The influence of planetary attractions on the solar tachocline

Posted: April 15, 2012 by tchannon in Astrophysics, Solar physics, solar system dynamics

ImageA recent short paper in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (20th March 2012) is appraising past research on planetary interaction with the sun, citing many names known to Talkshop regulars, concluding there is no major effect and that the next and under researched place to look is the tachocline.

The influence of planetary attractions on the solar tachocline

Dirk K. Callebaut, Cornelis de Jager, Silvia Duhau
University of Antwerp,
Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research,
Departamento de Fi ´sica, Facultad Ingeniera, Universidad de Buenos Aires

“a b s t r a c t
We present a physical analysis of the occasionally forwarded hypothesis that solar variability, as shown in the various photospheric and outer solar layer activities, might be due to the Newtonian attraction by the planets. We calculate the planetary forces exerted on the tachocline and thereby not only include the immediate forces but we also take into account that these planetary or dynamo actions occur during some time, which demands integration. As an improvement to earlier research on this topic we reconsider the internal convective velocities and we examine several other effects, in particular those due to magnetic buoyancy and to the Coriolis force. The main conclusion is that in its essence: planetary influences are too small to be more than a small modulation of the solar cycle. We do not exclude the possibility that the long term combined action of the planets may induce small internal motions in the sun, which may have indirectly an effect on the solar dynamo after a long time.
(c)2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd.”

I suspect this paper will be of great interest to some Talkshop regulars. I will leave it to speak for itself.

The contact author is Jager, a veteran who has a WordPress site, part in Netherlandic and part in English where you will find many interesting papers. The Welkom page.

I request care over copyright, particularly given the current disputes, let someone else fight that battle. (example)

Posted by Tim Channon, co-moderator

Comments
  1. tallbloke says:

    Prof de Jager has kindly made the full paper available under the Sun-Earth Publications tab at the top of his website.

    Now, let’s check the bibliography. 🙂

    Hmm, Wolff and Patrone get a mention, but just as part of a list of tidal papers. Looks like de Jager hasn’t read or understood their paper then…

    Not that it’s unusual. Leif linked a pdf of thoughts from one his colleagues which he said was a rebuttal. In the first few sentences, his colleague admits he didn’t read the paper!

  2. JuergenK says:

    The deviations of sun’s rotation speed.

    Not only the equator of the sun rotates faster than other parts of the solar surface – the well known differential rotation – but the whole solar body varies rotation speed. It rotates slower at times of low sunspot numbers an higher at times with most sunspot numbers. The rotation differs about 2-3% from average faster to 2-3% from average slower. The sun allways returns to normal rotation speed during the rest of the solar cycle.
    These sudden changes can be observed at all latitudes!
    According to Prof. Wöhl there’s no explanation for that behaviour.
    I hear you saying: But … the momentum….Your are right. The momentum stays the same because sun/(the outer layer) is shrinking/expanding accordingly to keep the momentum stable.
    As an average sun is completing one rotation in 26.5 days relative to the stars. But at sunspot minimum or maximum this value ist at 24.9 or 26.3 respectively

    ” …At each sunspot minimum solar rotation is suddenly accelerated/or breaked for about 2 years. These wild deviations reach 0.4 degrees/day …
    (Dr. Laszlo Körtvelyessy according to Gilman and Howard 1984, Solar Physics)

    What do you think? Is this behaviour an inherent feature of the sun or induced by planetary attraction – or what else?

    I think you “barycenter guys” should try hard to find an appropriate cycle out there 🙂

    Maybe the inside of the sun rotates faster than the outsite. But why those abrupt and regular speed ups/slow downs of the outside layer?

  3. tallbloke says:

    JuergenK : Thanks and welcome. We have been trying. The dynamo theorists have no explanation for differential rotation which makes any sense. Leif Svalgaard calls it “a work in progress” :

    If you divide Earth’s orbital period by Jupiters orbital period, you get the average rotation rate of the Sun at around 60 degrees latitude, which is close to halfway between the rotation rate at the equator and poles.

    If you divide Earth’s orbital period by half the Jupiter Saturn Synodic period, you get the rotation rate at the poles.

    Earth’s orbital period divided by 3/2 times the Jupiter – Saturn conjunction – opposition cycle of 9.93 years (2/3 of the synodic period) gives us 24.52 days which is close to the equatorial rotation rate. There are many other 3/2 relationships in the system, including Mercury-Sun spin-orbit ratio and Venus-Earth spin orbit ratio.

    More here
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/11/19/solar-planetary-spin-orbit-coupling-more-evidence/
    and here
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/jackpot-jupiter-and-saturn-solar-cycle-link-confirmed/
    and here
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/08/07/feedback-loops-in-the-solar-system/

    In fact, just read the website from the start of the archives. 🙂 🙂

  4. Harriet Harridan says:

    TB! I posted this months back! https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/the-key-signatures-in-the-music-of-the-spheres/#comment-21689

    I presume you’ve seen the WUWT hatchet job?

  5. tallbloke says:

    Harriet, no, I missed your comment unfortunately.

    I took a quick read of the WUWT thread and when I got to this, I decided to pass.

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 15, 2012 at 1:19 pm

    Edim says:
    April 15, 2012 at 12:43 pm
    Leif, that’s argumentum ad ignorantiam and also very dogmatic. Paradigm paralysis?

    Not sure who the ignoramus is here.

  6. Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 15, 2012 at 12:20 pm
    1: TSI [in March or any other month] varies 1.5 W/m2 over the six years of half a solar cycle and the 2 W/m2 change in the last 100 years is not established. BTW, during the year from January to July, TSI varies about 100 W/m2 simply due to the elipticity of the Earth’s orbit. None of this has anything to do with the planets.
    ____________________________________
    It was this response that made me think about a long rebuttal comment about the fact that the elliptical orbit of the earth was due to the production of tugs by the gravitational and tidal interactions with the other planets, and was all about the other planets on long time scales. But the time spent was not justified by the probable “no its not! response, so I have made no comments either.

  7. tchannon says:

    Ignore the games, is destructive, zero will come of it. Maybe amusing watching psychology at work.

    Two rational takes expressed by comments there were the stupidity of dismissal and
    “Pamela Gray says:
    April 15, 2012 at 5:27 pm

    As a teacher and future administrator (which seems unlikely as I don’t play along with the music fad of the day), I can tell you for sure, belief trumps data, maths, proofs, and direct observations. Belief trumps all things. Period. And the plethora of “But…” comments coming at breakneck speed above proves it.”

  8. gallopingcamel says:

    These folks say that planetary influences are orders of magnitude too small to explain the observed oscillations with periods of ~11 years, 55 years etc.

    They may be right but you can’t explain cyclic effects on Earth’s climate in terms of CO2. We need to understand what drives the observed cycles that seem to correspond to some orbital periods. Coincidence? I doubt it.

    They mention Scafetta and point out that no physical mechanism exists to explain the correlations he has found. That may be true but it tells you to start looking for a mechanism while forgetting the absurd notion that CO2 is somehow responsible.

    Observations support the idea that over the last 120 years the CO2 concentration has been rising monotonically. So how does consensus science explain cycles with periods of ~12 years or ~60 years?

  9. tallbloke says:

    The paper concludes that direct tidal/gravitational effects are too small to affect the tachocline. It doesn’t discuss the electromagnetic potential, the surface plasma, or the Wolff Patrone mechanism. I’ll read the paper before I comment further on it.

    I sometimes think it might be a good idea if WUWT was to link the paper, and then the thread discussing it was scheduled for a number of days later, say, one week. Then people might actually read, digest , think about it and research a bit, before they jump in to get their comment near the top of the discussion.

    Most of what appears on their thread is statements of belief and prejudice, though there are some excellent comments too, so it’s worth a look.

  10. Phil says:

    Problem is that the Sun is not fueled by nuclear fusion, and the magnetic field is not driven by a dynamo scenario in the Sun or Earth. The Sun is an electric star.

  11. Tenuc says:

    Before we can understand how small changes in one factor can effect things, we need to have not just a good understanding of how the object in question operates, but also how all other external factors effect operation.

    That solar scientists are having difficulty predicting future solar activity indicates to me that the current dynamo theory is lacking substance. We are only just starting to observe our suns interaction with the galactic environment and haven’t yet discovered all it’s connection with the rest of the cosmos.

