NEWS RELEASE from Stanford University
Strange ‘spin cycle’ inside the sun may explain sunspots, solar flares and other mysteriesFew things in the universe seem as constant as the sun.
But now scientists have discovered that two parallel layers of gas deep beneath the solar surface are actually speeding up and slowing down in a strange, synchronous pattern.
It turns out that, as the sun rotates on its axis, one gas layer gradually spins faster while the other reduces speed.
Scientists are at a loss to explain the phenomenon, which occurs in regular 12-to-16-month cycles.
“It’s not what we expected at all,” says Stanford research physicist Jesper Schou. “It comes totally out of the blue.”
Schou is part of an international team of researchers using satellite and ground-based observatories to monitor the sun.
Writing in the March 31 issue of the journal Science, Schou and postdoctoral fellow Rasmus Larsen point out that these unusual but predictable changes in rotational speed only occur above and below a section of the sun known as the interface layer or tachocline.
Located about 135,000 miles below the solar surface, the tachocline separates the sun’s two major regions of gas: the radiative zone, which includes the energy-generating core, and the convective zone near the surface.
Solar experts believe that the tachocline may be the source of powerful magnetic fields that produce strong solar flares and solar winds, and create sunspots that mysteriously appear and disappear during an 11-year cycle.
No one knows how the sun’s enormous magnetic fields are generated, or why they reverse polarity from positive to negative every 11 years.
But the discovery that the area surrounding the tachocline varies its rotation in a regular pattern could be a clue to solving the mystery.
The research team used independent data from two instruments to detect changes in the solar spin-rate between May 1995 and Nov. 1999.
Stanford team members Schou and Larsen used data from the Michelson Doppler Imager (MDI) on board the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO).
Launched in 1995, SOHO is positioned about a million miles from Earth.
The MDI instrument on board SOHO creates a picture of the solar interior by measuring millions of sound waves that constantly ricochet inside the sun.
Independent observations of the sun were made by the Global Oscillation Network Group (GONG), a team of scientists that collects data from six Earth-based solar observatories.
After analyzing approximately four years of data, the MDI and GONG teams came up with remarkably similar findings.
Their results showed that the convective zone just above the tachocline gradually increased its rotational speed by about 60 feet per second between July 1996 and Feb. 1997, then slowly returned to its original velocity some eight months later.
Meanwhile, the radiative zone just below the tachocline demonstrated the exact opposite behavior, slowing down between July and February, then gradually accelerating eight months later.
This cycle of acceleration and deceleration repeated itself roughly every 16 months, or 1.3 years, at the equator, but only recurred every 12 months at the 60-degree latitude.
The discovery that the inner sun spins at different rates at different latitudes is consistent with earlier studies showing that the surface of the sun also rotates at different speeds.
For example, at the equator, it takes about 25 days for the surface of the sun to rotate on its axis, but at the poles, surface rotation requires roughly 33 days.
That’s because the sun is made of gas, so different parts of its surface spin independently — unlike the surface of Earth, Mars and other solid planets.
But why are the gas layers above and below the tachocline speeding up and slowing down at opposite rates?
Perhaps this puzzling behavior is somehow related to the mysterious forces that generate the sun’s magnetic field and the 11-year sunspot cycle.
“For the interior to change speed every 11 years would make sense,” notes Schou. “But a 1.3-year period was unexpected. We don’t know what it means, but isn’t it interesting!”
And practical, too, because if researchers can determine what drives the sun’s magnetic field, they also may be able to forecast solar flares and winds that can knock out satellites, increase the risk of radiation to airline passengers and even cause power outages on Earth.
The ability to predict solar storms could help people avoid such incidents and may even provide researchers insight into the sun’s long-term impact on the Earth’s climate.
The SOHO spacecraft, which is jointly operated by NASA and the European Space Agency, made headlines in 1998 when it temporarily stopped functioning — an event that caused MDI scientists to lose five months of solar data.
The SOHO mission is scheduled to end in 2003, but Schou and his colleagues would like to continue their observations to see if the 12-to-16-month rotation cycle varies year after year.
By Mark Shwartz






16 and 12 months.
Hmmmmm.
12 months we met in the thread on the polar fields (tb may find and add the link)
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
Vuk: is this the thread?
Isn’t the annual cycle there due to Earth’s orbit and the solar axial inclination? i.e. an observational artifact?
This is something different I think.
“The SOHO mission is scheduled to end in 2003,”
Are they going to delete all data gathered after 2003?
😉
This is an old press release. It also says “NASA has announced plans to replace SOHO with the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO).
If launched, SDO would remain in geosynchronous orbit about 22,000 miles above the Stanford campus, allowing researchers to start downloading new acoustical data from the sun beginning in 2006. ”
It’s coded 4/4/00, which means it was issued April 4, 2000.
Duh!
As Svalgaard would say:
We known about his all the time, and they are wrong !
One can see that time-lag between cosmic ray intensity and sun spot number is remarkably large (12-16 months) for solar cycle 19,21&23 (current cycle)
Click to access ind-gupta-M-abs1-sh34-poster.pdf
Brian,
Yes, it’s old, but somehow Leif forgot to mention it anytime in the last five years, even though I’ve asked him several times if there is any data on changes in the rate of solar rotation at different latitudes, and the scientists involved are at his University. I guess it doesn’t jibe too well with his “The Sun is in perfect freefall and feels no forces” schtick.
No doubt he’ll say that it’s all caused by the magic dynamo-ho-ho-hum.
Get real Leif, the whole Sun is shaking like a soaking wet dog.
Hmm, 1.3 years for the full speed up – slow down cycle
The two tidally strong planets are Jupiter and Venus
Venus-Jupiter synodic period is 236.992 days = 0.648 years
0.648 * 2 = 1.3 years.
Jackpot!
