EVIDENCE OF LENGTH OF DAY (LOD) BIDECADAL VARIABILITY
CONCURRENT WITH THE SOLAR MAGNETIC CYCLES
Milivoje A. Vukcevic M.Sc
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01071375/document
Abstract: Number of factors ranging from global atmospheric and oceans circulation to the plate tectonic movements affects the length of day (LOD) on different time scales. Existence of a coincidental or causal correlation between the solar magnetic oscillations and the secular LOD changes is demonstrated.
I leave readers to comment.
Post by Tim
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Thanks Tim, and Rog of course..
Magnetic linkage tends to be ignored, perhaps because we don’t see magnetism. I think we agree this is an elephant showing in many ways.
Same time there is even less notice of the necessary electrical current arising from varying magnetic field and physical movement. Little data is obvious.
Cough, maybe a generation thing.
Any effect is I assume peripheral, nothing to do with direct thermal losses, hence cosmic ray modulation etc.
Please note that web link for magnetic LOD data has changed to:
http://sbc.oma.be/data1.html
Very interesting work, Mr. Vukevic. Everyday, I spend hours reading and studying various processes that affect the earth’s climate. As a 70 year old, with a little knowledge of math, and of course some physics, I am amazed that some climate scientists can tell people “they” have “models” that accurately describe the earth’s climate. Of course, these models leave out any affects due to LOD, thermoclines from bottom of the oceans due to volcanism, plate movements, and so many other natural processes. It is work by people like you, Paul Vaughn, and other truly scientifically minded searchers for “truth” (in terms of the language of nature–mathematics) that future humans will see benefit.
Thank you very much for this information.
if I were an academic – I’d saying something that sounds important which means nothing.
But I don’t have to pretend to know anything so I can say I’ve no idea how to make sense of this.
“Serendipitously, the LRO mission made measurements during a period when GCR fluxes remained at the highest levels ever observed in the space age due to the sun’s abnormally extended quiet cycle. During this quiescent period, the diminished power, pressure, flux and magnetic flux of the solar wind allowed GCRs and SEPs to more readily interact with objects they encountered — particularly bodies such as our moon, which has no atmosphere to shield the blow.
“This has provided us with a unique opportunity because we’ve never made these types of measurements before over an extended period of time, which means we’ve never been able to validate our models,” notes Schwadron. “Now we can put this whole modeling field on more solid footing and project GCR dose rates from the present period back through time when different interplanetary conditions prevailed.” This projection will provide a clearer picture of the effects of GCRs on airless bodies through the history of the solar system.
Moreover, CRaTER’s recent findings also provide further insight into radiation as a double-edge sword. That is, while cosmic radiation does pose risks to astronauts and even spacecraft, it may have been a fundamental agent of change on celestial bodies by irradiating water ice and causing chemical alterations. Specifically, the process releases oxygen atoms from water ice, which are then free to bind with carbon to form large molecules that are “prebiotic” organic molecules.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1012/03/120319135245.htm
I take that to mean an interpretation is wanted.
Trying not to prejudice too much, I’ll try.
The sun has a dominant cyclic variation with a cycle period of about 22 years. Every half cycle sunspots flare up, we can see these but not that the sunspots have a different magnetic polarity.
Length of Day is the about the rate the earth spins. This has tiny variations in rate, that is the LoD data. I’m not sure I understand the plot label geomagnetic LoD with units of ms, presumably milliseconds.
LOD is usually given in ms of time variation.
The plot shown is of a “flattened out sun”, magnetic strength vs. latitude and a LoD line plot.
Vuk says the two are correlated.
Various reasons for variations in LoD are assumed, such as the spinning ballerina effect of mass distribution change, perhaps water or ice. Some say the mass of air is related as winds move in the atmosphere. The liquid earth core may be involved. And so on.
The solar and geological magnetic fields are joined and vary.
A snippet, the strength of the solar field can be deduced from the geomagnetic field. And so on.
Tim is on the right lines, so I will expand a bit.
Geomagnetic field is what is measured by magnetometers on the surface. Great proportion of it is generated in the liquid core with minor bit due to the solar input, as far as we know.
Jault Gire, LeMouel Andrew Jackson, Jeremy Bloxham& David Gubbins projected these values towards the centre of the core, and calculated biannual variability at the liquid core – mantle interface. Then they estimated the core’s angular momentum required to produce such field, then “transformed (it) into an equivalent change in the length of the day as seen on the solid Earth by conservation of angular momentum”.
To their surprise they found it roughly matches what has been found by astronomical observations during the previous 150 years.
