From techno-science.net This tip came in on our tip & notes page, and at first I was quite surprised because I could not see a possible mechanism for it. Then as I read the translation (from French) it started to make more sense. I’ll point out my friend Jim Goodridge published an essay on WUWT about correlation of the PDO and rainfall with LOD: California Climate, PDO, LOD, and Sunspot Departure
Here’s the graph from the current article of interest:
And here’s some excerpts describing possible mechanisms:
Some authors, notably Bourget et al (1992), had begun to reveal correlations between solar activity and the length of day, and more recently, Abarca del Rio et al (2003) and Winkelnkemper (2008) in his thesis noted that the amplitude of the component semi-annual (6 months period) of the length of day and atmospheric angular momentum were anti-correlated with changes in the same period of the ” solar constant (the solar constant expresses the amount of solar energy (actually a lighting power) which would be one …) “.
What could be the link between certain changes in day length, the zonal winds and solar activity? To help answer this question, The Mouël and colleagues analyzed a series of 48 years (from 1962 to 2009) of daily measurements of the length of day, the service provided by the International Earth Rotation and systems reference located at the Observatoire de Paris. They have extracted the component of period 6 months and showed significant variations in the amplitude of this component, about 30%, they compared the one hand the number of sunspots (the Wolf number, a traditional indicator of solar activity measured for several centuries) and also the flux of galactic cosmic ray.
The authors show a good correlation between these three parameters, more precisely (Figure), it is the evolution of cosmic rays and the amplitude of the semi-annual day length are correlated (correlation coefficient the order of 0.7), and are in phase. The correlation is improved when we remove the curve (In geometry, the word curve or curved line designates certain subsets of the plan, the usual space. ,…) example of day length linear trend which could be related to phenomena occurring in the nucleus. It is established also that variations in cosmic rays are out of phase with sunspots and shifted about a year (this is attributed to the mechanism of modulation of galactic cosmic rays by the solar wind (solar wind is a stream plasma consisting essentially of ions and electrons are ejected from the high …) and its magnetic field).
How the speed of rotation of the Earth can it be sensitive to the modulation of cosmic rays?
The answer is in the system of winds. Those who contribute most to the seasonal variations of angular momentum are the winds of relatively low altitude (Altitude is the vertical elevation of a place or object relative to a baseline.) below 30km . Taking an average over a year (A year is a unit expressing the duration of time between two occurrences of an event linked to the revolution …), the difference between radiation (Radiation is energy transfer under form of waves or particles, which can occur by radiation …) received from the Sun ((weight percent)) and one that is emitted by the Earth outward into the great length of wave (A wave is the propagation of a disturbance occurring on its passage a reversible variation of properties …) (IR) is positive towards the equator and negative beyond 40 degrees latitude (Latitude is an angular value, expression north-south position of a point on Earth (or another …).
This latitude gradient must be balanced by a flow of energy (in the common sense energy means anything that allows a work, making the heat, …) from the equator to the poles: the transportation (transport, from the Latin trans, beyond, and portare wearing is wearing something, or someone one, a place …) is provided by the Southern movements (that is to say along the geographic meridians) of the atmosphere, averaged in longitude (Longitude is an angular value, expressing the position east-west from a point on Earth (or another …), and eddies. The zonal winds are the result of this transport because of conservation of angular momentum: going to the poles is approached the axis of rotation of the Earth and changes in this distance must be compensated by changes in speed. The seasonal variations in insolation lead to variations of the same period of the carriage along the meridians and, from there, the mean zonal winds.
…
There is another route by which clouds can be affected: the atmosphere is indeed penetrated by a vertical electric current of a few nano-Ampere per square meter (the meter (the meter (symbol m, the Greek metron, measure) is the basic unit of length in the International System. … It is defined) square (a square is a regular polygon with four sides is a quadrilateral that is both a rectangle (it a. ..) ( symbol m) is the unit area of the international system.), which fluctuates with the ionospheric currents and therefore the solar activity. These vertical currents electrically charged clouds and, again, change their micro-physical state. Both mechanisms can indeed co-exist. What characterizes them is that those variations induced by solar activity is measured in tenths of a percent and not in parts per thousand. That’s where the important niche amplification (We are talking about force amplifier for a whole range of systems that amplify the efforts: mechanics ,…) of the phenomenon.
