Richard Willoughby
Summary
This article examines Earth’s orbital precession and its influence on the solar radiation reaching Earth. It then considers how the seasonal changes in solar EMR are contributing to observed changes in Earth’s climate.
A simple matrix of Earth’s climate zones and annual seasons is introduced to provide a coherent basis for comparing changes from year-to-year and the annual anomalies to the average of the years 1980 to 2010.
Introduction
Earth’s orbit around the barycentre of the solar system and the Sun’s movement relative to the barycentre causes a continually evolving geometric relationship between Earth and Sun. The geometry of the relationship can be reduced to two variables at any point in time – the distance between their respective centres and the declination of Earth’s equatorial plane to the rays from the sun. These two variables can be used to calculate the solar electro-magnetic radiation (EMR) reaching the top of Earth’s atmosphere (ToA) and its zenith angle at any latitude on Earth.
NASA JPL provides daily declination and distance data through the Horizons portal. Charts 1 and 2 show the values as determined for the two variables for every day of 1850. Chart 2 also includes the daily ToA EMR based on a solar constant of 1361W/m2.
In 1850, Earth reached one Astronomic Unit (AU) distance from the Sun on day 91, which was 11 days later than the March equinox on day 80. The maximum distance between Earth and Sun in 1850 was 1.01676AU on day 184; 12 days after the June solstice. Taking a solar constant of 1361W/m2, the minimum zenith solar EMR was 1306.5W/m2. The distance again reached 1AU on day 275; 9 days after the September equinox. The minimum distance of 0.98323AU occurred on the last day of the year, which was 9 days later than the December solstice. The peak solar EMR at zenith in 1850 was 1407.8W/m2 or 101.3W/m^2 above the minimum.
Changes in Declination & Distance from 1850 to 2040
There has never been and never will be two days in Earth’s existence with identical Earth-Sun declination and distance. Charts 3 and 4 indicate how these variables have, and will, change from 1850 to 2040 as daily anomalies with respect to 1850. Each of the charts has 69,761 individual points so only the trends and significant variation are evident.
The anomalous distance is diverging due to the orbital eccentricity reducing; distance at perihelion is increasing while distance at aphelion is reducing. Both the distance and declination anomalies exhibit a step change around 1900. The declination anomaly exhibits its maximum in 1904 of 0.419 degrees then declines to 1992 before increasing again.
The significance of these changes in Earth’s geometric relationship to the Sun can be best appreciated by considering the spatial and temporal variation of solar EMR reaching Earth’s atmosphere for specified time and latitude. Chart 5 looks at the most significant difference for the 190 years examined here. It compares the difference in daily average intensity for both 60N and 60S through 2037 relative to 1912.
The peak difference at 60N of 7.245W/m2 occurs on day 91. The difference at minimum for 60N is 7.235W/m2 occurring on day 241; 150 days after the maximum difference. The minimum and maximum differences for 60S occur on day 66 at 7.31W/m2 down and day 285 at 7.155W/m2 up with a separation of 219 days between the minimum and maximum difference.
Seasonal and Zonal Differences
Chart 5 above highlights the significant variation in solar intensity that orbital changes can have spatially over a relatively short time frame of 125 years. However there is some symmetry about these changes such that the accumulated EMR available in both hemispheres each year is almost identical. Taking 2037 as an example, the March equinox will occur 187 days before the September equinox. Correspondingly, the southern hemisphere will be exposed to the same total solar radiation in just 178 days. Hence the solar intensity in the SH has to be considerably higher on average given the shorter period of exposure.
Looking at the thermal response to solar EMR at selected locations gives insight into zonal and seasonal response. The examples are taken from the BoM Climate Data as it provides easily accessible daily temperature readings for a large number of sites. The first example is a coastal location, Low Head, in northern Tasmania at 41S. Chart 6 is a plot of maximum daily temperature and ToA solar EMR at 40S for 2023.
This is a temperate location that shows highly correlated thermal response to ToA solar EMR when the EMR is lagged by 39 days indicative of moderate thermal lag.
Charts 7 and 8 indicate the thermal response for tropical coastal locations in Queensland.
In both tropical locations, the correlation is worse than the temperate zone with both responses exhibiting departure above 425W/m2 when the location goes into monsoon with its attendant temperature regulation around 30C. The response delay for Brisbane is only 22 days compared with 38 days for Hamilton Island due to the Island being surrounded by water, which has a slower response to solar EMR. Hamilton Island also cools quite rapidly once the lagged EMR falls below the monsoon threshold.
Charts 9 and 10 show the thermal response in the Antarctic region where freezing occurs. The thermal responses in this region are not as well correlated with the lagged EMR as the temperate zone or tropics.
Macquarie Island is a small, remote location in the South Pacific at 55S influenced by the Southern Ocean. Chart 9 plots the minimum temperature to highlight how the minimum levels off around 2C despite the solar EMR falling below 220W/m2, which appears to be the threshold where freezing sets in. Despite Macquarie Island being surrounded by ice-free ocean, it has snow down to water edge during winter.