Hence: geomagnetic LOD = LOD as inferred from the geomagnetic data.The LOD units are milliseconds (ms)
It appears that these geomagnetic values calculated (here converted into LOD) are highly respected and are used the NASA-JPL, then presented as ‘torsional oscillations of the core-mantle system’, hence different numerical values.
Compare intro in these two links:
‘LOD rough data’ Jackson et al http://sbc.oma.be/data1.html
‘torsional oscillations’ NASA-JPL http://sbc.oma.be/data5.htm
All this drove DR. Svalgaard furious, he never disputed data or calculations but concluded: “ it is very likely that any apparent relationship is purely spurious.”
That may or may not be so, either way everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Using only my eyes on the chart, it seems to be telling me that LOD varies more when the solar magnetic field is weaker (less coloration), rather than stronger. Does this mean anything? It seems counter- intuitive to me unless the solar magnetic field is acting as a stabiliser of the earth’s rotation. Fascinating!
Vukcevic you see the relationship between the Earth and the Sun’s magnetic field, but there are many scientists who do not see. Is not it strange? For some time say were suspecting, but there was no evidence.
BoyfromTottenham
You are absolutely correct, it is first thing I noticed.
How to interpret this?
Solar magnetic activity and Arctic magnetic field have negative correlation, so do Arctic field and temperature anomaly:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC9.htm
So what is going here?
Earth field is either weaken by solar field to far greater extent than assumed, or more controversially both have same origin but move in opposite directions, hence this note to Konrad (as posted at WUWT)
“Konrad
Mr Sun and Mr Jupiter relationship is very secretive, we all know of the Helios’ and Gaia’s open relationship, however we did not know that the Helios’ old man Zeus has even more secretive relation with Gaia, recently evidenced in data between two major climate indices.” , Zeus = Jove = Jupiter.
In the Greek mythology Helios (sun) is son of Zeus (Jupiter) who is son of Chronos (Saturn)
Hence my Solar Activity = 2xJupiter +1x Jupiter-Saturn
(we are greatly influenced by our fathers, and through them in smaller extent by our grandfathers)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC6.htm
Some people take science they do far too seriously, I do it for fun of it.
p.s.In some future article I will expand on the “recently evidenced in data between two major climate indices.”
There are now satellites, but the scientists do not believe in satellite measurements, prefer terrestrial. Avalanche will fall, but sentences does not change.
ren says:
Vukcevic you see the relationship between the Earth and the Sun’s magnetic field, but there are many scientists who do not see. Is not it strange?
Hi ren
I look at data, and if I find something of interest in there, I really don’t care if the ‘scientists do not see (it)’.
Vukcevic, dziękuję.
first time I’ve seen red line defined — appreciated — answers all questions
CW: Thanks.
I’m in the same boat as Scottish Sceptic above. I’m curious to know is the earth’s current volcanic activity and magnet pole strength and current rapid movement also influenced by solar magnetic cycles?
Hi Richard
On volcanic activity there are data that indicate a weak correlation, but difficult to conclusively prove anything.
Magnetic poles movements are bit of hit and miss. In southern hemisphere there is a single intensity peak moving very slowly from Antarctica towards Australia.
In the northern hemisphere there are two peaks of high intensity, one to the west of the Hudson Bay and the other in the central Siberia. These two locations have been fixed more or less since compass arrived to Europe.
What is changing is the intensity of the peaks, Hudson Bay was weakening since 1650s (at Maunder Min time) while Siberia was more or less static until 1800s (at Dalton Min time) when started to strength and surpassed the Hudson Bay around 1997. ‘Pole’ is somewhere in between depending on the balance between two peak intensities.
Most of the Earth’s magnetic field flux is currently concentrated in the Earth’s eastern hemisphere.
Current magnetic map is at:
Click to access F_map_mf_2010.pdf
Paul Vaughan says: October 24, 2014 at 6:14 am
“first time I’ve seen red line defined — appreciated — answers all questions CW: Thanks.
Paul, why is it that arrogant academics claim to know? All other critters, earthlings, and roaches, admit, “beats the shit out of me”. Do not trust anyone that claims to know. It is like the State Fair, “I hab for you, my very good friend, a set of knives that never get dull”
ren says:
October 23, 2014 at 9:13 pm
“There are now satellites, but the scientists do not believe in satellite measurements, prefer terrestrial.”
Heh, even wannabe scientists don’t believe them – i.e. Mr. Willis Eschenbach @WUWT
Thanks vukcevic. Not sure how to fit that information in with what I find on the net. For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole
I must assume it is the ‘peak intensities’ that are changing and not the physical ‘Magnetic North Pole’.