Interesting, and doesn’t seem to fit with the dynamo theory.
Rotation rate at surface of sun is ~25 days at equator, ~33 days at poles.
33 / 25 = ~1.3 which is the same as the cycle of acceleration and deceleration which occurs every 16 months, or 1.3 years in deeper layers. Coincidence or a link between surface tachocline?
Diagrams of solar rotation speeds at various latitudes

Tenuc, interesting. The ratio of the equatorial and high latitude speed of 1:1.3 is the same as the ratio of the two cycles mentioned in this report 1:1.3 years
And now I discover the two planets with the largest (and approximately equal) tidal power on the Sun, Jupiter and Venus, have a synodic period which is exactly half the 1.3 years of the cycle of variation at the solar equator.
We are homing in on the cause of the solar differential rotation, I can feel it in my water. 🙂
No one knows how the sun’s enormous magnetic fields are generated, or why they reverse polarity from positive to negative every 11 years.…. Sure?
That´s a coarse generalization!….don´t feel ashamed and ask the many who know about it. 🙂
The wiki knows:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternating_current
I’ve retitled the thread. 🙂
Equatorial cycle = 1.3 years
high latitude cycle = 1 year
Earth orbital period = 1 year
Earth-Venus synodic = 1.6 years
Earth Jupiter synodic = 1.1 years
Average between these = 1.35 years
The two tidally strongest planets are Jupiter and Venus
Venus-Jupiter synodic period is 236.992 days = 0.648 years
0.648 * 2 = 1.3 years.
Looks to me like its the old JEV three step going on here.
Jupiter and Venus swell the tides and Earth sets the cycle length at the second J-V harmonic.
The WUWT thread on Scafetta’s paper has been re-opened
Great post TB. I just love your blog.
Bendandi only forecasting of earthquakes?
No!
http://translate.google.it/translate?sl=it&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=it&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nuovaricerca.org%2Fbendandi.htm
2) Based on the average duration of revolutions sinodiche: Venus and Jupiter 389.98 583.92 days, we we arrive at an average of a ten-year cycle, equal to 11.070 years, but this, although in full agreement with the first maximum observed by Galileo, can not be held ultimately it is well known that the same planetary revolutions are subject to significant variations due to perturbations esplicatesi between the various celestial bodies of our system.
http://translate.google.it/translate?sl=it&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=it&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdaltonsminima.altervista.org%2F%3Fp%3D8669
“………..According Bendandi the less was the difference in days between the conjunctions / oppositions of Jupiter and Venus with the Earth and the Sun was more the action exerted on the sun…….”
2010-2045
empty gap
🙂
The 1.3 year period may have something to do with Venus. There is a 15 month cycle associated with Venus which is just noticeable in Earth’s climate I understand. Maybe Nicola can advise.
Tallbloke, I left a comment at WUWT mentioning that Willis and Lief were being a bit harsh.
Willis really got stroppy. The research coming out about our solar system is excellent, strange that this info here has been so tardy in being released. Maybe the shackles are being removed from real scientists.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 21, 2012 at 11:42 am
There are things not worth discussing.
All has already been said about this subject.
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 23, 2012 at 1:13 am
This is science, and it is a blood sport.
As one mind closes, the brains dribble out of another…
Well said Tallbloke.
Kudos to you for keeping an even keel. Hopefully S and E can one day separate their egos from their arguments.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 21, 2012 at 11:42 am
There are things not worth discussing.
All has already been said about this subject.
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 23, 2012 at 1:13 am
This is science, and it is a blood sport.
As one mind closes, the brains dribble out of another…
Just posted this back on WUWT…
_Jim says:
March 23, 2012 at 7:04 am
vukcevic says on March 23, 2012 at 2:50 am
CMEs that emanate out of the sun, are linked to it by combination of electric current and magnetic field …
Could you elucidate when it was that moving electric particles (e.g. protons and electrons) in ‘free space’ (outside of a conductor) become classified as ‘electric current’?
Where is the ‘return current’ that must exist if this is truly an electric current, as according to Kirchhoff’s current law?
This law is also called Kirchhoff’s first law, Kirchhoff’s point rule, Kirchhoff’s junction rule (or nodal rule), and Kirchhoff’s first rule.
The principle of conservation of electric charge implies that:
– At any node (junction) in an electrical circuit, the sum of currents flowing into that node is equal to the sum of currents flowing out of that node, or:
– The algebraic sum of currents in a network of conductors meeting at a point is zero.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff's_circuit_laws
.
Glad you asked no one seems to have a problem with current flow reversing from peak to neg peak in 50/60 cycle AC power.
The return flow is in the other half of the 22 year hale cycle, as the sun and the planets speed through the galaxy the acceleration (on long time scales from passing close to other stars, or through concentrations of galactic magnet field variations) causes the speed up of slowing of the sun more(?) than the planets so there is a pulsing or ringing of the past perturbations of the Z axis (as we see it from earth) as the planets gain and recede from the forward momentum of the sun.
Visualize this as the brim of a sombrero on the head of a bronc rider on a crow hopping horse.
The induction strength and period as well as the polarity of the induced magnet fields shifting balance between the polarity shifts of the solar wind and magnetic sun spot activity, as the long 22 year cycle length modulates the relation ship of the forward momentum and magnetic induction phases through a full cycle.
So the short answer as to where the return flow is; in the other half of the Hale cycles, looking at the solar wind on short instantaneous time periods you see the out flow of the solar wind, as a non returning dc pulse coming out along its equatorial to upper latitudes where the sun spot long term “butterfly patterns” show the areas of weakest containment of the the suns internal fields as they burst out and carry ions to become the current that is the solar wind.