Thus, the Earth (specifically the mantle), the rotation is accelerated or slowed according to the fluctuations of cosmic rays under the influence of solar activity through the zonal winds, provide a wonderful device integration variations in atmospheric angular momentum and zonal wind circulation that it is difficult to measure directly.
Full article and translation here
h/t to WUWT reader Steward
Pour tenter de répondre à cette question, Le Mouël et ses collègues ont analysé une série de 48 années (de 1962 à 2009) de mesures journalières de la longueur du jour, fournies par le service international de la rotation de la Terre et des systèmes de référence situé à l’Observatoire de Paris. To help answer this question, The Mouël and colleagues analyzed a series of 48 years (from 1962 to 2009) of daily measurements of the length of day, the service provided by the International Earth Rotation and systems reference located at the Observatoire de Paris. Ils en ont extrait la composante de période 6 mois et ont mis en évidence de fortes variations de l’amplitude de cette composante, de l’ordre de 30%, qu’ils ont comparé d’une part au nombre de taches solaires (le nombre de Wolf, un indicateur traditionnel de l’activité solaire mesuré depuis plusieurs siècles) et d’autre part au flux de rayon cosmiques galactiques. They have extracted the component of period 6 months and showed significant variations in the amplitude of this component, about 30%, they compared the one hand the number of sunspots (the Wolf number, a traditional indicator of solar activity measured for several centuries) and also the flux of galactic cosmic ray.
Les auteurs mettent en évidence une bonne corrélation entre ces trois paramètres, plus précisément (Figure), ce sont les évolutions des rayons cosmiques et de l’amplitude de la composante semi-annuelle de la longueur du jour qui sont corrélées (coefficient de corrélation de l’ordre de 0,7), et qui sont en phase. The authors show a good correlation between these three parameters, more precisely (Figure), it is the evolution of cosmic rays and the amplitude of the semi-annual day length are correlated (correlation coefficient the order of 0.7), and are in phase. La corrélation est améliorée quand on retire à la courbe de la longueur du jour une tendance linéaire, qui pourrait être liée à des phénomènes se produisant dans le noyau. The correlation is improved when we remove the curve (In geometry, the word curve or curved line designates certain subsets of the plan, the usual space. ,…) example of day length linear trend which could be related to phenomena occurring in the nucleus. Il est établi par ailleurs que les variations des rayons cosmiques sont en opposition de phase avec les taches solaires et décalées d’environ un an (ceci est attribué au mécanisme de modulation des rayons cosmiques galactiques par le vent solaire et son champ magnétique). It is established also that variations in cosmic rays are out of phase with sunspots and shifted about a year (this is attributed to the mechanism of modulation of galactic cosmic rays by the solar wind (solar wind is a stream plasma consisting essentially of ions and electrons are ejected from the high …) and its magnetic field).
Comment la vitesse de rotation de la Terre peut-elle donc être sensible à la modulation des rayons cosmiques ? How the speed of rotation of the Earth can it be sensitive to the modulation of cosmic rays?