    Due to above, I think at this time it’s best just to say “We don’t know.” and look for a new paradigm for the solar model. Not much evidence that professional solar scientists are interested in this approach, rather they seems to be in denial that something is seriously wrong and want to ‘shout down’ any competing ideas. Iron sun, anyone?… 🙂

  12. tallbloke says:

    I couldn’t resist. 😦 🙂

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 15, 2012 at 8:22 pm
    ,Part of the reason is that the W&P paper is an embarrassment to the authors and no rebuttal is needed. You have been told several times what is wrong with W&P. Here is the story once more: http://www.leif.org/research/Gough-Comment-on-Wolff-Patrone.doc
    Douglas Gough is the foremost expert of solar dynamics.

    Appeal to authority.

    Gough’s comment starts with this sentence:

    Dear Leif
    The paper by Wolff and Patrone narrates one of those fairy tales that has not gripped me sufficiently to read beyond the first few pages.

    One of the advantages of having a closed mind is that it saves so much time.
    Unlike Leif, at least Gough, in his other writings, has the decency to admit we don’t know how the Sun works.

    When Wolff and Patrones paper has been answered in the literature, I’ll take the time to carefully study the argument. Gough completely missed what the Wolff Patrone mechanism is, probably because he didn’t read beyond the first few pages of their paper.

    The embarrassment belongs to Leif for touting Gough’s comment as a rebuttal, not to the reviewers of Wolff and Patrone’s paper for accepting it.

  13. tallbloke says:

    Tenuc: I think at this time it’s best just to say “We don’t know.”

    Agreed, and Phil should rephrase to say, “The Sun may be an electric star.”

    However, what we do know is that we have discovered many new ‘correlations’ and timing ‘coincidences’ on this blog thanks to the people who contribute to it, and we know that we are motivated to continue exploring the possibilities.

    By the way, Geoff Sharp has published a new article on his site and commented on the WUWT thread saying I censored him. he didn’t say why of course. 🙂

  14. Steven Mosher says:

    typical lack of engagement with the substantive arguments

    [Reply] Typical inability to read what others have written. As I said:
    “I’ll read the paper before I comment further on it.”
    Leif’s friend Gough should try that with Wolff and Patrone’s paper too.

  15. tallbloke says:

    Posted at WUWT
    tallbloke says:
    April 16, 2012 at 3:06 am

    Paul Westhaver says:
    April 15, 2012 at 4:37 pm
    Leif,
    Fluid instability requires infinitesimal triggers. A step gravitational event can have long lasting and durable consequences. Look here:

    It is noticeable that Leif chooses not to respond to Paul Westhaver’s pertinent comments.

    Argumentum ad ignore’em?

    Theo Landsche..t found that when the Sun’s surface lies within ~0.1r of the solar system’s centre of mass for several years, there is a disturbance in solar activity. Geoff Sharp thinks Landsche..t only used that observation to correlate ‘phase reversals’ but I’m not so sure about that. Let others here judge for themselves. Here’s what Landsche..t said:

    “As has been shown already, the Sun’s surface is a boundary in terms of the
    morphology of nonlinear dynamic systems. Thus, it makes sense that the
    major instability events starting about 1789, 1823, and 1867, and later about
    1933 and 1968, occurred just when the centre of mass remained in or near the
    Sun’s surface for several years.
    When the Sun approaches the centre of mass (CM), or recedes from it, there
    is a phase when CM passes through the Sun’s surface. Usually, this is a fast
    passage, as the line of motion is steeply inclined to the surface. There are rare
    instances, however, when the inclination IS very weak, CM runs nearly
    parallel with the Sun’s surface, or oscillates about it so that CM remains near
    the surface for several years. Fixing the epochs of start and end of such periods
    involves some arbitrariness. The following definition is in accordance with
    observation and meets all requirements of practice: major solar instability
    events occur when the centre of mass remains continually within the range
    0.9 – 1.1 solar radii for 2.5 to 8.5 years, and additionally within the range 0.8
    – 1.2 soIar radii for 5.5 to 10 years. The giant planet Jupiter is again involved.
    In most cases major instability events are released when Jupiter is stationary
    near CM.
    The first, sharper criterion yields the following periods:
    1789.7 – 1793.1 (3.4 yr)
    1823.6 – 1828.4 (4.8 yr)
    1867.6 – 1870.2 (2.6 yr)
    1933.8 – 1937.3 (3.5 yr)
    1968.4 – 1972.6 (4.2 yr)
    2002.8 – 2011.0 (8.3 yr)
    The first decimal is only given to relate the results rather exactly to the aiterion.
    The epochs of the onset and the end of the phenomenon cannot be assessed
    with such precision. The second, weaker criterion yields periods which begin
    earlier:

    1784.7 – 1794.0 (9.3 yr)
    1823.0 – 1832.8 (9.8 yr)
    1864.5 – 1870.9 (6.4 yr)
    1932.5 – 1938.3 (5.8 yr)
    1967.3 – 1973.3 (6.0 yr)
    2002.2 – 2011.8 (9.6 yr)
    Henceforth, the starting periods 1789, 1823 etc. of the first criterion will be
    quoted.
    In case of major instability events that affect the Sun’s surface and the
    incidence of features of solar activity displaying in this thin, sensitive layer
    the instability seems to spread out in the planetary system and seize all events
    in time series that are connected with the Sun’s activity.”

    It is noticeable that we did get a low solar cycle in the 1970′s, and that we are getting another now. It is also noticeable that the first period is followed by the very low cycles of the Dalton Minimum and after the second period, solar activity recovered. The third and fourth and fifth periods also coincide with cycles which are lower than the cycles either side of them. Would these simple observations have been missed by Landsche..t? I doubt it.

    In fact, he states it in the first sentence of the quote.

  16. Joe Lalonde says:

    TB,

    A least people are starting to open up to different theories and possibilities.
    A few years ago, it was absolute that the theories are correct and anyone opposing it is not qualified to comment as they are not experts to the published material many of theses jokers use as quantifying the theory.

    I have butted heads many times that no matter what evidence I have the theory will always be taken as absolute as it was published and being used as a teaching tool to others. Creating the like minded of the blind leading the blind.

  17. tallbloke says:

    Final comment at WUWT:

    tallbloke says:
    April 16, 2012 at 5:33 am

    anna v says:
    April 16, 2012 at 4:24 am
    Peter Hodges said:
    Also, it seems to me that if the combined action of the planets can pull the entire sun
    around the solar system barycenter, then the combined action of the planets could also pull around a little surface material in tidal effects.

    Gross misunderstanding of physics.
    The barycenter has 0 mass. The gravitational force goes F=constant*M1*M2/r**2.
    M1, the sun, M2 the barycenter. F=0
    There is no force exerted according to classical mechanics.

    Gross misunderstanding of Peter Hodges.
    He said the sun was pulled around the barycentre by “the combined action of the planets”
    Which is the correct physics.

    Now the motion of the barycenter, as the result of the chaotic dance of the solar system, has a lot of peaks and valleys that can give a lot of frequencies when analysed. The sun also has a
    lot of peaks and valleys in its output. Similar periods can by nursed out. This does not mean that the correlation has a cause. It is just a clock coincidence unless the dynamics are demonstrated.

    Like this:

    That’s Jupiter and Earth and a little bit of Venus (weak magnetosphere) interacting along the Parker Spiral in relation to the timings of the solar cycles. The amplitudes maybe have more to do with the action of the outer big four gas giants via the Wolff-Patrone mechanism for the general curve, modulated by the effect outlined by Landsche..t in my comment above.

    So we’d be talking about a combination of electro-magnetic, gravitational in combination with solar convection, non-linear boundary effects via Paul Westhaver’s infinitesimal force starting major fluid disturbance via the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability and maybe a little bit of tidal effects too.

    Simple it ain’t, but we’re working on it before we’re ready to make any claims, because we’re not ‘The Faithful’ as Leif likes to insultingly characterise us, but interested and productive thinkers working on this topic, unlike the naysayers.

  18. tallbloke says:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/15/new-paper-in-the-journal-of-atmospheric-and-solar-terrestrial-physics-demonstrates-that-planets-do-not-cause-solar-cycles/#comment-957589
    Ulric Lyons says:
    April 16, 2012 at 5:20 am

    “In addition, the periods of revolution of the planets (in particular Jupiter) do not seem compatible with the solar cycle over long times.”