Basic homopolar generator process, (rotating ferrous conductor in a magnet field) will induce a voltage based on the mass, speed, and strength of magnetic field that peaks when the magnetic flux peaks, and looses angular momentum and sheds magnetic fields from its internal containment out through sun spots and CMEs, produces the pulses in the solar wind. The return magnetic flux enters the sun through the poles just like the energy enters the earths atmosphere, (producing the effects this thread is about) at the poles. The Ulysses satellite made polar passes over the sun and recorded much stronger and more active magnetic activity there.
Because the whole solar system in gravitationally, magnetically, and tidally settled into a fairly stable harmonic set of orbital dynamics over the past 4.8+ billion years we only notice the variations in the normal patterns, of the back ground level of magnetic field strength and see the effects of the very small fluctuation as the small instability of the sun.
When I look at the three elemental particles the electron, proton, and neutron, and realize only two are ions with charge and both will respond to the electromagnetic flux changes in that instability, the neutrons in the ball of plasma that is the sun, on the other hand MAY only respond to the gravitational and tidal forces, there by are able to slosh around in the center of the sun, contained by the total mass of the suns self gravitation. This process could affect the fusion rate some giving the feedback seen in the short (sonic tidal waves seen on the surface of the sun – to the long term churning of the convection currents ebb and flow of the Hale cycle periods).
I think the question is not whether the movement of the sun about the SSBC is doing anything, but should we not also consider the interactions of the Z-axis modulation, enough to see that the J/S conjunctions every almost 20 years progress around in three cycles to be in the same place relative to the center of the Galaxy, does the z-axis component of the solar system flux surges accountable to extra electromagnet drive from the outer planets helping to conduct more total flux thru the system? So the angular momentum component of the system acceleration (as well as the forward motion momentum distribution shifting) increased mostly for the outer planets currently between the sun and the center of the Galaxy?
^Is the same mechanism that makes induction type electric motors run and you use them all the time, so it must be workable?
This I think gives rise to the ~60 year cycles seen in the climate records
Bi level angular momentum circulation may be a way to compensate for being a single body, rather than a two body compensation by barycenter displacement like the earth/moon? Horizontal tidal generated flows instead of height waves due to the high gravity and viscosity?
Thanks Eric.
Richard, formidable depth of thinking there! I’ll use that on the next thread discussing the different possible mechanisms involved.
I just posted this on the WUWT scafetta thread.
tallbloke says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
March 24, 2012 at 1:53 am
Martin Lewitt says:
March 24, 2012 at 12:05 am
Leif Svalgaard,
Standish indicates that the ephemeris calculations are based upon general relativity, it is which relativistic time frame to use that is being discussed. He argues the earth’s time frame works well and is less complicated and less risk of error than using barycentric coordinate time.
I don’t think we rule out transfers of angular momentum between Jupiter and the Sun involving much of the Sun’s volume, but less than 2% of the sun’s mass as a possible significant influence on the solar dynamo.
My thanks to Martin Lewitt for this and his other comments. I hope he might find the time to enlarge on this one, for the benefit of those like myself who would like to understand more about the way the JPL ephemeris is constructed and the conceptual basis underlying the frame of reference it operates from.
I am in full agreement with him regarding the possibility that future research may discover that the synchronicity of Saturn’s motion may be augmented by other planetary motions which match the observed periodicities in solar activity and terrestrial climate fluctuations. In fact my own research and that of others within the small community which studies solar system dynamics as it relates to the possibility of solar-planetary feedbacks has already found several possible candidates.
Venus has a ‘tidal’ power on the Sun approximately equal to that of Jupiter, and as I discovered last night from an old Stanford University news release, two of the Sun’s deeper layers exhibit a countervailing speeding up and slowing down of latitudinal circulation which would be most simply described as ebb and flow – a tidal phenomenon. The periodicity of 1.3 years involved matches that of the interaction of tides on the Sun produced by Jupiter and Venus, in combination with the synodic period of Earth and Venus, and Earth’s orbital period, which matches the periodicity of a similar ‘ebb and flow’ at higher solar latitudes.
There is an interesting analogy between these latitudinally differentiated tidal frequencies and terrestrial tidal and storm cycles, which have a 60 year component in oceanic oscillations near the equator, and a 45 year component at high latitudes, evidenced by many thousands of years of the formation of beach ridges on eustatically rebounding Siberian and Canadian shorelines. 60 and 45 year cyclicities abound in the synchronicities discovered in planetary motion.
There is more in Heaven and Earth Pachaurio
Than is dreamp’t of in your philosophy
Not really the point of the rule, IMO. At any instant, flow in to a slice of the circuit = flow out. Direction doesn’t matter. Otherwise, there isn’t a “flow”. Perhaps the contact layer of a charging/discharging battery might appear to violate the rule, requiring the taking into account of the chemical events within the electrolytes.
I added this to Richard’s post:
If you understood the Richard Holle’s post, here is a graphic illustration I made few years back, which in essence if not in precise details agree what he wrote, this is how I see the events, with magnetic reversals etc.etc..
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Synthesis.htm
The idea is based and totally compatible what is in practice happening and actually measured by engineers near a radio or TV-transmitter’s antenna.
In here I assume gravity has a role as much as it moves Jupiter and Saturn around the orbits and no more.
Final product:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
……
It appears to me that gravity is favoured by those who are familiar with classic Newtonian physics, but less familiar with works of Faraday, Lorentz, Maxwell, etc.
It should be remembered that there is no notable gravitational factor either in the actual formation of sunspots or the consequence of it, both formation and consequence are purely electro-magnetic events, and once that is understood, less time will be wasted by all concerned.
Gravity is exclusevily uni-polar, while all electric and magnetic events, and that includes sunspots, are exclusevily bi-polar.
An observational note:
The period being discussed, July 1996 to January 1997, encompasses the minimum of that period. In July 1996 Jupiter, Venus and Earth were fairly closely aligned. Anyone got any data for the first reverse polarity sunspot of Cycle 23?