Mawson Base is located on Antarctica at 68S where sea ice forms. The best correlation occurs when EMR is lagged by 15 days so the response lag is more like an inland location rather than ocean edge. Once the lagged EMR is below 220W/m2, the temperature exhibits large swings indicative of low thermal inertia and varying advection from warmer regions. Mawson becomes thermally isolated from the warmer ocean water that remains water above minus 1.7C but beneath sea ice.
Climate Zones &Annual Phases
From Earth’s perspective, the exposure to solar radiation can be classified into six latitudinal zones and four annual phases. For the purpose of comparison here, the Zones are:
Northern Hemisphere: Arctic 60N to 90N, Temperate 30N to 60N, Tropical 0N to 30N
Southern Hemisphere: Antarctic 60S to 90S, Temperate 30S to 90S, Tropical 0S to 30S
The annual phases are taken from December Solstice to March Equinox to June Solstice to September Equinox to December Solstice. The zones and phases can be visualised as a six by four matrix as shown in Matrix 1 for conditions in 1850
The “Freezing” phase or season occurs predominantly in the Arctic and Antarctic zones. Similarly, the “Monsoon” season is predominantly in the tropical zone of both hemispheres. The “Days” are area averaged for the zone such that the maximum is the length of the season in days. The threshold for freezing is taken at 220W/m2 at each latitude and for monsoon 425W/m2 at each latitude.
Both the “Heating” and “Cooling” seasons are based on area average daily solar EMR across the entire hemisphere.
Advection is broadly taken as shifting heat across seasons and polewards. The heat is in the form of both latent and sensible heat. Accordingly, advection is related to precipitation and will influence snowfall in freezing zones. The advection value is simply calculated as the difference between heating and cooling in respective hemisphere and is therefore no more than a qualitative indicator. Advection between hemispheres is assumed negligible.
Orbital Driven Anomalies for Seasons and Zones
Chart 11 displays the variation in Monsoon and Freezing days from 1850 to 2040 as anomalies with respect to the average from 1980 to 2010.
Although there is variation of the order of 2% from year-to-year, there is no identifiable trend.
Chart 12 examines the anomalies wrt 1980-2010 average for heating, cooling and advection for both hemispheres.
All plots of Chart 12 exhibit identifiable trends with the NH trending upward and the SH trending downward. There is also significant variation year-to-year.
Weather Prediction
The season and zone matrix has some alignment with significant weather events observed since 1850. For example, an above average NH Monsoon (0.51days) is indicated in Matrix 2 for 1900. The 1900 typhoon season was notable for deaths in Japan, Hong Kong, Vietnam and Taiwan. In the same year, the monsoon failed in northern Australia, consistent with the low SH monsoon down (0.31days) but southern Australia experienced record rainfall in May with Yarra River flooding consistent with SH Advection being 0.67W/m2 above average.
Looking back from 2025 to 1850, 2022 experienced the highest NH Heating season as shown in Matrix 3. The NH Cooling season was also up on average. By contrast, the SH Cooling was also up but the SH Heating season was down on the average.
2005 was also a year of relatively high NH Heating (0.43W/m2) and NH Advection (0.37W/m2) was also higher. Combined, these would be expected to increase late season tropical storms.
Looking ahead, 2038 is a standout year for anomalous NH Heating with it being up by 0.55W/m2 on the 1980 to 2010 average and 1.23W/m2 up on 1852. NH Advection is also anomalously high in 2038.
Climate Trends
There have been substantial orbital changes since 1850 but they are miniscule compared to what is to come. By 2100, the anomalous NH Heating relative to 1850 is up 1.3W/m2 and NH Advection is up 2.2W/m2 as shown in Matrix 5. Combined, these changes will result in higher early season snowfall over current experience.
In 2100, NH Cooling season has 1W/m2 lower average EMR than 1850 and both monsoon and freezing days are lower. The only significant trend in the SH is the monsoon being up by 1.5days.
The NASA JPL data is available up to the year 9999. By then, the solar EMR will be substantially reversed with respect to the hemispheres from what it was in 1850 per Matrix 6.
The increase in NH Advection tracks steadily upward from 1850 but NH Monsoon increases more rapidly after the year 5000. If NH glaciation is not already under way by 5000 the snowfall will accelerate at a greater rate after that.
It is worth noting that in the present era, almost all land south of 60S is covered in thick ice. In 2025, perihelion occurred on day 3 of the year when declination was -22.7 degrees compared with day 365 in 1850 when declination was at -23.45 degrees. So only a 4 day/0.75 degree shift but it has already resulted in identifiable climate change. In 9999, perihelion will occur on day 141 when the NH is facing the sun with declination at 20.2 degrees. The storms across the North Atlantic and North Pacific during the NH Cooling phase will rival those presently observed in the Roaring 40s, Furious 50s and Screaming 60s in the SH.
Discussion
In previous studies, the solar EMR was averaged over monthly intervals and declination was based on Earth’s orbital plane rather than actual declination of Earth’s equatorial plane to the line to the centre of the sun. This high resolution study has produced some unexpected results such as the 14+W/m2 seasonal difference in daily solar EMR across seasons as shown in Chart 5. There was also a prior presumption that the SH monsoon would be steadily decreasing and the NH monsoon would be steadily increasing contrary to what this study demonstrated. The eventual northward shift in monsoon is not apparent till year 5000.