    False. Superior and inferior conjunctions of Earth and Venus with the Sun that are also in closer heliocentric alignment with Jupiter follow the solar cycle for hundreds of years. The alternating nature of superior Ea/Ve conjuntions (in line with Ju) in odd numbered cycles, and inferrior Ea/Ve conjunctions (in line with Ju) in even numbered cycles, track the magnetic reversal of the solar dipole at each cycle maximum.

  19. tallbloke says:

    Peter Taylor says:
    April 16, 2012 at 5:14 am

    Just to add to the pot: In astrophysics there is an understanding that in the early evolution of stars angular momentum is transferred to the stellar disc via the magnetic field. Can anyone explain to me how the magnetic field transfers angular momentum?

    I am impressed by the correlations of the torque feedback to both sunspot and climate cycles…and not at all impressed by the ansence of mechanism arguments..considering the history of scientific discovery of mechanisms whereby elucidation of mechanims followed observation. So, where tidal forces are apparently too weak, and stochastic resonances under-studied, I would suspect another mechanism as yet unknown that correlates with the forces of torque.

    Given the power of the solar wind to impact the electric body of the Earth (through magnetic storms) – a power amplified by the angle of the fields as they interact, could not reverse currents have similar pulses and powers?

    Incidently – Leif: the law of the conservation of matter and energy would lead me to infer that as no significant amount of energy/matter leaves the heliosphere (held in by the galactic wind pressure), yet there appears not to be a build-up at the boundary, logic would infer that it is cycled back into the Sun (as Alfven thought). I presume that the countercurrent back to the Sun could flow along the sheer lines of the magnetic tubes….even at 1/10th their speed. Alfven calculated the electron flux back to the Sun….the return circuit, and thought it powerful enough to cause the sudden rise from 10,000 to several million degrees C of the photosphere (now thought due to magentic fields heating the surface – but heck, as a generalist I am aware these things come in fashions as paradigms shift and change).

    Finally….often left out of everyone’s equations are voltage shocks. Anyone studying these? When Svensmark wanted to clear his experimental chambers of seeded cloud particles, he applied a voltage shock. The transparency of the atmosphere has a large effect on climate – most particularly, the rate of ocean surface heating and cooling. Global warming is not global…it is regional, where accummulated ocean heat stores (gyres) are dissipated by prevailing winds and low pressure vortices (the vortices track the jetstream).

    These are all mechanisms that are not favoured by detailed studies….of heat accumulation in gyres, of heat transfer to land, or rates of transfer, and the effects of transparency….and virtually nothing on atmospheric voltage variations and ‘shocks’ and their spatial distribution.

    So – many mysteries still to be resolved to understand both solar magnetic cycles and terrestrial climate cycles, where the correlations are very suggestive of a linking mechanism. What is required is a combination of open minds, scientific scepticism and analytical skill married to a wilingness to actually investigate (along with some time and/or money)!

  20. tchannon says:

    “Can anyone explain to me how the magnetic field transfers angular momentum?”

    Assuming angular momentum, a phrase outside of my understanding, means what I guess, a magnetic coupling will exist via eddy current losses, kind of a motor generator.

    I’ve struggled finding a good illustration, this might do

    The effect is related to what happens if you take very strong permanent magnet and let it slide down a copper sheet or pipe. It moves slowly. This is caused by self generation counteracting the force originating in gravity, with the conductivity of in this case copper in the maths, resistive loss. (which will appear as heat)

    I might be very wrong.

  21. tallbloke says:

    Blimey, basic physics for basic physics teachers:

    tallbloke says:

    April 16, 2012 at 6:59 am

    anna v says:
    April 16, 2012 at 6:01 am

    tallbloke says:
    April 16, 2012 at 5:33 am

    Gross misunderstanding of Peter Hodges.
    He said the sun was pulled around the barycentre by “the combined action of the planets”
    Which is the correct physics.

    Even this interpretation is wrong. The sun is a huge gravitational well and is pulling the planets in their dance around it; you are putting the cart before the horse. If one takes the center of mass of all the planets,

    No, by definition, the Solar System Barycentre is the centre of mass of all the planets, AND THE SUN.

    Exoplanets orbiting other stars are identified by the fact that the make the stars they are in orbit around wobble. It is the wobbling that is observed, not the planets. The existence, number, and mass, and approximate orbital distances are inferred from the wobble.

    Our star is no different, “because the combined action of the planets” is pulling the Sun just as much as the Sun is pulling the planets, the Sun has to move wrt the Barycentre as the mass distribution changes. And move it does, by a maximum of around 2.2 solar diameters over a decade or so. Ivanka Charvatova tells us it averages around 50kmh.

    Because the Sun is not a rigid body all the way through, there is both elastic and plastic deformation as it responds to the differential tidal forces it is subjected to, as it heaves around the SSB in a complex dance which looks like a clover leaf for around 50 years out of 180, and quite chaotically the rest of the time. There is a correlation between the periods of smooth, three leaf clover type motion, and shortened, more active solar cycles. In the chaotic periods, it tends to have smaller amplitude, longer solar cycles. These are Ivanka Charvatova’s EMPIRICAL, PEER REVIEWED OBSERVATIONS. Her diagrams appear in one of the standard US college physics textbooks. I suggest you read it.

  22. Phil says:

    TB,

    You’re right I should have lowered the confidence sounding. When rhythmic planetary beat harmonics become chaotic and fall out of sync, the solar cycle shuts down.

    If the Sun is indeed an electric star, then the planets’ electromagnetic/magnetic/gravitational forcings on the plasma-electric base would be the only mechanism to drive the 11yr solar cycle, easily affecting the Sun’s activity levels.

    The regularity of this 11yr solar cycle screams wreaks of celestial influence.

  23. Stephen Wilde says:

    There’s a whole lot of wobbling going on !!

    http://search.orange.co.uk/all?q=Wobbling+stars&brand=ouk&tab=web&p=searchbox&pt=newhptest_hp4&segment=4&home=fal

    It seems pretty clear that the movements of stars are affected by the planets around them. Is our sun unique in that NOT being the case ?

    “Thus, using the Doppler technique to analyze light from about 300 stars similar to the sun–all within 50 light-years of Earth–astronomers have turned up eight planets similar in size and mass to Jupiter and Saturn.”

  24. adolfogiurfa says:

    The results indicate that `solar dynamo’ that was long sought in the solar interior, operates more likely from the outside, by means of the varying planetary con®gyrations.
    Ivanka Charvatova,
    http://www.giurfa.com/charvatova.pdf
    An electric induction motor with twelve electromagnet stators around?

  25. tallbloke says:

    Can anyone help me pick the slugs out of this word salad?

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 16, 2012 at 8:58 am

    tallbloke says:
    April 16, 2012 at 8:29 am
    We’ve been here before, and you didn’t specify what it was about equation (2) that you thought was wrong. So until you do, and show how that falsifies the paper, your assertion that the Wolff and Patrone mechanism isn’t viable is just that, a bare assertion. As such it contains no falsifiable content, and would quite rightly be rejected by a reviewer.

    Since you did not read the comment, I’ll summarize the situation here: The interchange considered by Wolff and Patrone leaves the fluid elements (apparently filling the spaces into which they have been displaced) yet moving with respect to them; therefore it is valid dynamically, for the purposes of energy computation, only for an interval of time of measure zero, which is insufficient to take the temporal derivatives required to determine subsequent evolution, essential, of course, for assessing stability. Therefore Wolff’s and Patrone’s static interchange is infinitely slow and does not operate in a real star. In a real star the gravitational potential energy difference is likely to be some 10^5 times greater in the (deep) convection zone than the term that Wolff and Patrone retain as being dominant. As Gough points out “W&P have fallen into the trap of many a naive modern physics student of misapplying an initially valid formula [equation (2)] to a situation in which it is not valid”. As simple as that.

  26. tchannon says:

    I suggest leaving this problem to W&P, it’s their baby.

  27. vukcevic says:

    Hi everyone, I had enough for one day of fighting Svalgaard on the solar thread over-there.
    My departing shot got snip-ed, hope it’s OK for here.