The third chart down shows the cycle crossover point pretty clearly:
Gray: That looks like one of Leif’s charts to me. The light blue line running vertically through the charts will be ‘official minimum’.
Sorry for OT,
My idea..
@ Vuk
say :
“Gravity is exclusevily uni-polar, while all electric and magnetic events, and that includes sunspots, are exclusevily bi-polar.”
I agree!
but
What is uni-polar ?
I study volcanic eruptions.
You see this map :
“…….Worldwide gravity gradients from simulations. GOCE is now gathering data such as shown here to map Earth’s gravity with unprecedented accuracy and spatial….”
Indonesia, Oregon (USA), Chile, Alaska, Japan, Chile, Hawaii, Sicily (Italy)
All volcanic Zone
http://spacefellowship.com/news/art13811/goce-delivering-data-for-best-gravity-map-ever.html

Now You see :
Inflation three-sisters-oregon


and
Inflation Yellowstone
2000-2010 Solar minimum —-> IMFlow —-> gravity anomalies
also,
Eruption VEI5/VEI6
9365BP – 9665 BP / 10105BP – 10325 BP /11315BP – 11615BP
Very,very low IMF
I studied science alternatives.
I read texts: Tesla,Ighina,Leedskalnin,Viktor Schauberg,Grebennikov etc…etc…
They say :
“……Electromagnetism is the glue of matter..”
No electromagnetism ——> cold energy in the torsional motion ——-> ether moving —-> phi-based spiral movement
example:


Tunguska
http://www.faenzashiatsu.it/crop/Celletta/da_P6146138.jpg
Crop circle
and nature….
[ My call, above three images should not have high traffic on their servers. –Tim]
Bye
Michele says:
phi-based spiral movement
During the time it takes for Jupiter to complete 2/3 of an orbit, Venus will go past Earth five times, as Earth makes eight orbits, while Venus makes thirteen, and Mercury will pass Venus twenty one times, as it completes thirty four orbits of the Sun.
2,3,5,8,13,21,34. These numbers are in a familiar series, the Fibonacci sequence.
2+3=5
3+5=8
5+8=13
8+13=21
13+21=34
This shows that the orbital distances of these planets (and hence by Kepler’s laws their orbital periods), are not what they are by random chance, but form part of the patterns of resonance which feed back to modulate solar activity, which in turn supports the stability of the orbits through the pressure of the solar wind.
The Fibonacci sequence is phi based, the ratio between successive numbers approaches phi ever more closely as the numbers increase in magnitude.
Leif once agreed with me that in the earlier stages of the evolution of the solar system, there was indeed spin-orbit coupling between the Sun and planets via the solar wind, but now maintains that the relationship no longer exists. I think the ongoing self regulation of the solar system as exhibited in the timings and the correlations with solar activity variation we have discovered strongly intimates the likelihood that it does still exist.
@Michele Casati: But…what does it happen when our two initially opposing vectors, approach parallelism, as the angle between them approaches zero?, each one of them having moved in 90° as counted from the starting point? They add one another originating that dynamically neutral force we call “gravity”, which is the remnant field in such an almost “neutral” body and which makes, relatively, its common attraction.
That is why, for example, among many phenomena, polymerization or peptization occur around neutrality.
“@ Vuk
“Gravity is exclusevily uni-polar, while all electric and magnetic events, and that includes sunspots, are exclusevily bi-polar.””
I agree!
but
What is uni-polar ?”
That is a good question.
The answer will depend on the context.
The sunspot count is unipolar (as a wave) only rises from zero to some value, cannot go negative. (which is contradicting Vuc who might have something different in mind)
Absolute Earth temperature, in Kelvin, is always positive but temperature change from a reference above zero can go plus and minus.
Another context, the one Vuc mentions, a magnet has two poles, a monopole cannot exist. On the other hand the sun produces heat which flows away only.
A magnetic circuit is a loop right around, same for an electric circuit.
Michele
‘uni-polar’ as always >0, doesn’t have a negative counterpart.
Tb:
Leif once agreed with me that in the earlier stages of the evolution of the solar system, there was indeed spin-orbit coupling between the Sun and planets via the solar wind, but now maintains that the relationship no longer exists.
Vuk:
Sun keeps order among planets by thrashing them with the CMEs
Brian H:
Small nudges, rhythmically applied over billions of years, will have their way!
It’s not the real-time magnitude; it’s the pattern’s consistency.
2,3,5,8,13,21,34


Simple law of nature. Here you can see the first 40 numbers in the Fibonacci sequence, plotted on the logarithmic scale
@Richard Holle: Let us take it one step further: Are there twelve fields along the ecliptic?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_magnetic_field
Hi Tim
Sunspots have magnetic polarity with the 22 year cycle. Sunspot number count, the SSN, I assume you have in mind, isn’t a physical entity, just a dimension-less number, as any other count. The rest I shall leave alone, since many of those are either self-evident or precisely defined by laws of physics, so wouldn’t be able to add anything that isn’t already widely known and accepted as true.
tallbloke says:
March 24, 2012 at 10:45 am
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 24, 2012 at 10:16 am
tallbloke says:
March 24, 2012 at 9:57 am
The torquing effect of ‘magnetic braking’ will act as much on the Sun as the planets
That is how the magnetic braking of the sun occurs. The magnetic field transferred solar angular momentum to the planets, not the other way around, and this is a one way process.
You missed a bit out Leif. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Speeding the planets up slows the Sun down. Step one in how the planets modulate solar activity levels.
The open field lines at the equator do, indeed, not connect back to the poles. They merge into the interstellar field and are lost from the solar system.
