The sun’s clock: New calculations support and expand planetary hypothesis

Posted: June 17, 2021 by oldbrew in Cycles, research, solar system dynamics

solar-systemThe Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR) research laboratory has been looking at some of the Talkshop-featured PRP papers, in particular those by Ian Wilson and Jan-Erik Solheim, plus others by names familiar to many Talkshoppers (Sharp, McCracken, Abreu, Scafetta, McIntosh etc.). It likes what it finds, describing Ian Wilson’s 2013 PRP paper, from which they cite his 11.07 and 193-year solar-planetary periods, as ‘highly instructive and recommendable’ (available via the PRP link above, or the one at the top of the Talkshop home page, or here). This is all something of a contrast to the original publishers, who washed their hands of all the PRP papers under pressure from the IPCC and/or its influential supporters. We may not agree entirely with all their interpretations of the data, but their approach is refreshing. 
H/T Lori
– – –
Solar physicists around the world have long been searching for satisfactory explanations for the sun’s many cyclical, overlapping activity fluctuations, says

In addition to the most famous, approximately 11-year “Schwabe cycle”, the sun also exhibits longer fluctuations, ranging from hundreds to thousands of years.

It follows, for example, the “Gleissberg cycle” (about 85 years), the “Suess-de Vries cycle” (about 200 years) and the quasi-cycle of “Bond events” (about 1500 years), each named after their discoverers.

It is undisputed that the solar magnetic field controls these activity fluctuations.

Explanations and models in expert circles partly diverge widely as to why the magnetic field changes at all. Is the sun controlled externally or does the reason for the many cycles lie in special peculiarities of the solar dynamo itself?

HZDR researcher Frank Stefani and his colleagues have been searching for answers for years—mainly to the very controversial question as to whether the planets play a role in solar activity.

Rosette-shaped movement of the sun can produce a 193-year cycle

The researchers have most recently taken a closer look at the sun’s orbital movement. The sun does not remain fixed at the center of the solar system: It performs a kind of dance in the common gravitational field with the massive planets Jupiter and Saturn—at a rate of 19.86 years.

We know from the Earth that spinning around in its orbit triggers small motions in the Earth’s liquid core. Something similar also occurs within the sun, but this has so far been neglected with regard to its magnetic field.

The researchers came up with the idea that part of the sun’s angular orbital momentum could be transferred to its rotation and thus affect the internal dynamo process that produces the .

Such coupling would be sufficient to change the extremely sensitive magnetic storage capacity of the tachocline, a transition region between different types of energy transport in the sun’s interior. “The coiled magnetic fields could then more easily snap to the sun’s surface,” says Stefani.

The researchers integrated one such rhythmic perturbation of the tachocline into their previous model calculations of a typical solar dynamo, and they were thus able to reproduce several cyclical phenomena that were known from observations.

What was most remarkable was that, in addition to the 11.07-year Schwabe  they had already modeled in previous work, the strength of the magnetic field now also changed at a rate of 193 years—this could be the sun’s Suess-de Vries cycle, which from observations has been reported to be 180 to 230 years. Mathematically, the 193 years arise as what is known as a beat period between the 19.86-year cycle and the twofold Schwabe cycle, also called the Hale cycle.

The Suess-de Vries cycle would thus be the result of a combination of two external “clocks”: the planets’ tidal forces and the sun’s own movement in the solar system’s gravitational field.

Planets as a metronome

For the 11.07-year cycle, Stefani and his researchers had previously found strong statistical evidence that it must follow an external clock. They linked this “clock” to the tidal forces of the planets Venus, Earth and Jupiter. Their effect is greatest when the planets are aligned: a constellation that occurs every 11.07 years.

As for the 193-year cycle, a sensitive physical effect was also decisive here in order to trigger a sufficient effect of the weak tidal forces of the planets on the solar dynamo.

After initial skepticism toward the planetary hypothesis, Stefani now assumes that these connections are not coincidental. “If the sun was playing a trick on us here, then it would be with incredible perfection. Or, in fact, we have a first inkling of a complete picture of the short and long solar activity cycles.”

In fact, the current results also retroactively reaffirm that the 11-year cycle must be a timed process. Otherwise, the occurrence of a beat period would be mathematically impossible.