La réponse est dans le système des vents. The answer is in the system of winds. Ceux qui contribuent le plus aux variations saisonnières du moment angulaire sont les vents de relativement basse altitude , en dessous de 30km. Those who contribute most to the seasonal variations of angular momentum are the winds of relatively low altitude (Altitude is the vertical elevation of a place or object relative to a baseline.) below 30km . Prise en moyenne sur une année , la différence entre le rayonnement reçu du Soleil et celui qui est réémis par la Terre vers l’extérieur dans les grandes longueur d’ onde (infra-rouge) est positif vers l’équateur et négatif au delà de 40° de latitude . Ce gradient en latitude doit être équilibré par un flux d’ énergie de l’équateur vers les pôles: ce transport est assuré par les mouvements méridionaux (c’est-à-dire le long des méridiens géographiques) de l’atmosphère, moyennés en longitude , et les tourbillons. Les vents zonaux sont la conséquence de ce transport à cause de la conservation du moment angulaire: en allant vers les pôles on se rapproche de l’axe de rotation de la Terre et les changements de cette distance doivent être compensés par des changements de la vitesse. Les variations saisonnières d’insolation entraînent des variations de même période du transport le long des méridiens et, partant de là, de la moyenne des vents zonaux. Taking an average over a year (A year is a unit expressing the duration of time between two occurrences of an event linked to the revolution …), the difference between radiation (Radiation is energy transfer under form of waves or particles, which can occur by radiation …) received from the Sun ((weight percent)) and one that is emitted by the Earth outward into the great length of wave (A wave is the propagation of a disturbance occurring on its passage a reversible variation of properties …) (IR) is positive towards the equator and negative beyond 40 degrees latitude (Latitude is an angular value, expression north-south position of a point on Earth (or another …). This latitude gradient must be balanced by a flow of energy (in the common sense energy means anything that allows a work, making the heat, …) from the equator to the poles: the transportation (transport, from the Latin trans, beyond, and portare wearing is wearing something, or someone one, a place …) is provided by the Southern movements (that is to say along the geographic meridians) of the atmosphere, averaged in longitude (Longitude is an angular value, expressing the position east-west from a point on Earth (or another …), and eddies. The zonal winds are the result of this transport because of conservation of angular momentum: going to the poles is approached the axis of rotation of the Earth and changes in this distance must be compensated by changes in speed. The seasonal variations in insolation lead to variations of the same period of the carriage along the meridians and, from there, the mean zonal winds.
The correlation is interesting, the proposed mechanism too, but the translation sucks – whats up with the parentheses?
Interesting.
Last year, I also found a correlation between length of day and the motion of the sun’s equatorial plane with respect to the centre of mass of the solar system, or solar system barycentre
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2009/11/29/planetary-solar-climate-connection-found/
The evidence supporting the hypothesis that the motion of the planets affects levels of solar activity is getting stronger all the time. Those who have attacked, insulted and denigrated the people working on this will eventually be forced to eat their words.
Sound of the sun, hey look, it changes! I thought it was static and had no effect on earth
http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_videos.jsp?cntn_id=117729&media_id=68449&org=NSF
At last a reasoned explanation for something that cropped upon Dr Pielke senior’s website a few years ago when comments were allowed, that is , the anti-correlation between sunspots and LOD.
Another point for the “It’s The Sun S—-d”
tallbloke says:
October 4, 2010 at 12:17 am
The evidence supporting the hypothesis that the motion of the planets affects levels of solar activity is getting stronger all the time. Those who have attacked, insulted and denigrated the people working on this will eventually be forced to eat their words.
That day is coming closer Rog 🙂
Long Term Variations in the Length of Day and Climatic Change. Lambeck, K & Cazenave, A, Geophys. J. R. astr. Soc. (1976) 46, 555-573
http://people.rses.anu.edu.au/lambeck_k/pdf/37.pdf
Al these factors have one common factor – two major planets Jupiter and Saturn.
Electro-magnetic feedback (via magnetospheres interaction) as a modulator of the sunspot cycle and the Earth’s magnetosphere and its magnetic field, and possibly additional gravitational pull on the Earth’s rotation.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC9.htm
It makes sense that if there is a number of LOD correlations, then in final analysis, all must lead to the same source.
Here is LOD correlation with the Earth’s magnetic 1900-2000, and the Earth’s magnetic field and sunspot cycle 1600-2000.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LOD-GMF.htm
If I understand this well, the more cosmic rays, the bigger the difference of the length of day between summer and winter (or spring and fall, whatever). This seems good enough to demonstrate that cosmic rays have some kind of real, noticeable effect in the atmosphere. Good enough to start paying a lot more attention to them. But still it doesn’t prove whether that effect is supposed to bring global warming, global cooling or neither of them.
Any news from the CLOUD project?
It took me a while to convince myself you were talking about the speed of rotation of the earth and not the “daylight” hours (which clearly would be affected by clouds and so easily affected by cosmic rays).
Wow!!
So basically the earth itself is being affected by a force related to sunspots.
… but not the climate!!!
Nylo says:
October 4, 2010 at 1:26 am
Any news from the CLOUD project?