Recent NASA data shows otherwise. At least a proportion of of the solar wind veers off ‘sideways’ where it meets the heliopause, according to what Voyager data shows. It’s not too much of a step to think it might recycle back to the centre of the system.
cybernetic feedback between planets and Sun.
the maintenance of the currently extant harmonic relationships demonstrates….
Once those are set early on, they do not need to be ‘maintained’
Only if you believe in Newton’s ‘innate force of the planets’. Personally, since the discovery that space is not an empty vacuum, but teeming with particles and forces, I don’t.
It’s a rhetorical question from Nicola, because your desire to destroy what other people create instead of proposing a coherent hypothesis of your own shows very clearly you haven’t got a better alternative.
Pointing out sand castles built in the sky for what they [are] does not require construction of another such castle. To imply a ‘desire to destroy what other people create’ is inappropriate.
I’ll do you a deal. You refrain from saying inappropriate things and I will too.
TB;
Edit note: the ‘p’ in Dreamp’t should be dump’t. The apostrophe, too. → Dreamt
😉
[Reply] Oh noes, another apostrofee catastofee… 🙂
Hi Tallbloke – It is indeed one of Leif’s charts, nonetheless, if the tachocline is dragged ahead of the core magnetic structure by predominantly Jupiter, Venus and Earth, shearing off the electromagnetic adhesion between the two layers then the core will lose the rotational value of the tachocline and the tachocline will lose the burden of the core. With the tachocline moving ahead the core cannot reinstate its magnetic attachment to the outer layer until the outer layer slows. Does this allow a build up of energies within the core which emerge over the following years as the new peak? Any thoughts on why the polarity changes at this point?
I did some preliminary investigations back in 2006 that
looked for a connection between the 1.3 year oscillations
near the Sun’s tachocline (Howe et al. 2000) and the
periodic variations in the gravitational/tidal influences
of the planet’s upon the Sun.
This new post at my blog summarizes these investigations:
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/possible-reason-for-1.html
Tides effect a transfer of angular momentum, unless both bodies are tidally locked. This suggests to me that the planets are slowly being flung away by the sun (conservation of momentum). The “Goldilocks Zone” is then two dimensional (r, dr/dt).
That seems to me to be a much stronger mechanism for transfer (and synchronization) than solar wind, but I’m too lazy to do the actual math.
If the effect on the Sun is non-uniform (and there’s no reason for it to be uniform), then that would introduce a varying acceleration on the layers of the Sun.
Gray, it seems to me that whatever is happening inside the Sun in terms of E/M phase switching, given what we now know about the complexity of the internal motion and the electro-magnetic oddities which can occur in man made dynamos, it is going to be a complex subject which might require a physical model to help us understand more. Computers might not be enough. 🙂
Ian, that is a superb piece of work! Please may I repost it here at the talkshop to help us move the debate forward?
Question: I know there s a long term angular momentum exchange cycle between two of the Jovians. How much might this affect the range of the value you get for the 44.21 year harmonic frequency you calculated?
Q Daniels: thanks, I hadn’t considered that before. I wonder if that orbital recession due to tidal action is sufficient to balance the loss of planetary angular momentum due to friction in the interplanetary medium and losses due to gravitational perturbation from other planets.
Brian H says:
March 24, 2012 at 6:33 pm
TB;
Edit note: the ‘p’ in Dreamp’t should be dump’t. The apostrophe, too. → Dreamt 😉
[Reply] Oh noes, another apostrofee catastofee… 🙂
Yeah; the Gleick has his commas, and the Bloke his ‘stophes! 😀
[Reply] D’oh ay Me!
[…] of uncertainty over oce…Stephen Wilde on Clouds of uncertainty over oce…Brian H on The Sun dances the Jupiter-Ven…vukcevic on Clouds of uncertainty over oce…iceskaterfinland on Doug Cotton: Radiated Energy […]
Tallbloke,
Your are welcome to re-post this article if it help the debate to progress.
Tallbloke said:
Question: I know there s a long term angular momentum exchange cycle between two of the Jovians. How much might this affect the range of the value you get for the 44.21 year harmonic frequency you calculated?
Answer: It depends on the time scales involved.
I think all the Jovian planets have changed their orbital periods but perhaps the
biggest changes have been those of Uranus and Neptune. These two icy
worlds were clearly formed in orbits that were much closer to the Sun and they
have since moved considerably further from the Sun.
I recently read a paper (2011?) that claimed that, initially, the solar system had
five Jovian planets with the extra one lying somewhere between Saturn and Uranus.
This article claimed that a catastrophic resonance developed between the fifth
Jovian planets and the others and it was flung out of the solar system, Apparently
(and my memory is a little vague here), once the rogue world was ejected, Saturn
and Jupiter moved slightly inwards and Uranus and Neptune started moving out
from the Sun. Some believe that Uranus’s high obliquity (i.e. tilt of its axis) is
evidence of the solar system’s dramatic readjustment because of this event.
This raises the interesting question. Could the movements of the Jovian planets
of the Billions of years explain the dim Sun paradox [and no, dim sun’s are not
on the Chinese menu]. This paradox arises from the fact that billions of years
ago, the Sun’s luminosity was about 50 % fainter than it is today. This means
that if the Earth was in its current orbit (150 million km from the Sun), it would
have been outside the Life-zone of the Sun and most the water on its surface
would have been turned into ice [much like Mars today]. However, there is
strong evidence that liquid water existed on Earth’s surface during these times.
There are (at least) three possible solutions to the paradox, either:
a) The atmospheric gases were able to retain much more heat than those
existing in today’s atmosphere.
b) The ancient atmosphere was much less cloudy.
c) The Earth moved in an orbit which was closer to the Sun i.e. it was
near to the Sun and still in the life-zone.
Not many people have favored the last of these three possible explanations
but if the synchronicity of the Jovian planets plays a role in setting the orbital
periods of the Terrestrial planets (including Earth), it might receive more
attention from the powers that be.