Some effort was made to tease out the conditions that drive the temperature in the Nino34 region. There was a weak positive correlation with NH Heating and NH Cooling and negative correlation with SH Heating and SH Cooling; all lagged one year. But there was no combination of these variables found that improved the correlation over a single variable. From previous observations, the variation in the solar constant has some correlation to the temperature in the Nino34 region. Also the reconstructed variation in the solar constant over the past 200 years is of the same magnitude as the seasonal variation in ToA solar EMR caused by orbital variation. Combining both variations is for future study.
Conclusions
The daily variation in Earth’s geometric relationship with the sun correlates well with observed temperature trends and also gives some indication of weather extremes from-year-to-year.
The coming changes in Earth’s climate due to precession of the orbit will be far beyond human experience in recorded history. The NH will experience season-to-season difference of 50W/m2 at 60N with increased solar EMR during the NH Heating season and dramatically lower solar EMR during the NH Cooling season. The season-to-season swing in the SH is even greater than the NH but to milder extremes than present as shown in Chart 11; less solar EMR during SH Heating but more during SH Cooling.
From an historical climate perspective, the seasonal solar EMR at the time confirms the medieval warm period per Matrix 7.
From 1000 to 1850, the solar EMR during the Heating season in both hemispheres declined but more dramatically in the SH. The Cooling season in both hemispheres had higher solar EMR in 1850 but freezing days increased in the NH. NH Monsoon was down significantly in 1850 but SH Monsoon was higher in 1850. Advection declined in both hemispheres from 1000 to 1850. It is worth noting here that the most dramatic period in changing solar EMR in recorded history occurred from 1500 to 1700. The Heating season in both hemispheres were increasing to 1500 then there was a dramatic reversal to lower heating seasons (NH down 8W/m2, SH down 12.4W/m2) by 1700, which was little different to 1850. The so-called Little Ice Age is well aligned with orbital changes.
Finally, the total energy reaching either hemisphere does not change much from year-to-year but the seasonal ToA solar power flux can change measurably from year-to-year. The thermal response to high and low level solar EMR is muted by the phase change of liquid water and water vapour to ice. Atmospheric ice over tropical oceans regulates the level of thermalised EMR above surface temperature of 30C and surface ice on oceans and lakes insulates the water below to reduce heat loss below 0C for freshwater and minus 1.7C for ocean water.
The Author
Richard Willoughby is a retired electrical engineer having worked in the Australian mining and mineral processing industry for 30 years with roles in large scale operations, corporate R&D and mine development. A further ten years was spent in the global insurance industry as an engineering risk consultant where he developed an enduring interest in natural catastrophes and changing climate.
Nice work Rick.
It would be good to see how long it takes NASA to take down the data that you have used now that it can be shown that the sun controls the weather, with respect to the dates/year selected.
NASA’s website said “The Sun is the primary forcing of Earth’s climate system.”
But that page is archived. Perhaps it should be revived.
But the well-known NASA scientist and anagram Gavin A. Schmidt contradicted that :
“And the fingerprint that we see in all of those records, in all of those changes, is our fingerprint. It’s not anybody else’s, it’s not the Sun, it’s not the volcanoes, it’s us.”
https://www.nasa.gov/podcasts/gravity-assist/gravity-assist-lets-talk-about-climate-change-with-gavin-schmidt/#:~:text=Gavin%20Schmidt%3AAnd%20the%20fingerprint,not%20the%20volcanoes%2C%20it's%20us.
And yet the much-touted fingerprint, the hotspot, has never been found. Even the IPCC gave up on publishing the tropical hot spot image.
Yes, Climate alarmists never even talk about a tropical hot spot anymore.
And without a Tropical Hot Spot, the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) narrative is shown to be false.
CO2 can’t cause a climate crisis by itself. What Climate Alarmists claim is that CO2 will spur the generation of more water vapor (the Tropical Hot Spot), and the extra water vapor will cause the climate crisis.
So, no Tropical Hot Spot = No Climate Crisis.
Wow man, it bums me out sumptin’ awful that I have little hope of being around in the year 9999 to see if your prediction is borne out!
I am very curious how and why there was that huge step change just after the year 1900.
Howcumzit?
I would have guessed that such variations would always vary smoothly over time.
Did I miss the explanation, or was none given?
You would need to put that question to JPL. I have not gone into the planetary positions at the time to gain any insight. It could be the sun shortcutting the barycentre, which it does occasionally.
There are some interesting weather events during that period that indicate it is not a numerical issue but real. By that I mean the resulting big changes year-to-year through that period align with some significant events. Cold spell in North America in 1911-1912; the Clermont flood of 1916 that resulted in 65 deaths is still Australia’s deadliest flood.
Once I had the latitudinal EMR data assembled in a usable format it is easy to compare year-to-year or multi-year trends. Charts 11 &12 made it quite easy to look for the big swings and see what weather events corresponded. The attached gives an indication of how 2025 will compare with 2024. The changes are not trivial. It could be a hot one in the NH this summer. It also points to unusually high early season snow.