Continued here.

  1. oldbrew says:

    HZDR researcher Frank Stefani and his colleagues have been searching for answers for years—mainly to the very controversial question as to whether the planets play a role in solar activity.

    Controversial to some. Not so at the Talkshop.
    – – –
    Full paper: Open Access
    Published: 10 June 2021

    Shaken and Stirred: When Bond Meets Suess–de Vries and Gnevyshev–Ohl
    F. Stefani, R. Stepanov & T. Weier

  2. stpaulchuck says:

    slowly but surely the massive computing power at universities and research centers is yielding superb derived data like this. I love current times with respect to real science. Too bad we have to deal with charlatans like Mann and company.

  3. oldbrew says:

    Solar dynamo is a vague term. Does some force in the universe dish out solar dynamos to new stars, or what? We should be told 🤔

  4. oldmanK says:

    The word ‘Dynamo’ may be a wrong choice of term (which I tend to associate with mechanical power source). Perhaps the ‘Alchemist’s Battery’ causing electron flow, and so magnetism, in the transmutation of elements.

  5. oldbrew says:

    Dynamo theory describes the process through which a rotating, convecting, and electrically conducting fluid acts to maintain a magnetic field. This theory is used to explain the presence of anomalously long-lived magnetic fields in astrophysical bodies.
    . . .
    The complexity of dynamo modelling is so great that models of the geodynamo are limited by the current power of supercomputers
    – – –
    ‘anomalously long-lived’ — unconvincing.

    ‘We need a bigger pooter’ — or some new ideas?

  6. Ulric Lyons says:

    193 years doesn’t relate to Schwabe cycles or to centennial solar minima, suggesting that Saturn is not involved with their ordering.
    SC14 maximum in 1907.0 to SC22 maximum in 1989.6, is 6 years short of 8 times 11.07 years, that doesn’t look good for the proposed J-E-V tidal mechanism.

  7. Chaeremon says:

    ½OT, for naked eyes observers: 5×Saturn period, minus ~5yrs, is covered by 12×Jupiter period.

    Also: The next great conjunction GC occurs at 1×Jupiter period (therefore: same position), if before that Venus has passed 5×synodic (e.g. same elongation) ≅ 8 yrs.

    Both relations make it easy to estimate the future position of major planets.

  8. oldbrew says:

    Wikipedia’s list of solar cycles finds an average cycle period of 11.04 years since 1755, so 11.07 is well within the ballpark as a long-term mean value.
    – – –
    Cycle 25 footnote: it has weakened every month since Jan. 2021, and latest June data (9.1) is lowest since August 2020 (9.0). NB data since Nov. 2020 is still provisional.

    Not looking great for active cycle predictions, so far.

  9. Ulric Lyons says:

    Personally I think that de Vries is a red herring. All I see is centennial solar minima of variable lengths and variable intervals, which are intrinsic to the cycles of Venus, Earth, Jupiter, and Uranus. The prime source of the variability is that the timing of solar cycles is by quadrupole configurations within elliptical orbits, if the orbits were more circular there would be less wander.

  10. oldbrew says:

  11. Geoff Sharp says:

    I dont think there is any evidence of a 193 year cycle, certainly not in the isotope data. Grand Minima occur when perturbations occur in the solar angular momentum graph which can vary in timing but centre around 172 years. This paper shows the perturbations but the authors seem to miss the key ingredient.

  12. oldbrew says:

    Re the proposed 193 year cycle — it doesn’t look like the de Vries cycle, as they suggest. But the beat period of Charvatova’s two solar periods seems to fit, coincidentally or not.

    Responses of the basic cycles of 178.7 and 2402 yr in
    solar–terrestrial phenomena during the Holocene

    Click to access prp-2-21-2014.pdf

  13. […] 10Be ice core data. This was picked up by the Helmholtz Institute research lab and covered in our earlier post on the Solar Magnetic cycle. What they didn’t pick up on is the fact that the same 193year […]

  14. […] ice core data. This was picked up by the Helmholtz Institute research lab and covered in our earlier post on the Solar Magnetic cycle. What they didn’t pick up on is the fact that the same 193year […]