Latest report from CERN is inconclusive:
In summary, the exploratory measurements made with a pilot CLOUD experiment at the CERN Proton Synchrotron have validated the basic concept of the experiment, provided valuable technical input for the CLOUD design and instrumentation, and provided, in some of the experiments, suggestive evidence for ion-induced nucleation or ion-ion recombination as sources of aerosol particles from trace sulphuric acid vapour at typical atmospheric concentrations.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/1635/2010/acp-10-1635-2010.pdf
So are we doomed or what? Those definitions did more to muddy the story than elucidate it.
Cosmic rays affect clouds, which affect insolation, which affects the winds, which affect the rotation, n’est-ce pas?
Looking at the article, I gather the cut and paste between it and WordPress collected the definitions in addition to the article. Perhaps if we excised all the stuff in parentheses it might read better. And untranslate the author’s name from “The Mouël ” back to “Le Mouël .”
I’d volunteer, but I already filled my translation dance card with a Montréal bi-lingual web site last year.
The length of days varies by a few milliseconds over periods of several months, to put things in better perspective.
Also, “nucleus” better translates as “core.”
…solar activity is measured in tenths of a percent and not in parts per thousand
Tenths of a percent IS parts per thousand.
I quit. I’m moving on to Sea Ice Update.
I am trying to get my head round this – is the hypothesis that cosmic rays have an effect on wind speed, which in turn has an effect on the angular momentum of the Earth? Given the many orders of magnitude difference between the masses of the Earth and the atmosphere I can not understand this.
Also, the ephemeris of the other planets in the solar system are well known, so probably no correlation there.
If the data are correct, surely this is more likely a magnetic effect?
A very interesting subject – it will be interesting to see the ideas of others.
Now, could someone suggest what effect all this might have on the upward energy flux when the sun is more active and when it is less active ?
It appears that when the sun is more active the troposphere and thermosphere both warm up but the stratosphere and mesosphere both cool down.
Any mechanism that deals with that observation will fit nicely into my New Climate Model.
The earth’s rotation, or at least the crust in relative to the mantle, accelerates and decelerates?
It seems like that would cause stress on the crust and there should be some cyclical evidence of it at plate boundaries like variation in volcano and earthquake activity.
I’d suspect measurement errors first and relativistic effects next. There’s probably some common causal connection between this and the anomalies in radioactive decay rates that appear to be related to the sun as well.
I read somewhere that variations in day length were attributed to differences in the distribution of snow and ice through seasonal changes, which might just provide a link with solar activity if there is some effect there. I still have difficulty thinking that atmospheric winds are going to have any noticeable effect on a bloody great flywheel like the Earth, though. All very puzzling.
Here as an alternative view:
The Earth’s magnetism is due to the electric currents in the core. Generation of the field requires energy and this is supplied by the Earth’s rotation, i.e. stronger the field results in greater LOD (strong field takes more energy, slowing down the rotation, increasing LOD).
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LOD-GMF.htm
Reason for change in the strength of magnetic field are currents in the ionosphere due to solar activity.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Image1.gif
Ionosphere currents induce strong electric currents in the Earth’s lithosphere, which counteract the effect of the core currents and so reducing breaking effect of the main magnetic field (faster rotation), resulting in reduced LOD
Summary: stronger solar activity, stronger ionosphere currents, stronger lithosphere induced currents suppressing the main magnetic field, reducing magnetic brake on the Earth’s core (weaker field less energy taken out of rotation), faster rotation, reduced LOD.
No cosmic rays, no clouds, no winds required!
Tallbloke said
The evidence supporting the hypothesis that the motion of the planets affects levels of solar activity is getting stronger all the time. Those who have attacked, insulted and denigrated the people working on this will eventually be forced to eat their words.
I simply ask if the rotational period of the earth affects solar activity, or if solar activity affects the rotation of the earth.
That there is correlation is one thing, causation is quite another, and to my mind, the bigger guy always wins – i.e. the Sun is the driving factor
vukcevic says:
October 4, 2010 at 2:41 am
Here as an alternative view:
The Earth’s magnetism is due to the electric currents in the core.
Actually, it’s my understanding that the earth’s magnetism is caused by the generation of electric currents in the earth’s “liquid outer” core.