Anyway, just a thought!
Tenuc says:
To think that a body with the mass and temperature of the sun doesn’t involve significant electrical processes is clear risible. The sun, because of its high temperature produces a massive uni-directional EM charge field at the surface, which is the combined field of all the photons generated by every single atom in the huge mass of matter.
The observed magnetic field is a good indicator of this, although modern physics will be invoked by the believers in the current standard model, which wrongly states photons are virtual point objects without mass, size or real spin. The whole universe is filled with a tenuous highly conductive plasm and science needs to focus on how the power of the electrical potential of the sun is realised via the distribution of energy through the solar system and the rest of space. If progress is to be made we have to understand how the circuit connections work.
“Were God to give us, at last, the cable, or patch-cord that links the Sun to the Climate System it would have on the solar end a banana plug, and on the other, where it hooks into the Earth—in ways we don’t yet know—a Hydra-like tangle of multiple 24-pin parallel computer connectors. It is surely at this end of the problem where the greatest challenges lie.” – Jack E Eddy.
(P.S. Mods: Having trouble with my wordpress login, so name change to Tenuk – Thanks, Tenuc)
Tenuc, good luck with the new login. And yes, until the mainstream faces up to how little we know, and properly investigates Dayton Miller’s results, we are likely to continue facing opposition to the planetary theory on the grounds of insufficient resonant feedback.
Ian, thanks for that, I’ve used part of your post as a teaser in my new post and linked back to your blog. Several authors have posited the idea of an outer solar system catastrophe as you say. I don’t have the references either. Miles Mathis has an interesting take on it in his Bode’s Law paper. http://milesmathis.com/bode.html if you can get your head round his gravitational theory.
What I was referring to is a dim memory of a well calculated angular momentum exchange between two jovians which is on a timescale of a fairly small number of thousands of years.
I was wondering how much the variation in your 44.2 year calc would be, and what the ‘average’ over that cycle is. Maybe it matches the inner solar system 44.7 years better?
More evidence of conspiracy.
Google “the temperature at the lunar equator”
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22the+temperature+at+the+lunar+equator%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
You’ll find lots of references to 127 degrees C (260F). This is what NASA had on its website in the past. Many of the sources explicitely state this temperature comes from nasa.gov website. However, you can’t find that on nasa.gov anymore. It has been “disappeared”.
Why would NASA disappear this bit of data you might ask. Well it’s because if you enter 127C into the S-B formula for black bodies you’ll find that equates to a solar constant of 1452W/m2.
That temperature would be for a perfectly black surface which of course doesn’t exist in nature. So the real solar constant at the lunar equator must be something higher than 1452W/m2.
http://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php
We are being lied to about the solar constant being 1366W/m2. That lower solar constant number is needed to make a whole huge raft of numerical claims about the greenhouse effect. If the number is actually 100+ watts higher the so-called greenhouse effect falls apart on a mathematical basis.
[Reply] Nicola Scafetta is on the ACRIM team. He should know, and I doubt he would lie to us.
Fine. Ask Nicola to explain why it used to be claimed at NASA that maximum daytime temperature on the moon’s equator is 127C and then ask him how that temperature is possible with insolation of 1366W/m2.
As always I’m willing to listen.
[Reply] If you have a google on this site there are some links to NASA’s experimental data from Apollo missions. Not at the equator though. I suspect the problem may have arisen because someone took the temps at the Apollo sites, started with the mistaken assumption that the average surface temp must be 255K from a misunderstanding of SB law and back calculated the 127C equatorial temp from that.
Remnants of scrubbed but widely quoted 127C max lunar temp:
http://iphone22.arc.nasa.gov/public/iexplore/backups/solarsystem/Backup/moon.html
Click to access 526940main_Moonbase_Alpha_Educator_Guide_v1.pdf
page 60. Same text as quoted above.
What I really want to know is the source of this 127C number. How was it obtained. Why is it widely quoted from NASA but is now almost completely scrubbed from the website.
If it was a legimate error on NASA’s part and they’ve corrected it I’m prepared to believe that but I want to know why it was once believed by NASA that lunar equatorial temperature reached 127C and why it’s now given as a much lower number.
These are fair questions are they not?
[Reply] Well, they may have corrected it in the light of the new DIVINER instrument data used by Nikolov and Zeller to support their proof that the grey body T of the Moon is close to 155K rather than 255K. I take it you have read their ‘reply to comments part 1 paper? https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/2012/01/17/nikolov-and-zeller-reply-to-comments-on-the-utc-part-1/
Also someone may have alerted NASA that this website managed to get Wikipedia to remove NASA’s similarly spurious average surface T for Mercury from the wiki page recently.
Well Tallbloke, I want more than your suspicions of how this 127C temperature was obtained. My suspicion is that it was obtained by a telescopic survey of the lunar surface using an infrared thermometer. I’ll continue looking for a definitive answer. I thought maybe someone here could provide a definitive answer or help me search for one. Perhaps I was mistaken in that thought. This is a big deal. It’s physically impossible for that temperature to be reached on the lunar surface with a solar constant of only 1366W/m2. I’ve no explanation at this time why I’m seeing conflicting information nor why ACRIM measures a smaller amount. ACRIM’s purpose is to measure TSI variation with high precision not absolute value. Measuring high precision variation requires only consistency of the instrument not accuracy. Perhaps the instrument was simply calibrated to read 1366W/m2 and from there reads precision deviation above and below the calibration point. There is a big difference between precision and accuracy which most people do not appreciate. The whole climate change debate is about variation of the earth’s average temperature not the exact temperature of the earth. You never seen any graphs showing the earth in 1950 was 14.0C and today it is 14.7C, for example. You only see a zero line for the average and deviation above and below that line typically marked in +- tenths of a degree.