    It looks as if I got off only with minor scratches, after seeing the carnage inflicted by the mad battle-axe swinging Viking, time to go and regroup. 🙂

  28. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Vukcevic: I am trying to find a extrapolation you did, backwards and ahead, of your famous polar field equation. Where is it? …..You know, after Phil´s video (see above) it is needed. 🙂

  29. tallbloke says:

    Final comment at WUWT (I hope)

    tallbloke says:
    April 16, 2012 at 11:45 pm

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 16, 2012 at 9:28 pm

    Ninderthana says:
    April 16, 2012 at 8:46 pm
    I am not at liberty to discuss the peer-reviewed research which will prove once and for all that you and your supporters are completely wrong.

    I thought that Scafetta thinks he already proved this once and for all [just wait, he says], are [you] telling us that he is wrong and there are others out there with a better patent on the truth?

    There are various hind-cast-able and forward predictable patterns of movement in the solar system which match past proxies of solar activity such as sunspot number and 10Be deposition more or less well. Because our understanding and exploration of the solar system is still in its infancy, we don’t yet know exactly why this is so. However, this is no reason to be in denial of the fact that they exist.

    While we await better understanding of underlying structure and mechanism, it is wise to keep an eye on the performance of the various different prediction methods to see which of them is performing the best, since in the absence of any useful prediction power from the standard model beyond a single solar cycle, they are the best we have. Let us know when the situation improves with the dynamo theory.

    But the ‘best we have’ still has a wide range . Geoff Sharp predicts a ‘milder and shorter minimum’ from his method. Landsche..t predicted four or five low cycles centred around 2030 with Rmax less than around 70. One of our methods predicts a longer drop in activity levels, with an uptick from around 2040-2070, and then further general decline.

    But I’m not discouraged by this, we have been making good progress in finding more and stronger correlations, and I expect the prediction methods to tighten up and converge as time goes on. At the end of the day, working on this stuff isn’t hurting anyone, and may just provide an important insight into the inner working of our solar system which helps advance knowledge. So let the chips fall where they may and congratulations in advance to whoever makes the breakthrough with predicting shorter timescale changes in solar activity with sufficient accuracy to make everyone else sit up and take notice.

    It’s a particularly difficult time to do that, because the Sun seems to be going into a period of odd behaviour. So good luck everyone, here’s to discovering more and hoping it doesn’t get too cold for comfort.

  30. tallbloke says:

    To: Dirk Callebaut
    cc: Prof C. de Jager
    16-04-2012

    Dear Dr Callebaut,

    I was very interested to read your recent paper on planetary effects on the Sun,
    and I would like to draw your attention to an alternative possibility, other
    than the tidal effects proposed by for example Giogieva, ot the barycentric
    effect proposed by Wolff and Patrone (Which merits careful study in my opinion)

    In examining the conjunction cycles of Jupiter, Earth and Venus, I discovered
    that if you consider the alignments along the Parker Spiral rather than the
    direct geometrical alignment in straight, radial lines from the Sun, and adjust
    for solar wind-speed, the correlation between the alignments and the timing of
    the minima of the Schwabe cycles improves quite remarkably.

    Here is a plot of my result. I used the Svalgaard solar wind speed
    reconstruction, plus part of an earlier study which extends further back in
    time. The alignment index was generated using the method described by Ching Cheh
    Hung in his NASA report

    I hope this result might stimulate further interest in investigating the
    possible influence of planetary cyclicities on solar variation, of an
    electromagnetic origin, rather than through the relatively small tidal forces
    you quantified in your paper.

    You mentioned in your paper that none of the previous investigations accounted
    for the Halstatt cycle. In fact, the extension of the Jose 178.7 year cycle
    does. Here are the details:

    http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/178-year-jose-cycle-of-jovian-planets.html

    For your information, Ian Wilson has published several papers on the subject and
    holds a PhD in astrophysics.

    My best regards

    Roger ‘tallbloke’ Tattersall
    BA(hons) Hist/Phil Sci (Leeds 1988)

  31. tallbloke says:

    Ninderthana says:
    April 17, 2012 at 12:43 am

    For the record Anthony, it is the way that you are responding to those who support the planetary model that is ruining your reputation – particularly in light what is coming through in peer-reviewed publications. I find it particularly sad, given how much we owe to you in promoting the cause of climate skepticism.

    REPLY: …and there you have it, I’m a skeptic, and I don’t swallow Barycentrism and its variants easily. Be as upset as you wish. Call me when you have some actual science to discuss, otherwise you are just wasting bandwidth bloviating here. – Anthony

  32. tallbloke says:

    Call me when you have some actual science to discuss, otherwise you are just wasting bandwidth bloviating here. – Anthony

    Hi Anthony,
    The development of scientific theory doesn’t begin with a full understanding of underlying mechanisms. It begins with observation, correlation and hypothesis generation. Then it continues by making predictions, testing them against observables, and refining the hypothesis. Eventually, with good luck and a following wind, a hypothesis will gain sufficient support through the accuracy of its predictions that the corpus of knowledge it must be reconciled with might be forced to reassess some of its underlying assumptions in order to accommodate the new theory.

    These days, the inertia of the ‘consensus’ is mighty difficult to overcome, because positions become entrenched when much public money has been sunk in generating them and reputation is at stake. We know this from the climate wars. However, any honest assessment of our state of knowledge of the inner workings of the Sun, and the flows of energy in the wider cosmos will conclude that knowledge is still in its infancy in these areas. This fact should always be borne in mind when deciding how much weight to place on the pronouncements of the worthy incumbents of the hallowed halls of acedeme.

    So we are discussing science, but it’s unfinished science. That makes it too far ‘out there’ for your taste and so we will pursue it elsewhere. But on the occasions when you make a strong claim here such as “New paper in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics demonstrates that planets do not cause solar cycles”, when in fact the paper is only addressing one of several possible mechanisms for the transfer of energy waves, particles or whatever, and the correlations which have been found have properly calculated Pearson R2 values demonstrating that the probability of the relationships being pure chance is as low as 10-10 in some cases, I think the onus is on you to ensure that debate is open, fair and both sides are held to the same standards of discourse. Which on the whole you’ve done a pretty good job of here, so thank you, and may your sceptical but hopefully still open mind rest in the knowledge that scientific truth always prevails in the end.

    Cheers

    TB.

    REPLY: And again, I’ve seen nothing that impresses me in Barycentrism and its variants. As they say, correlation is not causation, and I don’t see the “several orders of magnitude to weak” gravitational effects as anything convincing. It looked interesting at first, but not anymore. I went in with an open mind months (now years) ago, now I’ve emerged with a healthy skepticism on the claims made. I gave Scafetta a platform, now he can’t even bring himself to allow his peer reviews to be scrutinized, which I find telling.

    I’ll probably take down that page with the widget forecast, because I’ve lost a lot of trust, due to the sniping, and as you know, you have been a huge catalyst in my transformation. -Anthony

  33. Tenuc says:

    This is a classic example of why science is not progressing as quickly as it should. Our beliefs become part of our persona and are much more powerful than logic and reason. Attacking anyone’s belief is seen as an attack on the person himself. Closed minds only look for evidence that supports their own world view (see Climategate. Parts 1 and 2).

    To avoid having to admit their belief is wrong, many strategies are employed to circumvent the dilemma, often with no thought as to where their actions will take them, as evidenced by the Gleick/Heartland affair. It’s a sad reflection on the human condition and will put a limit on the pace of what homosapiens will achieve.

  34. @ Antony say :

    Call me when you have some actual science to discuss

    Science analytical psychology.

    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Carl_Jung

    The great problems of life — sexuality, of course, among others — are always related to the primordial images of the collective unconscious. These images are really balancing or compensating factors which correspond with the problems life presents in actuality. This is not to be marvelled at, since these images are deposits representing the accumulated experience of thousands of years of struggle for adaptation and existence.

  35. Joe Lalonde says:

    TB,

    There are many indicators that our core and sun are created by the same material.
    Interesting electric discharges(lightning) are 99.8% occurring between the 40 degree latitude north and south through an iron shell. Most of the others are storms that drift north or south. This also happens to be about the same size of our core. The velocity of rotation is also much faster to the rest of the planet which gives higher and more destructive winds.
    So, the sun having high electrical content, in the vacuum of space, could have far reaching influence.
    The make up of space is rock, ice, gases and particles. To enclose a piece of the sun/core would not be too difficult with a piece of rock and ice that would be melted as it envelopes this fragment in a rotational setting.

    But hey, that is just one persons observations and not consensus scientists observations.