Once more completely new information for me to absorb. I think it is time for a beer. 🙂
Richard
Magnetic dip needle is fine for people who use it for navigation unless they approach one of the three critical areas, however if I want to build the case for the climate – magnetic field relationship than I need to dig a bit dipper into the substance of the matter.
This animation
shows how the Earth’s magnetic field intensity (blue – strong, red – weak) has changed during last 400 years.
As they have found large current connections to the earth, one wonders if they vary with the solar cycle, and if this might drive the earth as a homopolar motor of sorts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homopolar_motor
Giant electric currents through space land on the poles. Ought to do something…
From Vukcevic’s red line “data1” link:
“References to be mentioned when data are used:
Jackson A., 1997.
Time-Depency of geostrophic core surface motions,
Phys. Earth Planet. Int., 103, pp 293-311.”
Found that easily enough:
Click to access gm072p0097.pdf
But…
“Description of the data used for model computation :
The magnetic field and its rate of change at the core-mantle interface was computed at 2.5 year intervals
from field model ufm1 of Bloxham & Jackson (1992)
[…]
Related references:
Bloxham J. & Jackson A., 1992.
Time-dependent mapping of the magnetic field at the core-mantle boundary,
J. Geophys. Res., 97, pp 19537-19563.”
…is behind a paywall.
The “data5” link refers to the same paywalled paper:
“Description of the data used for model computation :
The magnetic field and its rate of change at the core-mantle interface was computed at 2.5 year intervals from field model ufm1 of Bloxham & Jackson (1992)”
It also refers to this:
“References to be mentioned when data are used :
R. Hide, D. H. Boggs and J. O. Dickey, “Angular Momentum fluctuations within the Earth’s liquid core and torsional oscillations of the core-mantle system”, Geophys. J. Int. 143, 777-786, 2000.”
…which is freely accessible here:
Click to access 79e415092bf27550f5.pdf
So in conclusion, here’s the dead end I’m hitting when I try to look into this further:
Bloxham & Jackson’s (1992) “data” are from a paywalled “model”.
Attention mainstream thought-policing agents:
Mainstream science shouldn’t count on blind public trust if supposedly brilliant mainstreamers can’t even bother to find a simple way to put publicly-funded research in public view.
Can someone link me to Bloxham & Jackson (1992) or not??
ufm1 model may be paywalled off-limits, but
gufm1 model is animated here…
http://www.epm.geophys.ethz.ch/~cfinlay/gufm1/
…and described here:
Click to access Jacksonetal2000.pdf
It has “36512 parameters” and the authors conclude the abstract with:
“[…] full exploitation of the database may demand a new modelling methodology.”
I have to agree.
Good possible explanation there E.M! A homopolar is reversible as that 22 year plot indicates but does Earth’s current flows actually reverse and are they pole to pole?
As soon as I saw the “data” source for Vukcevic’s well-known graph finally revealed above, I immediately considered the validity of the model’s low frequency assumptions for higher frequencies.
It’s worth noting that the authors later add:
“Despite our comments above, we would like to stress that gufm1 does represent an excellent representation of the secular variation over the last four centuries.”
The key word there is “secular”.
Is the appearance of a Hale signal at higher-frequency mysterious?
I’m confident that almost all talkshoppers will agree that it’s not.
I would say Vukcevic has pointed the modelers to an easy assumption fix.
If time permits I’ll run diagnostics on the model output to see how easy or hard it should have been for the modelers to identify the flawed model assumption. (Before even starting I’m willing to put money on “easy”.)
E.M.Smith says: October 24, 2014 at 6:13 pm
…….
If so the Antarctica must be the entry point, it varies at same rate as the solar magnetic field but with intensity two orders of magnitude stronger than the heliospheric field at the Earth’s orbit.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TMC.htm
Noteworthy opening sentence of gufm1 model closing section:
“It seems increasingly likely from palaeomagnetic studies that the mantle influences the field-generation process.”
That was written 14 years ago.
Maybe Vukcevic can give us an update.
Are they getting on with this Vukcevic?
@ EM Smith
FYI: ‘Galaxies have been likened to “homopolar motors” invented by Michael Faraday’
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2011/arch11/110510faraday.htm
Paul Vaughan
Are they getting on with this Vukcevic?
Not as far as I know.
Earth magnetic field changes very slowly.
NOAA updates data base only once every 5 years (interpolates for years in between) and produces maps once every 10 years.
Bloxham is working on other planets magnetic fields (possibly with data from space probes), while Jackson is university prof concentrating on writing the uni’s lectures:
http://www.epm.geophys.ethz.ch/~ajackson/GeophysikI.html
Latest work of significance in the field:
Click to access TRWMM_2005.pdf
currently the ESA’s magnetic field mission is all the rage.