My own modelling of orbits in the solar system show interesting things through conjunctions. The big one is Jupiter and Saturn but it comes around about every 20 years. Neptune and Uranus are also significant because they pull for a long time on one side. I have not looked at possible conjunctions of Neptune-Saturn-Jupiter or Uranus-Saturn Jupiter.
My main aim with this study was to show the significant of orbital precession. There were bigger year-to-uyear changes than I expected.
When you get into the orbit in this detail, even the 4 yearly orbital reset causes changes.
Panets position
https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/night/
I wonder if Universe Sandbox’s simulation is accurate enough to have the eccentricity etc correct for past and future?
Matthew Mather and a bunch of scientists used Universe Sandbox to figure out how a pair of black holes orbiting each other could whizz past the Solar System and make a mess of it, while still leaving Earth in a habitable orbit. The masses and trajectory of the black holes had to be simulated many times, along with selecting just the right year and date for the flyby in order to have the scenario work. Mather then used that simulation information to write the parts of his book describing what happened to the solar system. Goodbye Mars, hello to Saturn getting yanked into an orbit that has Earth on a collision course for its rings.
Since there’s been several updates since that simulation was made, I suspect it might be accurate enough for the “small” details of axial precession.
“Cold spell in North America in 1911-1912”
Yes, and there was an equally cold period in the late 1970’s, when some climate scientists were fearing the Earth was about to enter a new Ice Age. The chart below shows both.
Hansen 1999:
I heard stories from grandparents about the winter of 1916 in SE Michigan about how bad that winter was. They said there were snow drifts as tall as houses.
Rick,
Does your analysis work backwards, say from -1000 to 2000, a total of three thousand years, during which temperature trends are fairly well known in the Northern Hemisphere?
That period would include the RWP, Cold Dark Ages, MWP, LIA, PWP
This covers superior conjunctions and quadratures of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, and the major heatwaves and cold-waves they order.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQemMt_PNwwBKNOS7GSP7gbWDmcDBJ80UJzkqDIQ75_Sctjn89VoM5MIYHQWHkpn88cMQXkKjXznM-u/pub
Also the US had a deadly heatwave in 1911.
1900 was not a leap year, which effectively caused a one day shift.
Thanks Richard, a great overview.
Can you send a copy to the BBC and to David Attenborough directly. They may find it useful when rowing back on their nonsense CO2 storylines.
I would also suggest sending a copy to Michael Mann but not certain he would understand it. Worth a try though…
Mann has advanced degrees in geophysics and math. I don’t doubt that he could understand it. More importantly, would his cognitive bias allow him to acknowledge that he understands it?
He wouldn’t bother reading it. He would just call the authors big oil shills and leave it at that.
And give up his undeserving study grants?
This is really interesting and gives more support to the idea that the sun is the driver of our climate. (Who’d a thunk it?)
the paper deserves broader discussion and review
Oh come on! IF the Sun were a driver of of climate then it would get colder at night and warmer during the day. 😉
Some words about Planerary Theory
Carl is no longer with us, but he has certainly left us with a legacy. Back in 1965 Paul Jose was one of the first to link solar modulation with planetary movements. He discovered that the planets roughly returned to the same position every 178.8 years (My research suggests 172 yrs). Jose’s paper included a very rough solar radius graph which showed some modulation but was difficult to draw from. Later Theodor Landscheidt wrote many papers using a similar principle but mainly relied on solar torque graphs which ranged over long time periods. Theodor also focused on the zero crossings or when the Sun returns to the centre of the solar system, which in my opinion is not the crucial stage but happens close to grand minima. Landscheidt predicted a Grand Minimum to start at 1990, peak around 2030 (the latter 2030 might be late, if the current trend continues) and extend out to 2070…Those dates are derived from the zero crossing method which incorporates an extreme in solar torque measurements.
My plan is to extend this work at this detail to the solar activity. I have made a few discoveries in regard to this challenge that I have not previously seen in scientific papers.
The first is that the sun does not actually orbit around the barycentre of the solar system. There are times when it short cuts the barycentre such that its 11 year orbit does not result in the centre going around the barycentre.
So calculating the orbital torque on the sun requires first establishing its effective centre of orbit at any specified time. The centre of its turning today is minus 0.0027AU and 0.0014AU in the ICRF coordinates. The turning radius is 0,007AU. Both the turning centre and turning radius are variable.
The other discovery is related to observing the sun from a platform that is revolving around the sun. Earth’s view of the sun is only half of it. Observations of solar activity on Earth are not the same as the solar activity on the sun because the activity is related to the equatorial torque on the sun and that varies around the sun.
There is also the issue of whether the solar activity is driven by the gravitational torque or the changing gravitational force at the surface due to the orbital spin imposed on the sun’s own rotation which has latitudinal variation over the surface. .
Maybe you find s.th. in the Landscheidt papers here:
https://landscheidt.info/?q=node/302
I’m not aware what John A. Eddy is writing about in his book
So, we’ve got “panets” and “planerary”. Will Plantar be next?
Writing on phone isn’t very user friendly, sorry.
Is that all you have to answer?
