Interview with Ivanka Charvatova: Is climate change caused by solar inertial motion?

Reposted from http://www.klimaskeptik.cz/news/interview-with-dr-ivanka-charvatova-csc-from-gfu/

An interview with Ing. Ivanka Charvátová, CSc. from the Geophysical Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences (Prague). The story of one politically incorrect scientific discovery.

(Translation of the original Czech interview published at Osel.cz in May 2011)

==============================================

Your field of study in the Geophysical Institute is solar inertial motion (SIM). Could you explain what it is?

It is a movement of the Sun around the barycentre (centre of gravity) of our solar system. This motion is due to the varying position of the planets, especially the giant planets.

Already Sir Isaac Newton in his PRINCIPIA (1687) intuitively came to the following conclusion: “… since that centre of gravity (centre of mass of the solar system) is continually at rest, the Sun, according to the various positions of the planets, must continually move every day, but will never recede far from that centre.” This effect is not insignificant. The Sun moves across an area the size of 4.3 solar radiuses, i.e. 0.02 AU or 3×10^6 km. As a coincidence, the average solar speed is around 50 km/hr. Just like the speed of a car driving downtown. The first study about SIM was written by P.D. Jose in year 1965.

You are the author of quite a breakthrough in this field of study. What is it?

SuperDuper Supernovas defy mainstream magnetar spin story

It seems that every time some new celestial observation is made following an advance in hardware and technique, astronomers are confronted with something their theory can’t cope with. This time it’s supernovae ten times brighter than expected.

A new class of supernovae is 10x brighter than type Ia, pictured above. Credit: NASA

Among the more far fetched potential explanations for these objects, there is this:

Food prices, solar variation and climate change: was William Herschel right?

Over on WUWT, WIllis Eschenbach has a post up about climate alarmist scares over food prices. Willis counters by saying:

First, the claims are true, the price for the basic foodstuffs corn and wheat did double from 2005 to 2008.

Second, that doubling only returned the price to the 1995 level.

Third, the historical price levels (with excursions for two wars and the great depression) were pretty stable until after WWII. Since then (with the excursion for the 1971 oil shock), things have greatly improved.

Fourth, I see no trace of a climate-related signal in that graph. Might be one, but if so, it’s well hidden.

This put me in mind of WIlliam Herschels observations on the link between solar activity levels and wheat prices as recorded in the Edinburgh Philosophical Transactions for 1824:

HEALTH AND SAFETY WARNING: DON’T TRY THAT LAST BIT AT HOME KIDS. 

So, who is right, Willis or William?

I inverted the graph Willis used and compared it to sea surface temperature and sunspot number. Here come the graphs:

What causes the nutation of Earth’s axial tilt?

Over the course of around 41,000 years, the angle that Earth tilts at slowly varies between about 22.1 and 24.5 degrees. As we have seen from Tim Channon’s recent work on Milankovitch cycles, this is a crucially important factor in Earth’s longer term climatic variation.

So what causes it? Enquiring minds want to know. 🙂

Our friend Miles Mathis has an interesting take on this, which, as always, is fun to read. His first article on axial tilt starts with this introduction:

It may be that the reason mainstream physics has never even tried to solve this one is that it
doesn’t have the tools to do so. Although the problem doesn’t seem that difficult, on the face of
it, it does require you to have a few cards in your hand, a few broad ideas in your head. One of
those broad ideas is the E/M field, which the mainstream has never had in its celestial
mechanical hand. True, the mainstream knows that the tilt is the tilt of an axis, and they know
that the axis seems to have something to do with the E/M field of the body, but they don’t know
that distant bodies can effect each other via that same E/M field. Not so long ago, they didn’t
even know about magnetospheres and plasmas. Now they will admit that the near environs of a
body can be affected by E/M fields, but they still resist letting that field permeate the Solar
System. Why? Because if the E/M field got involved in perturbations, several major fields of
enterprise would tremble at their very cores. Perturbation theory and chaos theory would be in
danger of ultimate extinction, and gravity theory would have to be overhauled from the
foundation. These astrophysicists would also have to admit that Velikovsky was at least partially
right, and they would rather tear out their own eyeballs and eat them than go there.

Is best fit for Milankovitch cycles at 65N?

“Classical” Milankovitch theory is about 41ky and shorter periods, without the significant long terms of 100ky and above which are the subject of a great deal of postulation today. As an exercise a special version of temperature proxy Vostok ice core data was prepared and correlated with four different computations of Berger 1991 solar insolence at lags of between zero and 18ky. The best correlation was for the sum of 65NJul and 65SJan, r-squared=0.31 and at a lag of 7ky.

Figure 1

Orbital eccentricity and ice ages: Milankovitch revisited

I had a Eureka! moment in the bath this morning, not by intuiting Archimedes principle, but while thinking about the Milankovitch cycles, particularly orbital eccentricity and the relationship it has with ice ages.