  36. adolfogiurfa says:

    Once every 2,000 years or so, it happens a change: Can origin of the 2400-year cycle of solar activity be caused by solar inertial motion? Ivanka Charvatova
    So the supercyclic rise is a very long process, maybe a 1000- or a 2000-cycle or even longer. The Sun seems to be much more irregular than we ever have imagined..
    Timo Niroma
    http://www.kolumbus.fi/tilmari/some200.htm
    In fact, could the dominant 2,500-year cycle in the Castile Formation be related to the dominant 2,000-year cycle in the 14C spectrum (Hallstadtzeit Cycle; fig. 2B)?
    http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0095-00/fs-0095-00.pdf
    In an electric induction motor it happens a change whensoever the armature rotates to the next stator field: …each pulse moves the rotor on to the next pair of actuated poles.
    http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au/jw/electricmotors.html#three

  37. adolfogiurfa says:

    Just thinking: Perhaps the polarity change, seemingly difficult during this solar cycle, could be originated by the almost simultaneous polarity change of the whole solar system, where it arises some chaotic behavior in the mean time ( a “minimum”?).

  38. Gerry says:

    On WUWT
    Ninderthana says:
    April 16, 2012 at 8:46 pm
    I am not at liberty to discuss the peer-reviewed research which will prove once and for all that you and your supporters are completely wrong.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Ian et al,
    I have been following your work with great interest. I take it from your comment to Anthony Watts and Leif Svalgaard that an initial review copy of a new paper may already exist. I am looking forward to reading the paper when it is published.

    I already have no doubt that Anthony and Leif are wrong. Even the most intransigent skeptic, however, can change his tune when confronted with a theory that is fully supported by observations and a rigorous mathematical model. The process requires a lot of hard work, but it will be an occasion for celebration when done and will be a tremendous achievement on your part.

    -Gerry
    (G. E. Pease)

  39. tallbloke says:


    Anthony Watts says:
    April 17, 2012 at 1:08 pm

    I’m closing comments, I’ve had more than enough of the issues, and I will not be posting any regular stories on this topic in the near future. I’ll leave the topic to alternate blogs such as Tallbloke’s Talkshop, where they belong.

    As I said up-thread, I’ve seen nothing so far that impresses me in Barycentrism and its variants. As they say, correlation is not causation, and I don’t see the “several orders of magnitude too weak” gravitational effects as anything convincing of causation. Plus, the authors say in their conclusion that “Hence, planetary influences should be ruled out as a possible cause of solar variability. ”

    But as a hat tip to Duke physicist Robert Brown’s comment here, I’ll watch the publications, and if some paper can demonstrate that indeed the weak tidal forces down in the noise bands can have an effect on the sun’s patterns, and that in turn can affect Earths climate, I’m willing to take another look.

    But for now, I’m totally burned out on the topic as it has become the theater of Sisyphus.

    Comments are closed.

    Very Apt:

    According to the solar theory, King Sisyphus is the disk of the sun that rises every day in the east and then sinks into the west.[7] Other scholars regard him as a personification of waves rising and falling, or of the treacherous sea.[7] The 1st-century BC Epicurean philosopher Lucretius interprets the myth of Sisyphus as personifying politicians aspiring for political office who are constantly defeated, with the quest for power, in itself an “empty thing”, being likened to rolling the boulder up the hill.[8] Friedrich Welcker suggested that he symbolises the vain struggle of man in the pursuit of knowledge

  40. Ninderthana says:

    Gerry,

    The impending publications that I am talking about are not mine. I am reasonably confident that they will be sufficient to establish the planetary hypothesis as viable alternative to the stand-alone dynamo model. That said, however, I am sure that people like Prof. Dr. Leif Svalgaard will cling
    onto the pure isolated-dynamo model as though his life depended on it.

  41. Ninderthana says:

    If you go to the following link:

    http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/short-comings-of-planetary-spin-orbit.html

    Assuming that the enhanced tidal bulge only lasts while Venus moves from being two degrees behind the Earth in Helio-centric latitude, to two degrees ahead.

    Venus moves at ~ 360/224.70 degrees per day.
    i.e. 1.602 degrees per day.

    Earth moves at ~ 360/365.26 degrees per day.
    i.e. 0.986 degrees per day.

    So each day, Venus moves ahead of the Earth by 0.616 degrees per day.

    Hence, it takes Venus roughly 6.5 days for it to move from being 2 degrees behind the Earth to 2 degrees ahead.

    Given that the maximum peak acceleration reaches ~ 3.0 micro-metres per second^-2, if we assume that half this peak acceleration is applied to 0.02 % of the Sun’s mass for 6.5 full days at each of the roughly seven alignments of Venus and Earth over the 11.07 years it takes for θ to change from 0 to 90 degrees, the net change to to the Sun’s velocity should be

    acceleration x delta time

    = 1.5×10^(-6) x 7 x x 6.5 x 24 x 3600

    = 5.9 m/sec ~ 6 m/sec

    This is remarkable close to the amplitude of the torsional oscillations seen on the surface of the Sun of ∼6 ms^−1 (0.0086 μrad ^s−1) observed by Howe et al. (2000).

    It raises the intriguing possibility that the torsional oscillations in the outer layers of the Sun may be a product of the mechanism that is responsible for the tidal torquing between Jupiter and the Sun.

    [N.B. The average OBSERVED change in the equatorial rotation rate between solar cycles of 0.0062 μrad s^−1, corresponds to a change in speed at the Sun’s equator of 4.3 ms^−1. Also, remarkably close to the 6 ms^-1 cited above]

  42. Ninderthana says:

    Another important note that Callebaut et al. claim tidal accelerations of ~ 10^-10 m sec^-2 and they claim that accelerations that are four orders of magnitude higher are needed for the planets to
    have a significant effect.

    The tidal forces for the planets fall off as (distance of the planet from the Sun)^(-3), while
    gravitational forces fall-off as (distance of the planet from the Sun)^(-2).

    Hence, if Jupiter’s gravitational force could act upon one percent of the mass of the convective layer of the Sun [this 1 % would have be dynamically decoupled from the Sun] that was spherically asymmetric e.g. the enhanced tidal bulge produced by the alignment of Venus and Earth every
    1.599 years, it would produce average accelerations (at the tachocline) of ~ 1.5 x 10^(-6) m sec^(-2).

    This meets the four orders of magnitude acceleration requirement demanded by Callebaut et al.

    In addition, I have shown above that for realistic applications of this force i.e. for 6.5 days for each of the 7 alignments of Venus and the Earth over the 11.1 year Schwabe cycle – you would get
    changes in velocity of ~ 6 m/sec – comparable in magnitude to the excess speeds associated with the torsional oscillations in the convective layers of the Sun that are known to be intimately related to the 11 year sunspot cycle.

    The big IF associated with this model is to have ~ 1 % of the mass of the convective layer of the Sun dynamically decoupled from the rest of the Sun. This is the bit that I cannot explain.

  43. Gerry says:

    This is very interesting. Perhaps the decoupling results from solar radiation pressure, upwelling pressure, and/or electromagnetic force. Pure speculation on my part – astrophysics was not my strongest subject in graduate school:<)

  44. Those who study climate with out looking at anything above 100 Km, are all about temps, pressures, and lately radiative balance. Those with a focus on the solar activity out to the orbit of the earth are into internal dynamo theory. Those with a focus on the interaction of the solar system with an eye to the focus on SSB with the planets driving the solar cycles are getting closer.

    The real prospective that will find answers will be called Astrology, or electric sun, not because they are valid but because if one considers the modulation of the galactic magnetic fields by the local effects of the spiral arms and the density/compression waves they are causing the movement of the spiral arm evolution to progress, as a background through which the solar system is traveling through, they will be shoved into those categories.

    Once a viewpoint is taken in the long term context of the magnetic field interactions of the heliopause as it moves through the changing terrain of the spiral arms it encounters at the same timing as we experience interglacial periods, then a proper perspective can be taken on what drives the solar dynamics, as well as the movement of the planets and sun responding to changes in magnetic flux into and through the heliosphere. This can be extrapolated from the effects seen on smaller scales by the magnetospheres of the planets IMHO.