I have to have a full-sized keyboard. 🙂
The work of Fairbridge and Shirley in 1987 led me down the climastrology path many years ago. Classical statistics does not work terribly well when trying to link solar system planetary movements and sun repositioning wrt earth’s climate shifts, but there is always a hint that there is a link. I think Rick is getting close!
There is no grand minimum, so the prediction failed. All four gas giants plus Earth and Venus at 179.05 years works for weather quite often, but not for solar cycles or centennial solar minima. Though I don’t believe that gravitational mechanisms are involved.
You mean, there is not a single, simple, reason that atmospheric temperatures change?
Frankly I was rather lost in the details of this data presentation, and I am not an astrophysicist so I am not educated on the geometrical dynamics of our sun in relationship to the rest of the solar system. What I am satisfied on is the fact that “everything looks simple when you don’t know what you’re talking about’ are words to live by.
Every time someone asserts that CO2 is the sole, or main “temperature control knob” of the Earth’s atmosphere I cringe. Nothing so complex as our universe is ever simple, whether at the astronomic, planetary, local, micro, or sub-atomic scales. There is just stuff that we as humans (at least some of us) understand and know, and far more stuff that we don’t understand and know, at least until later on in human scientific development.
There are huge gaps in our understanding. What is gravity? How is it possible for two masses in space to be influencing each other by virtue of their mass.
Then why \do gravity fields and electro-magnetic fields have the same characteristic velocity in space. There has to be a connection.
Lots of fundamental questions yet to answer. But the IPCC are highly confident that human combustion of fossil fuels is the dominant cause of Earth’s warming
“Cringe” is the perfect word to describe that feeling! Some political bully, ignorant of science and reason, jumping on the CO2 bandwagon to control other people, using “humanity’s carbon fingerprint” to prove our “guilt” in a show trial in the media.
It’s all great information, but the warmistas will ignore it all since you’re an electrical engineer instead of a climate scientist.
One thing I’ve been wanting to know is the maximum and minimum latitudes of the Arctic and Antarctic Circles, and how much surface area is between those bounds? The ever changing axial tilt also has input into Earth’s climate, in part from how much of the polar zones have no sunlight or constant sunlight during their summers and winters.
What got me onto this bit of information was years ago I read an article about the seasonal storms that ring Antarctica were noted to be getting closer to the continent’s shore. A quick web search showed that Earth’s axis has been trending towards less tilt and will continue to do so towards its predicted minimum tilt. Of course the minimum and maximum angles have never been directly measured, so we can’t be 100% certain the tilt will only go that far, and no further.
So, with the axis becoming less tilted, the storms closing in on the Antarctic coast has an obvious major input. Less axial tilt = Antarctic Circle is moving farther south. Likewise the Arctic Circle is moving farther north.
Currently the Antarctic Circle sits not far offshore of the continent. Not much land reaches outside the circle. It’s a size coincidence on par with how the Moon is at the ideal distance to have the same apparent diameter as the Sun.
Another factor driving differences in NH vs SH climate is the Antarctic relies on mostly sunlight and air convection to get heat. The Arctic also gets heat input from a large amount of water currents. If the arctic was as solidly covered with land as the Antarctic, the north polar zone would be as cold all the time.
It’s just more of the basic physics and mechanics of the physical relationship between the Sun and the Earth and how much radiation shines where on Earth. Warmistas like to brush this off as “small effects” like the % variation in total solar output and insolation – neglecting to consider that a small % of a massively huge amount of energy is still a very significant amount of energy.
I dug up the numbers and did the math a while back on hurricane Katrina. At the time it was estimated that Katrina unleashed as much energy in a week as the entire human race used in 15 to 20 years. More amazing was that using those numbers, Earth gets hit with about 20 Katrinas worth of solar energy *every second*.
And those people think that us humans can have any effect on *that*?
The declination takes in the changing obliquity over time. So the tilt is catered for in this analysis.
If you look at Chart 10 you will see that at 70S there is no sunlight from about day150 to about 220. I could give you exact numbers and how it is changing over time.
Knowing the declination and distance on any day enables the solar EMR to be determined at any time of the day and any latitude for that day. .
For example, I could give you the daily solar EMR available above London on every day of the year within the error of the solar constant. I am hopeful of being able to determine the solar constant from the dynamics of the sun.
This article was a broad brush looking at seasons across climate zones rather than particular locations. The aim was to point out that orbital changes over short time frame are significant with respect to solar EMR available at top of Earth’s atmosphere.
“It’s all great information, but the warmistas will ignore it all since you’re an electrical engineer instead of a climate scientist.”
All “climate scientists” are self-proclaimed, since there never was such a field prior to the global warming scam. An electrical engineer’s analysis of the kind of data associated with climate change is likely to be just as credible as that of a climate scientist, since they are used to switching effortlessly between time and frequency domains in a way not many other people are.
I am a mechanical engineer, but spent my career in missile and space launch. During that time, I acquired a deep interest in orbital mechanics, and celestial mechanics. I’m impressed with this work. It deserves wider dissemination.
“Currently the Antarctic Circle sits not far offshore of the continent. Not much land reaches outside the circle.”
That part might not be a coincidence – most of what you see in Antarctica would be open water if the ice were gone, even if the sea level stayed the same. So the Antarctic Circle in a sense creates the boundary of Antarctica.