[Reply] I’m alternating between blogging and sunbathing on this fine sunny Sunday afternoon Dave. If you want people who snap to attention, calculator in hand, try outsourcing to India and get your wallet out. 😉
David Springer says:
March 25, 2012 at 12:05 pm
“More evidence of conspiracy.”
I can beat your 127C with a NASA quote of 134C…
Click to access 360020main_LRO_LCROSS_presskit2.pdf
(Bottom of page 9)
We need observational data, not just another misapplication of SB equation.
Tallbloke,
“Get real Leif, the whole Sun is shaking like a soaking wet dog.”
Darn! I thought it was wobbling like a ball of jelly.
Leif Svalgaard says, March 21, 2012 at 11:42 am
“There are things not worth discussing. All has already been said about this subject.”
You are in good company. The late, great Lord Kelvin said:
“There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now, All that remains is more and more precise measurement.”
“I can state flatly that heavier than air flying machines are impossible.”
gallopingcamel says:
March 25, 2012 at 5:18 pm
LOL… Why does the word ‘fossil’ spring to mind… 🙂
Gray’s post of Leif’s data…..appears that a major El Nino occured everytime two solar cycle polarity pulses crossed.
Actually this seems to be the case during every solar cycle transition.
David Springer says:
March 25, 2012 at 2:33 pm
“Well Tallbloke, I want more than your suspicions of how this 127C temperature was obtained. My suspicion is that it was obtained by a telescopic survey of the lunar surface using an infrared thermometer. I’ll continue looking for a definitive answer. I thought maybe someone here could provide a definitive answer or help me search for one. ”
=================================================
Actually Dave, as a THEORETICAL ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM temperature for the lunar surface, the figure of 127C is actually correct.
When the Earth-Moon system is at perihelion, the Earth-Sun distance is actually 147,100,000 km.. In theory, the Moon being 400,000 Km from the Earth could be another 400,000km closer to the Sun. This gives a Sun-Moon minimum theoretical distance of 146,700,000km, which means that solar insolation could be as high as 1,442 w/m^2.
1442 w/m^2 equates to a black-body temperature of 399K, or 126C.
I’m not saying the Moon ever actually gets that hot in practice but, in theory at least, it could, and I am guessing that is where NASA got their figure from…..
anything is possible
Good guess!
The side of the moon facing the earth can never simultaneously be both sunlit and closer to the sun so the equatorial max temperature based upon being 400,000km closer than the earth is limited to the far side of the moon.
If you go visit SkepticalScience.com however you’ll find them using 120C max lunar equatorial temperature in order to defend the 1366W/m2 solar constant.
And you’re still one degree short of 127C which make it less likely NASA was using your calculation. One degree might not seem important but if we’re considering the saturated greenhouse hypothesis we need to know the theoretical maximum mean temperature of the earth and how close it is to that right now. Every degree counts because for every degree short of the maximum it is one degree of freedom for anthropogenic forcings.
http://diviner.ucla.edu/science.shtml
Diviner is a radiometer instrument on the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter designed to measure surface temperature.
I haven’t figured out how to use the online tools to query the dataset. Maximum measured temperature is 410K (137C) in small craters. Mean noontime temperature at the equator is 390K (117C).
The mean temperature can tells us a lot. The moon’s average albedo is 0.12 so that means a solar constant of 1489W/m2, 12% of which is reflected, leaving 1311W/m2 thermal emission at equilibrium.
The small craters are interesting. Something in them is emitting about 1600W/m2. Probably a combination of a very dark impactor rising up from the center with albedo close to zero then the crater walls of lighter colored regolith acting like a parabolic mirror to concentrate some more light onto the impactor.
I’d like to get at the actual data, pick out a flat exceptionally dark feature on the equator, and see how hot it gets.
This appears to be the place to start:
http://ode.rsl.wustl.edu/moon/indextools.aspx
155K mean is an artifact of the physical properties of regolith. It has very little capacity to store daytime heating into the night.
Note how the minimum night-time temperature varies only about 25K between equator and pole while daytime high varies by 250K. If the regolith had more capacity to store solar energy during the day the mean temperature would approach the S-B mean. Our world is unique because of its ocean not its atmosphere. Our ocean soaks up practically every joule of daytime energy and holds it for months so there’s virtually no diurnal variation in SST from day to night and not much more from season to season.
Where Nicolov et al go wrong in this regard is an S-B grey body is superconducting and the moon conducts hardly at all. Our ocean is much closer to the ideal because sunlight penetrates at the speed of light down to a depth of 100 meters or so while sunlight penetrates regolith only a couple millimeters while not convecting at all and conducts very poorly.
It’s all about the ocean. The atmosphere makes a liquid ocean and an active water cycle possible. Beyond that it can be ignored in the first approximation. I thought you knew that.
[moderation note] Apologies for the late approval Dave, missed this one. I’ll answer on thread. TB
David Springer says:
March 26, 2012 at 4:21 pm
http://diviner.ucla.edu/science.shtml
Diviner is a radiometer instrument on the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter designed to measure surface temperature.
I haven’t figured out how to use the online tools to query the dataset. Maximum measured temperature is 410K (137C) in small craters. Mean noontime temperature at the equator is 390K (117C).
The mean temperature can tells us a lot. The moon’s average albedo is 0.12 so that means a solar constant of 1489W/m2, 12% of which is reflected, leaving 1311W/m2 thermal emission at equilibrium.
Interesting David. But could you be forgetting to play in the LW emissivity? If you take toK(1489/0.925) you do get the 410K, but that assumes an emissivity of 0.925 and I’m not sure what the scientists analyzing the Diviner data are measuring. That must have been around January and perihelion. As the emissivity drops, the surface has to get warmer to emit a given W/m2 flux to get rid of the heat that has been absorbed. That is the way I have always viewed these measurements, even on Earth.