    Suspended on the greater galactic magnetic fields, the bubble of the heliosphere is a ball of conductive ions pushed out by the solar wind, by expansive cooling as they move toward the heliopause where they are deionized and condense out as matter to form the Oort clouds to precipitate back into the inner solar system as comets. The accumulation of the ferrous compounds that have magnetic conduction condenses out into the planets, the magnet fields passing through the entire solar system spreads out to pass evenly through every atom that has magnetic conductance.

    The forces and dynamics of homopolar generator mechanics is spread out through the entire solar system so the placement and movement of the relative magnetic conductance of the planets as they progress around the sun determines the density of the magnetic fields and current induced effects that effect the spin orbit coupling of the entire system. The continual shifting of the COM of the sun around the SSB is a result of the combined gravitational, tidal, and the magnetic inductive effects.

    The gravitational effects are inverse square, the tidal effects are inverse cubed the distance involved, the magnetic field strength is a constant application of the sum total of the magnetic conductance of the area of the galaxy the solar system is passing through, constantly spread out through the magnetically permeable/conductive materials of the complete solar system. At all times will there be a sharing of the spin, rotational, and declinational effects of the differential magnetic couplings between the center of the galaxy, and all of the components of the solar system.

    The planetary bodies with the highest amounts of magnetically permeable material (whether above of below the Currie point or not) will experience the highest amounts of homopolar driving effects, the inner planets are gravitationally and magnetically bound together in a resonate pattern with the sun as the center of their reference frame, due to the harmonic coupling they have stabilized into resonance with.

    The outer planets have their own patterns of resonance that is more driven by the differential magnetic inductance effects of the greater galactic fields inducing surges in spin orbit coupling into them as they are closer to the galactic center than the sun, and energy will be pulsed more into the sun and inner planets, as the outer planets are farther away, giving rise to the tilt of their orbital planes in respect to the equator of the sun. When the outer planets are closer to each other then the effects are amplified by the current enhancement, the ~20 period of the Saturn Jupiter synod conjunctions progress around in ~120 degree increments, from opposite the galactic center to on the same side as the galactic center, when they have a synod conjunction in line with the galactic center not only is the rotational inductive effect increased but the Z axis motion is inductively enhanced as well. It is this enhancement of the z axis modulation that shows up as the ~60 cycle in climatological data bases. But as there is a slow procession in the point of Synod conjunctions (not exactly 120 degrees apart) the effects comes in and out of sync over long periods of time modulating the strength of the ~60 year periods effects.

    As the solar system barycenter moves ahead and behind the COM of the sun on the z axis it modulates the strength of the magnetic fields inducted into and out of the sun, the resultant increase or decrease in total flux of containment magnetic strength of the internal dynamo that powers the sun varies magnet loops of the containment rupture out of the sun as sunspots. The total AC signal is the Hale cycle of ~22 years, with the polarity reversal occurring at the same time as the sunspot maximum, so the sunspots are 90 phase shifted to the magnetic cycle strength peaks and we have minimum spot activity at maximum containment field strength/stability. This is why we have more power output from the sun when the containment weakens (more sun spots intensity) and lets it get out.

    Both the sunspot number produced and the magnetic flux inductions into the planetary components are the result of the changes in the suns share of the total magnetic flux passing through the whole solar system. The whole solar system is being driven externally, explaining both the synchronicity of the effects and the mechanics needed to access the true drivers of climate.

    This arguing about which horse on the carousel is the fastest is nonproductive.

    Richard Holle

  45. […] Richard Hollesays: April 18, 2012 at 6:45 am  (Edit) […]

  46. phlogiston says:

    One the solar thread on WUWT which Anthony rather hysterically shut down, Bart correctly criticised my oversimplification of the relative tidal gravitation between earth-moon and sun-Jupiter.

    So here is the full data and Newton’s gravity calculation:

    mass of the Moon = 7.36 × 1022 kilograms
    mass of Earth = 5.9742 × 1024 kilograms
    mass of Jupiter = 1.8987 × 1027 kilograms
    mass of the sun = 1.98892 × 1030 kilograms

    Newton eqtn.:
    F = (G x m1 x m2 ) / r2
    G = 6.6726 x 10-11 N-m2/kg2

    earth-moon distance: 356400 km to 406700 km = 381550
    sun – jupiter: 778547200 km

    diameter of earth = 12 756.2 kilometers
    diameter of sun = 1 391 000 kilometers

    moon force per earth kg: 3.37E-05 N
    jupiter force per sun kg: 2.09E-07 N

    moon force per earth sfc m2 394237 N
    jupiter force per sun sfc m2 68390 N

    Maybe someone could check if I got this right. But what emerges is that, even allowing for the Sun-Jupiter distance (squared), the force of Jupiter on the sun per kg of sun, is about 100 times less than that of the corresponding earth-moon force. However if gravitational force is divided by surface area of the earth and sun respectively, then the difference becomes only a factor of 6.

    Hardly “many orders of magnitude”.

  47. tallbloke says:

    Phlogiston: Welcome and thanks for joining us. I’ll leave the calcs to Ian Wilson, but I’ll just add that the Sun’s surface plasma is much less dense than seawater, and far more susceptible to boundary condition disturbance.

    This is probably why Callebaut and de Jager want to focus our attention on deeper layers subject to much higher pressures. Leif vascillates between a ‘shallow dynamo’ and a ‘deep seated’ dynamo as it suits his arguments. The dynamologists are floundering IMO.

  48. phlogiston says:

    tallbloke says:
    April 18, 2012 at 9:44 am

    And its the surface of course where sunspots occur; surface solar phenomena are more likely to influence earth’s climate directly than deeper processes.

  49. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 17, 2012 at 12:31 pm

    Myrrh says:
    April 17, 2012 at 11:59 am
    The first says: “ScienceDaily (Aug. 6, 2009) — Researchers have largely put to rest a long debate on the underlying mechanism that has caused periodic ice ages on Earth for the past 2.5 million years – they are ultimately linked to slight shifts in solar radiation caused by predictable changes in Earth’s rotation and axis.

    More importantly in the shape of the Earth’s orbit, which is mainly controlled by Jupiter, so, yes, the planets are controlling the climate in the long run, but through controlling the Earth rather than the Sun.

    Interesting that Leif recognises Jupiter’s effect on the Earth’s orbit, but won’t recognise Jupiter’s effect on the Sun’s orbit 🙂

    Richard Holle: Sounds like a viable scheme to me. Can we pursuade NASA to look for the data? 🙂

  50. tallbloke says:

    Phlogiston: Yes, and they look like electromagnetically active surface manifiestations of gravitationally induced vortex and tidal processes.

    I believe all the fundamental forces are at work in creating and maintaining sunspots and causing flares and CME’s. Both Landscheidt and Ching Cheh Hung successfully predicted flare occurence, but the gatekeeper is in denial.

  51. Hans says:

    tallbloke says; April 18, 2012 at 11:37 am

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 17, 2012 at 12:31 pm

    Leif: More importantly in the shape of the Earth’s orbit, which is mainly controlled by Jupiter, so, yes, the planets are controlling the climate in the long run, but through controlling the Earth rather than the Sun.

    TB: Interesting that Leif recognises Jupiter’s effect on the Earth’s orbit, but won’t recognise Jupiter’s effect on the Sun’s orbit

    Supposedly the above sentences relate to the Milankowitch variables. It took me a long time to understand that this solar irradiation variation (+/- 3.5%) is second to some other processes that are dominating them and which are causing glacials and interglacials. George Denton, a geologist concluded that the glacials and interglacials are in phase on both hemispheres which is against the Milancowitch hypothesis.

  52. A. C. Osborn says:

    Tallbloke, have you looked at Chiefio’s write up on the WUWT thread?
    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/

  53. pyromancer76 says:

    A. C. Osborn says:

    April 18, 2012 at 2:10 pm

    Glad you linked to E.M.’s write-up. I also came here to do so. I hope those of you who keep open minds and who require the physics as well as “coincidence” continue to grind away on this one.

  54. vukcevic says:

    Although the de Jager et al paper reject baricentric hypothesis, as far as I can see the electro-magnetic hypothesis is still standing. Svalgaard has reasons to oppose with all available means:
    Dr.S.’s theory is successful in predicting SC max one cycle ahead; my hypothesis allows to go further in time by using the ‘Svalgaard’s method’, and that definitely would make his hypothesis only a second order forecasting tool, while polar field equation takes primacy:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
    Even NASA now admit that the sun’s polar areas are in a direct link with Earth’s magnetic poles, if this is valid for the Earth, there is no doubt it is case with Jupiter. For some time I have steered away from the gravitational and angular momentum discussion for simple reason that all aspects of solar activity are electro-magnetic and bi-polar, so I am convinced that eventual solution will be found in that domain too.
    (posted on the Chiefio’s)

  55. tchannon says:

    Not had time to read everything. Adding a snippet, integrate the time of force, Jupiter has 30x longer than Earth.

