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:
@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.