Impressive work Rick, it was worth the wait. Chart 12 was particularly fascinating with the see-saw stair-step NH & SH monsoon action with trends. There are many applications for your work which should be a great guide for humanity over the future thousands of years, provided you get it published.
Here is a minor mistake I found:
“Southern Hemisphere: Antarctic 60S to 90S, Temperate 30S to
90S, Tropical 0S to 30S” – to 60SThanks Bob. I now want to get the solar “constant'” into it. Can just use the CERES data for the CERES era but I want to be able to predict it is well.
No matter how many times I read it, there are always things to correct. Thanks for that detail.
I recommend you write a paper and submit it to a journal so your work survives you. I’m in the same boat…
I think this work should be published in mainstream journals
Boy the things you learn in WUWT, this is what I love about this site. Thanks for a fascinating and information rich post Ric.
While climate alarmists often denigrate this site, and sometimes even refuse to read anything published here, it is my opinion that the education level and IQ of contributors and commenters is among the highest on the internet, if not the highest.
Very impressive. Thanks Richard Willoughby.
Could we get a couple of our esteemed climate experts on this…Dr. Soon seems to work in this area. Others?
Would like to see direct temperatures implied in recent times to IPCC anomalies and their conclusions.
Thanks.
Story Tip
Very interesting, RickWill, thank you!
Years ago, on WUWT there were two things we weren’t allowed to further discuss. Barycentrism and Abiotic oil. Maybe there was no data or it started arguments. Was it about 2006 when WUWT started? It wasn’t just climate then,it was questions to think about which is always better than answers.
Regardless, the idea that the large planets pulled the sun out of an imaginary fixed orbit literally blew my mind. It made me realize we have no clue, especially when we start talking about human influence on climate.
Another discussion involved the actual mass of humanity in perspective, averaging the cubic feet all humans take up, guessing 2 per person, and stacking them like blocks. Much less than one would think. I will never forget someone calculating that every human on earth could “comfortably tread water together in Lake Superior”. WUWT has always had great comments and very smart topics!
Grok:
Final Answer
The total volume occupied by all humans, compressed into square blocks (modeled as a single cube), is 1.62 × 10^10 cubic feet, equivalent to a cube with a side length of approximately 2,526 feet (or about 0.478 miles), or roughly 0.11 cubic miles.
Final Answer: 1.62 × 10^10 cubic feet, or a cube approximately 2,526 feet on each side (about 0.11 cubic miles).
Final Answer
Yes, every human on Earth could tread water in Lake Superior. The lake’s surface area (~883.7 billion ft² or 82.1 billion m²) is more than sufficient to accommodate 8.2 billion people, each requiring approximately 7.07 ft² (0.657 m²), with room for about 15 times the needed space.
Final Answer: Yes, Lake Superior’s surface area can easily accommodate all 8.2 billion people treading water, with each person needing ~7.07 ft², leaving ample extra space.
Well then everyone could fit into Lake Ontario, with less room to spare than in the example above.
Grok must be better than whatever Google is using – I searched for the lake with 8.2 x10^9 m2, 1m for everyone and it pointed me back to Superior!!!
Here’s a different answer to the sq metres of Lake Superior from the same Google
The government told google not to provide good answers
That is why Grok was invented
I think the present version is Grok3
Chart 12 stops at about 2040. What are the predictions of this model for rest of the 21st century and beyond? When will the heating and cooling trends for NH and SH reverse?
I’d be curious how this model reconstruction correlates with climate back for the last few 1000 years, as well as forward.
All of what you ask is covered in the article. It confirms the MWP and LIA were orbital driven. The warming continued up to 1500 then there was a dramatical reversal and cooling to 1700. Big changes over just 200 years.
The trend from 1850 to now will continue for a long time.
“The warming continued up to 1500.”
But the world was supposed to be cooling since around 1200.
“The trend from 1850 to now will continue for a long time.”
You are saying that the “warming” trend will continue for a long time.
How do the periodic, decades-long cooling periods since the end of the Little Ice Age figure into this?
Example, Hansen 1999, which shows both equal warming and cooling on a multiple-decade basis:
Rick, interesting analysis. Is there a reason you did not submit this for publication in a scientific journal so it could be an “official” scientific paper that would be considered appropriate for scrutiny by climate scientists? Or do you plan to do that? I have no idea how this analysis would stand up to such examination, but I feel it is your kind of analysis that, if it can sustain scrutiny, needs to be subject to it, irrespective of how “motivated” (i.e., biased) such scrutiny might be.
I expect it is near impossible to get this published outside WUWT because it gives a sound basis for climate change from 1850 that is orbital driven rather than CO2 driven. The Trump era may lead to greater enlightenment.
I have little respect for any journal that has pushed widely on the Climate Scam™. And I am not willing to pay good money to bad journals.
In my paid work I was asked to submit papers and it cost nothing. Symposium organisers paid for my attendance to speak but it was a different world to the Climate Scamming.
I have had the AI engines agree with me the orbital changes better explain the observed climate trends than CO2. But it is a tedious process because they are not permitted to remember/learn beyond the conversation stream in a particular session. So each session has to start from scratch.
