalled papers, and you can see my points clearer (plenty
of graphs included…) .
I would appreciate if you could try a refutation of my arguments….the booklet still
stays unrefuted and you have the honour to be the FIRST with your
extensive astronomical knowledge…..
Please see, how far you would get, you efforts would gain a massive and relieved
applause from CAGW and the AGW aficionados, which are, until now,
not capable to do it….
Saludos again
JS
Joachim Seifert says:
February 10, 2012 at 9:07 am
Earth’s trajectory is not the mathematically calculated mean progressive path but
rather a ligation spiral flight around this orbital path…..
;———————————————————————————————————–
The center of mass of the Earth and Moon follows the Keplerian ellipse around the Sun.
The center of mass of lies roughly 4.7 km from the center of the Earth.
A distant observer would see the Earth and Moon orbiting the ellipse where the Earth’s orbit would be small and the Moon’s orbit would be large.
If the center of mass was outside the surface of the Earth, then the Earth and Moon would have been classified as a dual-planet (since the mass of Moon is unusually large for a moon.)
Agile…..
you are right on the gravitational unit Earth-Moon with their common center of gravitation….
You are not right concerning the Kepler path: This is too coarse and high school level
only, see comments in the NASA JPL Horizons page , where they demonstrate how they
calculate the orbit with their DE 405 program….. Kepler is too primitive….
The IPCC and Wikipedia are not better: They maintain that the geometrical Kepler eccentricity
only influences/controls/determines the orbit…. they never heard of NASA JPL in Pasadena,
giving professional values than IPCC Warmist lie crap…..
JS
Joachim Seifert says:
February 13, 2012 at 2:09 pm
you maintain the “IPCC assumption” (see AR4-wg1-chapter 2:
“”it is only assumed that there is no RF to be found in the orbit””)
It is an assumption based on the FACT that the orbital changes over a century are too small to worry about.
I would appreciate if you could try a refutation of my arguments
I have already done that here in great detail, so shall spare you further pain.
Leif: Do not worry about further pain….no problem in this…..
I prefer to advance in climate science related to the orbit..and appreciate cooperation…..
……. If you could help me with your number crunching:
Question: What are the 3 values according to your knowledge for the
orbital osculation precession distance at the 15 Sept, the 4 Oct and the 27 Oct?
Let me see, if I have to revise my numbers…. you are the specialist….
The orbital osculation precession is the vertical distance between the top
ecliptic plane possible at this date of the year and the bottom ecliptic
plane possible at this date; the values are in the more than 1 million km range….
Please let me know……Thanks in advance
JS
Agile Aspect says:
February 13, 2012 at 1:52 pm
The center of mass of lies roughly 4.7 km from the center of the Earth.
;—————————————————————————————-
Opps – the center of mass lies 4700 km from the center of the Earth which is roughly 3/4 the distance from the center to the surface.
Joachim Seifert says:
February 13, 2012 at 2:37 pm
They maintain that the geometrical Kepler eccentricity only influences/controls/determines the orbit…. they never heard of NASA JPL in Pasadena, giving professional values than IPCC Warmist lie crap…..
They HAVE heard of JPL, but have performed the same assessment that I have shown you here, namely that over a century the perturbations are to small to influence TSI in any measurable way.
Perhaps you could tell us how large you think the perturbations are in AU or km…
Leif: I just read your assumption about orbital analysis done by the IPCC……:
quote:
“They HAVE heard of JPL, but have performed the same assessment that I have shown you here, namely that over a century the perturbations are to small to influence TSI in any measurable way.”
Answer:
The IPCC AR4- analyses are not similiar to yours using advanced JPL horizons, but are based
on the primitive Kepler approach of A.Berger 1978, being referred to by Goosse, H.; Reussen, H.; Timmermann, A.; Bradley, R.S. “Internal and forced climate variability during the last
millenium: A model-data comparison using ensemble simulations
in: Quarternary Science Review 24, p. 1345-60.
This is the major study quoted with its number in chapter 9 by Mrs. Warmist Hegerl….
Have a look please and you will see the Warmist IPCC is assuming without precise
analysis, repeating Berger, A., with who I am also in correspondence and I know their
low level of scientific standard in Belgium…..
JS
Joachim Seifert says:
February 13, 2012 at 2:37 pm
You are not right concerning the Kepler path.
;————————————————————————————————–
False.
It should be clear if the center of mass of the Earth and the Moon is following a Keplerian ellipse around the Sun, and that the resulting motion of the Earth around the Sun is complicated.
If it’s not clear, try Google.