Here if you take toK((1362/2*(2/pi))/0.955), the divide by two for diurnal allowance, the (2/π) for the cosine adjust of the spherical curvature, and an emissivity of 0.955 to get a mean temperature at our equator of 299 K or 79°F… very close, right?
Everyone homes in on only ‘albedo’ but I just don’t think you can ignore the emissivity. Once I started to always allow for this, however rough the estimates, I was much closer to the measurements in reality.
Excellent point, wayne! The lower the emissivity, the higher the emitter’s temperature must be to achieve a given flux.
TFT
Bryan, isn’t that really why current warmist climate “scientists” insist on treating all matter as a blackbody, emissivity of one? I think so. When you lower the ir emissivity to something more realistic that 33°C vanishes, and suddenly, there is enough energy hitting the Earth to account for the mean of ~288 K, little or even zero downward radiation enhancement necessary.
If fact, I am also starting to wonder if the “great big assumption” that 30-31% of the solar radiation never reaches any portion of our climate system, surface or air, a pure reflection and can be totally ignored, is actually true. If there are clouds physically present to reflect much of the solar radiation, then those clouds also absorb ir from the surface, raising the clouds temperature, and by s-b, reducing the same amount of energy that is being reflected on the top side, or very close. Does that make any sense? So what really is “albedo” from a holistic viewpoint of energy transfers and absorption? I find very little said or written on this aspect.
Brian
Emissivity and absorptivity go hand in hand. Good absorbers are good emitters and vice versa. Poor emitters are poor absorbers. So if an object at temperature T emits less energy than a black body at T then it takes more energy to keep it at T because it absorbs less of what’s available.
Emissivity and absorptivity can vary by frequency and by temperature. The greenhouse effect comes primarily from.the former. CO2 is good absorber of certain frequencies of far IR but a poor absorber of shorter wavelengths. Thus it acts like a shutter letting shortwave come through to heat the ocean but not letting longwave back out to cool the ocean.
HOWEVER. Kirchoff’s Law states that emissivity and absorptivity must be equal at equilibrium across all frequencies. This is what prevents something from heating up forever and also puts a ceiling temperature on a so-called runaway greenhouse.
Lunar regolith, because it has such poor conduction, is very close to equilibrium at all times. Its temperature tracks the angle of the sun and when that angle is constant so is its temperature. Thus when the sun goes down the temperature goes flat but when the sun is moving across the horizon the temperature is never flat. You can see this in the link to diviner temperture graph I left in an earlier graph.
The regolith temperature vs. insolation curve looks nothing like what happens with a deep body of water in the same circumstance. In that case temperature remains almost flat at the S-B equilibrium temperature for the average power of the insolation. There’s little we can learn from the moon that relates to the earth because rocks are so much different than water. The one thing we can learn is the value of the solar constant at 1 AU from the sun because that constant is what limits the maximum temperature of the regolith during the solar day and there’s no atmosphere.
But all I’m trying to do is get an independent confirmation of solar constant at 1 AU because that value ultimately establishes the maximum possible average temperature of the earth. At 1366W/m2 that’s 350W/m2 projected onto a sphere which equates to about 5C which is remarkably close to the average temperture of the global ocean.
What I’m really asking is what IS the maximum possible average temperature of the earth. What IS the ceiling temperature of a runaway greenhouse? It is the blackbody temperature of the solar constant. It would appear that a runaway greenhouse on the earh is not only possible it appears we are, as we speak, at the ceiling temperature or very close to it. Thus there is no room left for additional CO2 to raise the earth’s average temperature because the greenhouse effect is already saturated. This is not new thinking. Google “saturated greenhouse effect”. This explains why each time the earth enters an interglacial period temperature shoots straight up like a rocket then suddenly stops rising at essentially the same point each time. In other words when the continental glaciers melt a runaway greenhouse from water vapor occurs and the earth quickly reaches a ceiling temperature which is set by the solar constant.
Also check out Ian Schumacher at
http://www.ianschumacher.com/greenhouse_effect_maximum.html
This is the only person (other than myself) I can find who’s even asked the question “What is the maximum possible mean temperature of the earth” let alone tried to answer it. As far as I can determine the maximum possible mean temperature is established by the solar constant and at 1366W/m2 that maximum is 5C which, as it happens, is within 1C of the estimated average temperature of the global ocean from top to bottom. But the average surface air temperature is usually given at 14C which seems higher than physically possible. So I went to the moon to see if the maximum daytime temperature on the moon’s equator agrees with 1366W/m2 and lo and behold it doesn’t. It appears to take 1450-1500W/m2 to produce the max lunar temperatures and that solar constant is sufficient to make the earth’s maximum greenhouse temperature 14C.
wayne says:
March 26, 2012 at 10:01 pm
“If fact, I am also starting to wonder if the “great big assumption” that 30-31% of the solar radiation never reaches any portion of our climate system, surface or air, a pure reflection and can be totally ignored, is actually true.”
Bingo! My question exactly. Greenhouse gases effectively make the earth closer to having absortivity and emissivity equal to 1.0. A runaway greenhouse must end at that point (a saturated greenhouse) and it appears the earth’s greenhouse is near saturation due to water vapor and there’s very little if any room left for CO2 to make the greenhouse effect any greater.
@tallbloke
I expect long moderation delays. You’re just one guy, I don’t expect you to hover constantly over your blog during your waking hours, and our timezones differ by 8 or 9 hours. So don’t bother apologizing for any delays. It’s all good.
[Reply] Consideration of others, I like that, both giving and receiving. Cheers – TB
David: “we are, as we speak, at the ceiling temperature or very close to it.” The ‘other’ geologic stable state, the ‘Hot House’, was at about 25°C, and the planet spent far longer there than in the current Ice Box condition. It was Good Times, my reptilian ancestral genes remember it well …
😉
<:p