  56. Carla says:

    Shut down topic before I even got there, gee thanks guys.
    Huh got my drag on lady on.
    DRAG ON
    Solar cycles that speed up. DRAG OFF
    Solar cycles that slow down. DRAG ON
    Now let’s see what could put a drag on the solar system as a whole..hmm
    Variation in the background..Like the Interstellar Background that the solar system is embedded in on its solar journey through the Milky Way. Even slight variations that we as a people cannot yet see. But are starting to see some of those couple of solar cycle length CLOUDLETTS.

    “”The 11 years Schwabe cycle in the sunspot numbers. We note that this period is far from constant and varies with time, e.g. during the last century the period was closer to 10.6 years.”’

    Speedier cycles during a warming phase, that’s interesting too.

    ..the planetary effects are too small by several orders of magnitude to be a main cause of the solar cycle (they can be at most a small modulation); moreover,
    they fail to give an explanation for the polarity changes in the solar cycle. In addition, the periods of revolution of the planets (in particular Jupiter) do not seem compatible with the solar cycle over long times..

    New paper in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics demonstrates that planets do not cause solar cycles

    Posted on April 15, 2012 by Anthony Watts

    So far the study of solar variability has identified five solar periodicities with a sufficient degree of significance (cf. the review by De Jager, 2005, Chapter 11).
    These periods are:
    • The 11 years Schwabe cycle in the sunspot numbers. We note that this period is far from constant and varies with time, e.g. during the last century the period was closer to 10.6 years.
    • The Hale cycles of solar magnetism encompasses two Schwabe cycles and shows the same variation over the centuries.
    • The 88 years Gleissberg cycle (cf. Peritykh and Damon, 2003). Its length varies strongly over the centuries, with peaks of about 55 and 100 years (Raspopov et al., 2004). The longer period prevailed between 1725 and 1850.
    • The De Vries (Suess) period of 203–208 years, with a fairly sharply defined cycle length.
    • The Hallstatt cycle of about 2300 years. An interesting new development (Nussbaumer et al., 2011) is the finding that Grand Minima of solar activity seem to occasionally cluster together and that there is a periodicity in that clustering. An example of such a cluster is the series of Grand Minima that occurred in the past millennium (viz. the sequence consisting of the Oort, Wolf, Sp¨ orer, Maunder and Dalton minima). This kind of clustering seems to repeat itself with the Hallstatt period.
    It should be remarked in this connection that virtually none of the papers on planetary influences on solar variability succeeded in identifying these five periodicities in the planetary attractions.
    ..the planetary effects are too small by several orders of magnitude to be a main cause of the solar cycle (they can be at most a small modulation); moreover,
    they fail to give an explanation for the polarity changes in the solar cycle. In addition, the periods of revolution of the planets (in particular Jupiter) do not seem compatible with the solar cycle over long times..

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/15/new-paper-in-the-journal-of-atmospheric-and-solar-terrestrial-physics-demonstrates-that-planets-do-not-cause-solar-cycles/#more-61380

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  57. Ninderthana says:

    “It should be remarked in this connection that virtually none of the papers on planetary influences on solar variability succeeded in identifying these five periodicities in the planetary attractions.”

    Virtually all my published and unpublished papers on this topic identify the Schwabe, Hale, Gleissberg, de Vries and Hallstatt cycles in the planetary motions.

    http://www.aip.org.au/Congress2006/625.pdf

    Australian Institute of Physics
    17th National Congress 2006
    Brisbane, 3-8 December 2006
    POSSIBLE EVIDENCE OF THE DE VRIES, GLEISSBERG AND HALE CYCLES IN THE SUN’S BARYCENTRIC MOTION 2006

    http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=AS06018.pdf

    Does a Spin–Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the Jovian Planets Govern the Solar Cycle?
    I. R. G. Wilson, B. Carter, and I. A. Waite 2008

    http://www.wbabin.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/3812

    Do Periodic Peaks in the Planetary Tidal Forces Acting Upon the Sun Influence the Sunspot Cycle? 2010

    http://www.wbabin.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Astrophysics/Download/3811

    Are Changes in the Earth’s Rotation Rate Externally Driven and Do They Affect Climate?
    2010

    and finally

    http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/planetary-spin-orbit-coupling-model-for.html

    Someone is asleep at the wheel……………..snooorrrrrhhh..

  58. Ulric Lyons says:

    For me, the biggest mistake I see most people making, whether they are trying to prove, or disprove planetary influence on solar activity, is having a particular mechanism in mind from the onset. It is most likely to be self defeating to enforce a search criteria on analysis of a system that one has no insight into the functioning of whatsoever.
    My approach has been to concentrate on quality and quantity of correlation with short term land temperature deviations. The result is a most intriguing set of relationships between the Inferior and Superior planets, which reach their extremes in what can only fairly be described as, magnetic angles. From this position it is somewhat easier to have a clearer idea of what kind of mechanisms must be at play, and also of which mechanisms cannot explain what is observed.
    The next thing is that I am not misled by terms such as LIA, Maunder, climate cycles etc, I look at the data: http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/tcet.dat and I want to know why 1684, 1695, 1709 and 1716 winters were so cold, exactly what heliocentric configurations forced those particular cold months?, and did a very similar configuration at the same time of year produce the same result previously ?
    You know how a 1963(1784, 1010) or 2010(1831) winter can leap out of nowhere, well the Maunder is just a denser cluster of such short term events, yes the clusters return periodically over long periods, but it is not a cycle as such. The whole thing is a string of solar driven short term events of varying intensity, duration and polarity, the sum of which over time creates quasi cyclic multi-decadal oscillations in OHC.

  59. Ninderthana says:

    Ulric,

    The big mistake you are making is looking for a pattern in short-term noise. There are many (unknown) factors that operate on the short term, that will not operate on longer time scales,
    and vice versa. The trick is to find the small number of factors that operate on both time scales and to distinguish them from the ones that are exclusively restricted to either the longer or the shorter time scales.

    e.g. You are looking for factors that underpin the short term fluctuations and then dismissing long
    term patterns as just clumping amongst the short term fluctuations.

    While your approach is just as valid as any of the others, it suffers from the draw back that there may be a number of unrelated factors producing fluctuations in winter temperatures i.e. FACTOR A may produce a cold winter in one year and FACTOR B a cold winter in another year. It might be true that FACTOR A is the underlying driver of world temperatures that you are searching for, however, it is hidden in the “noise” of cold winter temperatures that are produced by FACTOR B.

    Ulrich, I am not try to discourage your method of approach. It may turn out to be the best way to
    proceed, however, I would ask that you not dismiss the other approaches so readily.

  60. tallbloke says:

    To: Dirk Callebaut
    cc: Prof C. de Jager
    20-04-2012

    ​Dear Dr Callebaut and Prof.de Jager

    ​ I am forwarding my email of the 16th April to you both again in case you did not receive it. If you did receive it, I would be grateful for an acknowledgement. Perhaps you could let me know if you intend to reply to the points I raised.

    I hope the spirit of open and free scientific inquiry is still alive and well in the Netherlands, and that the answers to questions are not decided in advance of the investigation of the phenomena.

    Many thanks.

    Roger Tattersall

    BA(hons) Hist/Phil Sci
    =============================================================
    To: Dirk Callebaut
    cc: Prof C. de Jager
    16-04-2012

    Dear Dr Callebaut,

    I was very interested to read your recent paper on planetary effects on the Sun,
    and I would like to draw your attention to an alternative possibility, other
    than the tidal effects proposed by for example Giogieva, ot the barycentric
    effect proposed by Wolff and Patrone (Which merits careful study in my opinion)

    In examining the conjunction cycles of Jupiter, Earth and Venus, I discovered
    that if you consider the alignments along the Parker Spiral rather than the
    direct geometrical alignment in straight, radial lines from the Sun, and adjust
    for solar wind-speed, the correlation between the alignments and the timing of
    the minima of the Schwabe cycles improves quite remarkably.