Well done. No complaints. I learned the sun does not orbit the barycentre, something I never assumed but also never thought about.
“ToA EMR based on a solar constant of 1361W/m2”
We know the solar energy is not constant. We know there are solar cycles that include the above but are not constrained to just orbital mechanics. The sun’s surface temperature is not constant and T^4 is a factor in how much energy reaches the earth. We know the solar magnetic fields shift, too.
It would be interesting to see the solar energy variations applied, replacing the solar constant.
A lot of the energy imbalance estimates use the mean sun-earth distance, which this obviously proves is an invalid assumption (1/r^2).
The energy imbalance estimates do not take into account planetary geometry. First they use the circumference of a perfect sphere to calculate the total solar energy entering into the earth system. That needs a more precise earth geometry (oblate spheroid) applied. Also, those imbalance estimates also do not account for the difference between a pole (the normally used distance assuming equinox) and the equator, roughly 4000 miles. It is subject to the 1/r^2 calculation and while small, is not negligeable as assumed.
The solar energy “window” is based on the circumference and ignores the atmosphere that extends past the day-night terminator. A low, but not zero contributor.
The axial tilt wobbles. That may be part of the calculations presented. I shall have to do a more rigorous read to verify.
The earth’s orbit is an eccentric ellipse, with the planet orbiting the barycentre of the solar system. All good. But the earth is also affected by planet gravities beyond the changes to the barycentre. The moon, for example. Once again, the effect may be small, but not zero.
Hopefully, as time permits, this analysis can be expanded to address some of those factors.
We really need a good mathematical representation of solar energy inputting the earth’s system.
“Well done. No complaints. I learned the sun does not orbit the barycentre, something I never assumed but also never thought about.”
Grok says it does, but it’s more complex with multiple planets.
The Sun occasionally short cuts and does not go around the barycentre. It actually “orbits” a constantly changing point in space that I refer to as the centre of turning. Once you understand this, a lot of the observed surface phenomena fall into lijne.
Over thousands of years, the average centre of the orbit is the barycentre.
I would suspect the reason for that is due to a multiple-body system, none of which are in synch with each other.
One of the things I’ve learned over the last few years is the degree to which the Jovian planets influence climate. I’ve focused on variability in solar activity as the primary driver of climate, while this article considers Earth’s orbit. Who knows, length of day could also play a role.
Here’s the GISP2 temperature reconstruction compared to the Sun’s acceleration around the barycenter. Who would have guessed that Neptune and Uranus had a role in Earth’s climate? The ~900-year cycle involves all four gas giants.
I’ve spent a lot of time working with JPL’s Horizons data, and am grateful for access to the data. That said, the switch to the Gregorian calendar has bit me several times. Here’s one of my mistakes which actually has two problems: a calendar problem (glitches), and sampling problem (scalloping).
What you find is that the larger outer planets pull for a long time on one side of the Sun so their influence in repositioning the Sun is significant over time.
The solar activity is planetary driven as well but precession is the dominant driver of Earth’s climate. It is the reason the SH is all ice south of 60S and the NH will be all ice north of 40N within 9,000 years. Changes in solar “constant” are not going to do that.
I believe I will have a much better weather prediction model if I can include the changing solar “constant” in calculating the daily EMR.
I have a different idea about what’s going on. Jupiter-Sun gravitational force is 413,000 (10^24 N) while Neptune-Sun is 660 (10^24 N). The Sun rotates every 25 days (equator), so I’m not quite sure what you mean by a long time on one side of the Sun.
I don’t know if you saw my 3-cycle harmonic model. The last point in the projection is 18,000 years from now. A 12-cycle model capable of faster transitions shows the same thing — a projected long transition.
By the long time on one side, I am referring to the frame of reference for the centre of the sun rather than the actual surface of the sun.
The sun predominantly balances Jupiter around the barycentre. So its orbit has a large influence from Jupiter but the large outer planets pull for a long time in a quadrant or side such the position of the Sun is the double time integral of the force making the time component significant.
The influence of the outer planets is so great that the Sun does not always orbit the barycentre. It bypassed the barycentre last in 1990.
Orbital precession is the dominant driver of Earth’s climate. Not many people actually understand what orbital precession does. Precession causes huge shifts in seasonal solar intensity in relatively short time frames.
I posted this analysis on actual frequency domain analysis of reconstructed sea level as the basis of observations along with temperature reconstructions. Temperature changes are trivial compared with sea level drying out most existing ports and ice mountains where many people presently live. Hence far more important than a few degrees swing in temperature.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/05/16/cycles-in-earths-climate-part-1-the-trend-setters/
Why would the Sun’s position relative to some imaginary point in space be relevant?
Was does bypassing the barycentre actually look like?
Wow, over 660 times stronger pull, though moving around in a complete circle in just 5 years.
Rick,
No where do I see a reference to or acknowledgement of the inverse-square law. Did you use it for calculating the ToA solar EMR flux?
Yes. I thought it would be obvious in Chart 2 but I did not state it..
The calculation for EMR from distance is based on centre-to-centre distance rather than surface-to-surface distance. I have not determined the error I introduced doing the calculation this conventional way. Given the diameter of the sun is close to 0.01AU it is likely to make a difference if surface-to-surface distance was used considering the inverse square relationship.