There is a work published in 2012
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/92JB01591/abstract;jsessionid=BEC36747557E4862F377E8FC727A180A.f01t04
but this is going back in history, prior to 1840. Since the Gauss’s magnetometer came into wider use after 1840s, prior data could be only of approximate value.
In my paper Fig. 2 prior to 1870, shows good correlation between the LODastro and SSN, while LODgm is in anti phase with SSN, I am inclined to think that the geomagnetic instrumental data resolution just wasn’t good enough.
.
Vukcevic, astro & gm measure different things. It seems to me that the mainstreamers are aware of this and attempting to use this info to separate relative motions of Earth’s shells. The concern I have is with mainstream misinterpretation, which rests upon undiagnosed false model assumptions.
Regards
Exploration Update:
1. Using “data1” I’ve verified that the bidecadal wave illustrated by Vukcevic is Hale. The amplitude is low, but there’s no phase/frequency ambiguity.
2. The CAM bidecadal wave is not coherent with global bidecadal terrestrial temperatures (which match Jupiter-Saturn).
3. Everyone wake up for this one: CAM (via both “data1” & “data5”) matches Southern Ocean surface temperature and stratospheric aerosol optical thickness (SAOT) tower clusters, not LOD. (This could be a key piece of the puzzle overlooked by NASA JPL & others.)
4. Readers may recall that I verified Vukcevic’s Antarctic magnetic field / TSI illustrations years ago. At that time I raised modeling questions that went unanswered by both Jackson & Vukcevic. So far as I’m aware the public record still doesn’t answer those questions. Jackson+ (2000) refers back to the 1992 article that’s hidden behind a paywall.
5. The combination of 3 & 4 reinforces that paywalled modeling secrecy is encumbering efficient exploration of multidecadal-to-centennial southern high-latitude multivariate coupling & coherence. With better taxpayer access to taxpayer-funded research, there could be scope here to efficiently improve Sidorenkov’s work on Antarctic ice specific mass, but as it turns out there’s just another reason to call the mainstream out for corrupt practices such as artificially building in delays that hold civilization back. There are enough natural impediments to civilization’s advance without unnecessarily building in artificial ones.
Folkner+ (2014). JPL Interplanetary Network Progress Report 42-196.
Click to access 196C.pdf
typo: That should be ERSST PC2&3 (not 1&2).
Click to access 1409.7583v1.pdf
Current decline in solar activity will accelerate and perpetuated the polar vortex pattern of the polar vortex. It is similar to last year (shift over Europe). Gradually it will work on the lower layers of the atmosphere. Arctic air outside the vortex over the Bering Strait will be pour in North America.
Sorry, increase in solar activity.
a curiosity: 1 cycle ~= either 1470 years or 1470/2 = 735 years depending on latitude
Click to access Finlay_Jackson03.pdf
http://www.epm.geophys.ethz.ch/~cfinlay/gufm1.html
Earth, Venus and Mercury synodics converge at 980 years = 4/3 x 735y.
JEV (Jupiter-Earth-Venus) & osculating Earth-Moon orbital elements match modeled bidecadal CAM precisely in phase. The match with JEV is much better than the good match with solar Hale.
In the 1990s NASA JPL scientists developed (perhaps accidentally misguided) belief that multidecadal CAM changes match combined ERSST PC3&4 (remember PC1 = secular & PC2 = ENSO), but this belief needs correction (and this is important) since it’s actually ERSST PC2&3. (Tip: The dipole moment matches PC3&4 & stadium wave …which also represents (get this – surprise surprise) a dipole (…so this is a real dipole “Duh!!” moment for anyone slow to clue in to simple geometry).)
I wondered why they were so stubborn about this. Now it’s clear why and where they went off track.
What I hope is that they’re not under religiously tyrannical leadership that will force them to delay by several decades correction of their currently incorrect multidecadal narrative, which is being used (unconvincingly — it’s actually making them look deceitful) to prop up AW.
I have a lot more respect for JPL scientists than most other scientists involved in climate research & commentary, but as I’ve commented before I regard this particular narrative as a very dark agenda-driven product. I don’t suspect the working scientists. I suspect very bad (administrative) leadership in recent decades. Let’s hope they (the working scientists) have already corrected this problem by decisively eliminating the bad (administrative) leadership problem. (Based on a rumor I heard from a source I trust, I suspect they’ve already taken 1 significant step away from the dark political track being forced upon them. Even just the living hope of restructuring a darkly oppressive hierarchy must bring a breath of fresh, clean air to good, honest, hard-workers….)