Eccentricity is a term used to describe the shape of Earth’s orbit around the sun.  The variation of Earth’s orbit around the sun ranges from an almost exact circle (eccentricity = 0.0005) to a slightly elongated shape (eccentricity = 0.0607) (Thomas, 2002).  The time frame for the cycle is approximately 98,000 years (Davis, 2002).  The impact of the variation is a change in the amount of solar energy from perihelion (around January 3) to aphelion (around July 4).  Currently the Earth’s eccentricity is 0.016 and there is about a 6.4 percent increase in insolation from July to January (Berger, 2001). http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/student/howard2/theory.htm

This however, is not the whole story as I realised while washing the suds out of my hair:

Kepler's 2nd Law. Orbiting bodies sweep out equal ares in equal times

Rather than just causing a seasonal difference, changes in eccentricity also have an effect on the total amount of solar radiation (TSI) arriving at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere (TOA) on much longer timescales. This is because during periods when eccentricity is higher, the Earth takes longer to transit the half of its orbit where it is further from the Sun than it does to transit the half of its orbit where it is closer to the sun. This is Keplers second law: the motion of the orbiting body sweeps out equal areas in equal times. So when the orbiting body is further from the Sun, the longer radius creating a bigger area per angular segment is compensated for by the fact the Earth travels along the orbital path bounding that segment more slowly than when it is closer to the Sun. The upshot of this is that TSI averaged over a year is going to be less than when the orbit is more circular.

What temperature would Earth’s surface be without greenhouse gases?

This thread is open to all who can stay on topic. Comments containing off topic grandstanding, name calling etc will hit the bottom of the bit bucket. So don’t start bellyaching afterwards. 8)

I came across this webpage which offers a set of calculations which says that without greenhouse gases, Earth’s surface temperature would be about 9 or 10C lower than it is. This is clearly a lot smaller difference than that asserted by the IPCC scientists, who say it would be about 33C lower. They have been known to exaggerate though.

As a side issue of interest, this page says that Mars is cooler than it would be without its carbon dioxide (co2) atmosphere. How does that work? Or is this a clue that the page is just wrong?

If so where is this page incorrect? Or is it the IPCC that is incorrect? How well constrained is the calculation for Earth anyway?

Where are the error bars? 8)

Now this page is obviously a personal effort, and we don’t know who wrote it, so all the usual caveats apply.

PLANETARY TEMPERATURES
http://www.spaceacademy.net.au/library/notes/plantemp.htm

Planets have surface temperatures above absolute zero because they exist in the solar system, at the heart of which is the sun which radiates energy from its surface at the rate of:

L_s = 3.86×10²⁶ Watts (or Joules per second)We now need to consider how much of this energy is intercepted by a planet of radius R at a distance r from the Sun.

Stephen Wilde: The Setting And Maintaining Of Earth’s Equilibrium Temperature

Guest post by Stephen Wilde

The Setting And Maintaining Of Earth’s Equilibrium Temperature

 

Introduction

This issue is at the very heart of climate science and due to environmental concerns it is also at the heart of global politics and economics.

It is proposed that human activity has destabilised the Earth’s equilibrium temperature for a significant long term warming effect with potentially catastrophic outcomes in due course.

As will appear below the whole issue has been misunderstood due to omission of the oceans and the water cycle from the established descriptions as to how the Earth’s equilibrium temperature has been set and how it might be changed.

What caused global warming in the late C20th?

Southern Hemisphere Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly

We can see that the decadal regression from the trough of the La Nina following the 1998 super El Nino to the peak of the 2010 El nino is negative in southern hemisphere sea surface temperature. Eyballing the data, you would have thought that it would be a positive warming slope. It isn’t. I’m sure you’ll agree that this tells us something about the underlying trend since the start of the C21st.

This is in contrast to the effect of the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) during the warming period from the mid ’70’s to the turn of the millenium, when El Nino was stronger than La Nina, and the released oceanic heat was resulting in upward step changes in global temperature, identified by Bob Tisdale.^[1]

I believe there is an underlying reason for that, and it has less to do with co2 than with the solar contribution to climate change. In a nutshell (heh!), here’s my hypothesis. I hope you find the time to plough through it:

Geological overview of history

Stored riser pipe on drillship Chikyu

Credit Kayakaya

---

Prof. Ellen Martin, Department of Geology, University of Florida has produced an excellent 62 slide presentation for use in a course she runs. This provides a wide ranging overview of long earth glacial history, 65My, information on deep ocean coring and finishes with slides about earth orbital changes.

My intention with this post is adding an oversight and grounding in discussion around earth orbital change. Quite likely some you knew and some you did not.

For example, slide 13 luckily shows a plot from a paper where the Panama and Drake passages are mentioned, primary ocean circulation factors in long history.

Viewing this presentation might take 30 minutes or more.

PPT presentation,  Cenozoic cooling

The orbital theory links in with recent posts on another article