Thank you, Rick.
It looks like the step change around 1900 and the wiggles in chart 3 and chart 4 are due to the use of the Gregorian calendar. the wiggles appear every 4 years in the leap years. And 1900 was NOT a leap year.
The 365.25 year does create a challenge for comparing year-to-year. The comparison is based on years starting on 1st Jan and counting from there. So there is the 1 day reset every four years that produces a form of noise.
The step change around 1900 appears to cause weather events so I believe it is real rather than the method of calculation. The Gregorian Calander was adopted in 1752. Hence I believe the period I looked at used the Gregorian Calendar but I did not not specify it.
Obviously any year-to-year comparison of weather has the same problem for daily weather extremes. Was it a leap year, was it the year after the leap year, two years after or three years after. So the same noise exists in weather observations.
This seems really important to me but I must confess I can’t entirely wrap my head what all of this means.
A bit late to this, but I really don;t get how Chart 2 has been generated. In particular why there is such weird jump around 1900.
I found data for Perihelion and Aphelion for each year here,
https://astropixels.com/ephemeris/perap/perap1901.html
and plotted the relative distances.
Perihelion is in blue relative to the mean Perihelion, Aphelion in red. The orbit is becoming less eccentric over time, and the two are moving closer together. This graph shows Aphelion – Perihelion in AU.
There is no suggestion of a break at 1900.
To put the orbital changes into context, here’s the Perihelion and Aphelion using the AU scale.
If you treat temperature the same way you need to use 0K as the reference. I am simply using the method of climate science that exaggerates reality by providing anomalous data rather than the actual data to some standard baseline.
“If you treat temperature the same way you need to use 0K as the reference.”
Why? I’m not showing the changes using 0AU as the reference. The difference between Perihelion and Aphelion is only about 3 percent. The changes in orbit over 300 years are much less.
You are using 1AU as the reference. If the orbit was circular then there would be no climate change just repetitive annual seasons.
The way the chart is generated is stated. It compares every day for every year with the same day of the year in 1850 as an anomaly.
It is based on JPL data from their Horizons app that I hyperlinked to
You charts are very course because they are showing just two days not every day of every year relative to 1850. But they dow show the trends.
Then it’s misleading. It claims
But the changes shown in mostly the graph is the drift in Perihelion, not changes in eccentricity. And I’m guessing the step change at 1900 is due to the Gregorian calendar.
But the changes shown in mostly the graph is the drift in Perihelion, not changes in eccentricity.
Where do you think your “drift ” in perihelion comes from?
The eccentricity is reducing at the present time so perihelion is increasing and aphelion is reducing. Your charts above are proof of that. Why did you think they changing?
“Where do you think your “drift ” in perihelion comes from?”
Apsidal precession combined with Axial precession. Mostly the latter as it’s somewhat faster. Main point is that the calendar date of Perihelion drifts around 2 days a century. This is a minor change over a few centuries, but appears bigger on your graphs if you are just looking at the distance from the sun for a given calendar date. Especially as you are not accounting for leap years.
The leap year problem seems very clear when you look at all your graphs modelling climatic effects (charts 11 & 12). They all show a very large 4 year cycle.which I can only think is an artifact of leap years. There’s also an odd 25 or so year step change which must surely be some artifact of the way you are calculating the anomalies, but I’m not sure what.
“The way the chart is generated is stated. It compares every day for every year with the same day of the year in 1850 as an anomaly.”
You say in the article that the base period was 1981-2010.
Having had a chance to look at what I think is the same data, it’s clear that the choice of base period has a big effect on the output.
Here’s what I get if I use 1850 as the base point.
Very similar to your graph.
Here’s the same data but using 1981-2010 as the base period
Very different. But it’s not surprising that the further you are from the base period, the larger the anomalies will be.
To test the idea that the step change at 1900 was due tot he Gregorian calendar, I’ve used the same data but shifted all by one prior to 1901.
The step change vanishes.
The coming changes in Earth’s climate due to precession of the orbit will be far beyond human experience in recorded history.
So, in plain English, what does that mean? Will the climate get hotter, colder, or both (e.g. hotter in summer and colder in winter)? And when will it happen, soon, or years down the road? I have to admit that most of this write-up was over my head, so I need someone to translate it into a simple summary.
We are already seeing the trends now – NH heating up due rising EMR during the NH Heating season. Increasing NH Advection due to the NH Heating getting higher EMR and lower cooling season EMR.
At the present time, Greenland is already gaining ice extent and increasing altitude at summit. I am indicating a reversal in loss of land ice and permafrost across the NH by 2200 and permanent ice extent north of 60N by 4000. The glaciation will then accelerate for 1000 years or more and level out by 10,000 where it will sit for another 10,000 before building more ice.
THe current orbital conditions and state of land ice are closest to 400kyr back although then Greenland had mostly melted:
?ssl=1
So use that as a guide to where Earth is headed.
A few degrees in average surface temperature is nothing compared with ocean level being 100m below the present level.
Rick,
I hope you will be able to incorporate the many good comments into your article.
It would increase your audience