    Here is a plot of my result. I used the Svalgaard solar wind speed
    reconstruction, plus part of an earlier study which extends further back in
    time. The alignment index was generated using the method described by Ching Cheh
    Hung in his NASA report

    I hope this result might stimulate further interest in investigating the
    possible influence of planetary cyclicities on solar variation, of an
    electromagnetic origin, rather than through the relatively small tidal forces
    you quantified in your paper.

    You mentioned in your paper that none of the previous investigations accounted
    for the Halstatt cycle. In fact, the extension of the Jose 178.7 year cycle
    does. Here are the details:

    http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/178-year-jose-cycle-of-jovian-planets.html

    For your information, Ian Wilson has published several papers on the subject and
    holds a PhD in astrophysics.

    My best regards

    Roger ‘tallbloke’ Tattersall
    BA(hons) Hist/Phil Sci (Leeds 1988)

  61. tallbloke says:

    From : “C. de Jager”
    To : ‘tallbloke’
    Cc : dirkk.callebaut@yahoo.com
    Received :
    10:27

    Dear sir,

    Correlations per se have at most some heuristic value but remain pure suggestions when not supported by quantitative physical calculations. When looking at your data I wonder if the law of energy conservation is considered. E.g. is sufficient energy transported along the parker spiral lines to account for the large energy needed to significantly affect the tachocline, how is that energy transported downward towards the tachocline, etc. etc.

    sincerely

    Cornelis (Kees) de Jager

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

  62. Ninderthana says:

    A brave effort Tallbloke, but Prof. de Jager has been a long-term opponent of anything to do with Barycentrism, so I would not hold my breath if I was expecting him to open his mind to the possibility of a new idea. Call me pessimistic if you want.

    Thanks for highlighting my work along side yours. I am working on putting up post that shows that solar minima correlates well with the times when the acceleration of the Sun’s outer layers (that are induced by the planetary tidal-torquing of Jupiter’s gravity upon the Venus/Earth tidal bulge) changes by the least amount.

  63. tallbloke says:

    Hi Ian. Excellent, that sounds like an approach which starts to put meat on the bones of the J-E-V correlations. Yes, I agree that Prof de Jager is unlikely to begin researching possible planetary effects on the strength of my prodding. It just lets him and Dirk Callebaut know that they are about to miss out on the most exciting research in several generations of astrophysics.

    This was my reply, to which I don’t really expect an answer.
    ====================================================
    RE: planetary effects on solar variation
    From : “tallbloke”
    To : “C. de Jager”
    Cc : dirkk.callebaut

    Dear Prof. de Jager,

    Thank you for your reply.

    I agree that until evidence is found to support hypotheses concerning underlying
    mechanisms, the observations of correlations between variation in solar activity
    levels, the successful predictions of occurrences of Flares and CME’s, the
    asymmetric distribution of sunspot production and planetary mass disposition is
    of heuristic value only.

    In cybernetic systems with feedback loops, cause and effect is not usually a
    simple one way progression. One possibility which should not be discounted is
    that both solar activity levels and the organisation of planetary mass
    distribution are affected by energy waves acting throughout galactic space. With
    respect to the point you raise regarding the possibility of energy flow from
    planets alaigned along the Parker Spiral back to the Sun, this link to NASA’s
    website details the power of electrical current flowing into Earth’s artic
    region via ‘magnetic reconnection’ through ‘flux tubes’.
    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/11dec_themis/
    “Powerful substorms, giant magnetic ropes, explosions that stop the solar wind
    in its tracks: “We have much more to learn about all these things,” says
    Angelopoulos. “I can’t wait to see what comes next.”

    Given the contant strong auroral activity observed on Jupiter and Saturn, I
    surmise that such ‘reconnection events’ are a continuous process on those
    planets. Powerful electrical discharge affects the body which is discharging as
    well as the body which is ‘grounding’ the energy.

    Correlation does not prove causation, but correlations which have a calculated
    probability of being pure chance of P<10^-10 should not be dismissed in my
    opinion.

    I hope further research by experts like you and Dr Callebaut may be stimulated
    by the discoveries being made by myself and many other researchers in the field
    of solar system dynamics.

    Thank you for your time.

    Roger Tattersall
    BA(hons) Hist/Phil Sci

  64. Ulric Lyons says:

    Ninderthana says:
    April 20, 2012 at 5:19 am

    Wrong on all accounts. It is all about the noise. The noise directly dictates the longer term changes, climate is the sum of weather, without the noise there would be little variation on the scale of decades and centuries. Understanding the noise is vital, as the relationship between short term temperature change and precipitation reverses from summer to winter, and is the only way to quantify the hydrological implications.

    As far as the factors driving short term land temperature deviations go, I am basing that entirely on short term heliocentric configurations driving them real time, through presumably changes in the solar wind velocity/temperature. Now rather than having choices of factors that may be causing e.g. a cold February, or a hot May, I have one set of *rules* of planetary angular relationships, which maps out all the short term *anomalies* over a record as long as CET. Any given condition has to be repeatable, consistent and without exception, otherwise it would fail to hind-cast or forecast,

    For forecasting deviations from normals in the UK for the last 4yrs I am at around 90% correct at a weekly scale. Winter 2011/12, I said: a very warm Nov, mild Dec, mild Jan but cooling in the last week, cold Feb, bitter in the 2nd week, strong warming from the 2nd week of March but cooling at month end. April had to be a cool month going by my best analogue (March 1833), but other detail that is not in the 179.05yr return showed slight warming from around the 6th and 10th of April, which was evident with the AO and NAO moving towards the positive too. Cooling from around 18/19th April, and a strong warm burst from around the 25/26th April. {error on late Feb into early March, it warmed up earlier, it was down to a choice of two conflicting signals… lesson !}

    How world temperatures respond to the noise is more complex, as annual and inter-annual SST`s will move in opposition to land temperature deviations at times due to ENSO type mechanisms. Summing of all of this then impacts on total OHC providing the PDO type signals, which then feeds back to the lands to vary to final effective impact of the *noise* there.

  65. Ulric Lyons says:

    Ninderthana says:
    April 20, 2012 at 5:19 am

    I should add that only for a small proportion of the time am I faced with a situation where there are two conficting signals to choose between, typically a couple of weeks per year at the most.

  66. Ninderthana says:

    Ulric says:

    “Wrong on all accounts. It is all about the noise. The noise directly dictates the longer term changes, climate is the sum of weather, without the noise there would be little variation on the scale of decades and centuries.”

    Are you seriously suggesting that the recent ice ages were caused by noise? Unless you misunderstand the nature of climate noise, your statement above is very unscientific. Sometimes,
    slow gradual changes in the underlying factors which affect climate actually bring about climate change. They may do this by changing the frequency of short term factors but it the long term
    factor which governs the process.

    Uliric says:

    “Any given condition has to be repeatable, consistent and without exception, otherwise it would fail to hind-cast or forecast,”

    This assumes that you have all of the conditions. This is a big if, since there may be some climate conditions that only act on long-term time scales.

    I am happy that you are have so much success with you predictive methods, Ulrich.

    However, with regards to the ENSO, all I can say is that your going to be shocked when
    I publish my next paper, as it appears that the ratio of El Nino’s to La Nina’s has very little
    to do with planetary configurations, at least in a direct sense.[note: the last few words are very important].

  67. Ulric Lyons says:

    Ninderthana says:
    April 22, 2012 at 4:37 am
    “Are you seriously suggesting that the recent ice ages were caused by noise?”

    No, just within a Holocene context, sorry I should have mentioned that.

    “Sometimes, slow gradual changes in the underlying factors which affect climate actually bring about climate change. They may do this by changing the frequency of short term factors but it the long term
    factor which governs the process.”

    Yes there has been a gradual decline over the last 8000yrs, but long term factors cannot change the frequency of the short term factors, they only vary the baseline, and only minimally as we can see by the severity of cold snaps in recent winters. The range of short term variation is much lager than the average change over millennia.

    “This assumes that you have all of the conditions. This is a big if, since there may be some climate conditions that only act on long-term time scales.”

    I have enough of the short term conditions for effective forecasting a very long way ahead, and these same conditions readily map out any peak positive or negative within the last few thousand years. I see no reason to think the the Dark ages or the Greek minimum were any different to Dalton and Maunder, and they are clearly composed of short term temperature deviations.