Conclusions:
1. JEV (through osculating Earth-Moon orbital elements) is driving 22 year & 82.5 year CMB (core-mantle boundary) waves. (Remember JEV long wave = 165 years via NASA Horizons.)
2. Sun’s driving multidecadal north-south dipole (which shouldn’t be confused/conflated with #1).
__
Out of pure practicality I’ve opted to be mildly provocative in concisely stating these conclusions explicitly with the hope of drawing out differing perspectives for consideration. The aim is not to debate (always a waste of time), but rather to see if anything can be learned by observing from other perspectives.
Regards
FYI: NASA has a new or updated (20 Oct. 2014) chart of planetary data here:
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/charchart.cfm
Wikipedia seems to have the same data, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gravitationally_rounded_objects_of_the_Solar_System
OB: Those (mean) orbit periods precisely match Seidelmann (1992).
Here’s another useful link:
http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/models/constants.html
Always keep in mind that averages depend on aggregation criteria. This is the mainstream’s biggest weakness, as is becoming more & more clear as I learn about their abuses of high-order polynomials. We’re just peeling the lid off an even bigger can of false assumptions. My guess based on what I’ve observed is that Seidelmann may be more aware of aggregate central limits than others, but opportunities for improving model attractor definition haven’t been exhausted.
Tallbloke, A.W. is so tired that blocked my access.
ren: don’t worry, the talkshop is a safe place for you to put your comments and graph plots.
Vukcevic, perhaps you can ask your friend Jackson about temporal evolution of gufm1 wind drift correction uncertainty spatial distribution. (The last graph points to the windiest place on earth. Correcting dead reckoning in the Southern Westerlies vs. doldrums?…. in 1880 vs. 1930??…) I’m not volunteering a deception light bulb to encourage manufactured excuses. Mainstream awareness of the evolving spatial distribution of wind-driving gradients is inadequate. A tedious exercise in attempted excuse-engineering might be the schooling that delivers revelation: PC3 is a mixed mode.
ren wrote: “A.W. is so tired”
That’s for sure. And tired people make more (some of them serious) mistakes….
PV: OK – noted, thanks. I’ve used the new numbers in a Why Phi post but as you say we can’t assume all planetary numbers are now perfect.
Paul Vaughan says:
October 25, 2014 at 6:54 pm
JEV (Jupiter-Earth-Venus) & osculating Earth-Moon orbital elements match modeled bidecadal CAM precisely in phase. The match with JEV is much better than the good match with solar Hale.
In the 1990s NASA JPL scientists developed (perhaps accidentally misguided) belief that multidecadal CAM changes match combined ERSST PC3&4 (remember PC1 = secular & PC2 = ENSO), but this belief needs correction (and this is important) since it’s actually ERSST PC2&3. (Tip: The dipole moment matches PC3&4 & stadium wave …which also represents (get this – surprise surprise) a dipole (…so this is a real dipole “Duh!!” moment for anyone slow to clue in to simple geometry).)
I wondered why they were so stubborn about this. Now it’s clear why and where they went off track.
What I hope is that they’re not under religiously tyrannical leadership that will force them to delay by several decades correction of their currently incorrect multidecadal narrative, which is being used (unconvincingly — it’s actually making them look deceitful) to prop up AW.
I have a lot more respect for JPL scientists than most other scientists involved in climate research & commentary, but as I’ve commented before I regard this particular narrative as a very dark agenda-driven product. I don’t suspect the working scientists. I suspect very bad (administrative) leadership in recent decades. Let’s hope they (the working scientists) have already corrected this problem by decisively eliminating the bad (administrative) leadership problem. (Based on a rumor I heard from a source I trust, I suspect they’ve already taken 1 significant step away from the dark political track being forced upon them. Even just the living hope of restructuring a darkly oppressive hierarchy must bring a breath of fresh, clean air to good, honest, hard-workers….)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
JPL is a NASA facility, which means funding of everything they do must be approved and allocated by NASA. In addition, JPL is administered by Cal Tech, so project funding must also be authorized by Cal Tech. When I worked at JPL as an orbit determination engineer 1965-1980, JPL management also had a role in proposing future projects to both Cal Tech and NASA. It was, and probably still is, sort of a three-headed monster. Non-management JPL engineers could work with their managers and make suggestions to them, but to some degree needed to just follow orders and do the best they can with the existing circumstances and constraints.
JPL employees like me with degrees in science held engineering positions, and learned engineering on the job. Scientific positions/titles were generally reserved for professors on the nearby Cal Tech campus, and major research decisions were made by administrators on campus.