See: Earth’s magnetic field gathers momentum – May 11, 2010 (excerpt)
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/42580
Physicists in France have linked subtle variations in the length of day with conditions in the Earth’s core – where the Earth’s magnetic field originates. The finding could improve our poor understanding of how the field is generated and why it changes in response to conditions deep within the Earth’s interior.
As Jerry says, correlation is not causation – while it might be true that sunspots, cosmic rays, and the earths rotation all display changes which appear to be in synch, this could equally be because they are all being influenced by a still to be confirmed external force.
Isn’t this in line with what Landscheit was saying? I came across his work some years ago and it seemed to make sense, but I remember having my knuckles rapped when I mentioned him on Steve McIntyre’s blog.
http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/new-e.htm
vukcevic says:
October 4, 2010 at 2:41 am
“Here as an alternative view:”
I don’t see how a reduction in a breaking force can cause an acceleration. There would have to be some driver in place at the same time with the driver and/or brake varying in intensity.
What characterizes them is that those variations induced by solar activity is measured in tenths of a percent and not in parts per thousand.
A tenth of a percent is a part per thousand….
It seems also that the usual suspects are here singing their favorite tunes.
Braking force.
Suzanne says: October 4, 2010 at 3:20 am
…………
You are absolutely correct, I was not sufficiently precise. It is even possible that induced electric currents do reach as far down as location of the source of the Earth’s field, the liquid outer core.
simpleseekeraftertruth says: October 4, 2010 at 3:28 am
……….
Earth’s rotation provides energy for generating magnetic field, reduce the magnetic field load by inducing currents, less energy taken out of globe’s ‘momentum’, than it simply follows angular velocity (translated into rotation rate) has to increase. This is due to the fact that generation of the Earth’s magnetic field is a dynamic process, not a static source of magnetism as a bar-magnet is.
Mike Haseler says:
October 4, 2010 at 1:27 am
So basically the earth itself is being affected by a force related to sunspots.
Better say “correlated”, and add “correlation is not causation”.
A simple example : As I walk down the street on a moonlit night the moon appears and disappears as I pass the shadow of the trees. Am I affecting the motion of the moon?
Here we have a demonstration of the conservation of the angular momentum of the earth imposed by the complex motions of the atmosphere ( and I would guess the oceans, but the article has sort of excluded them, though they are a lot denser than the atmosphere). The complex motions of the earth’s currents that require angular momentum balance are seen to be correlated with cosmic ray cycles which cosmic rays are correlated to the sunspot cycles. So far so good. It does not mean that the angular momentum of the earth affects the sunspot cycles! Cosmic rays may affect the currents of the earth’s fluids by a mechanism a la Svensmark, or …. whatever hypothesis. The tail does not wag the dog.
this is an interesting summary:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=15
In the same volume, of GRL appears another ‘fun’ article,aka how to jump the global warming band wagon, classical example of how to get published including ‘global warming’ in the articles’ title. Its premises are pretty hilarious,
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 37, L15703, 5 PP., 2010
doi:10.1029/2010GL043985
Biophysical feedbacks between the Pleistocene megafauna extinction and climate: The first human-induced global warming?
Christopher E. Doughty
Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford, California, USA
Adam Wolf
Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford, California, USA
Christopher B. Field
Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford, California, USA
A large increase in Betula during a narrow 1000 year window, ∼13,800 years before present (YBP) in Alaska and Yukon corresponded in time with the extinction of mammoths and the arrival of humans. Pollen data indicate the increase in Betula during this time was widespread across Siberia and Beringia. We hypothesize that Betula increased due to a combination of a warming climate and reduced herbivory following the extinction of the Pleistocene mega herbivores. The rapid increase in Betula modified land surface albedo which climate-model simulations indicate would cause an average net warming of ∼0.021°C per percent increase in high latitude (53–73°N) Betula cover. We hypothesize that the extinction of mammoths increased Betula cover, which would have warmed Siberia and Beringia by on average 0.2°C, but regionally by up to 1°C. If humans were partially responsible for the extinction of the mammoths, then human influences on global climate predate the origin of agriculture.
Leif Svalgaard says: October 4, 2010 at 4:03 am
It seems also that the usual suspects are here singing their favorite tunes.
This blog is not in the business of ‘consensus science’ , but if it was, you would be outvoted if you have put an opposite view, but as yet you have not, sure sign of ‘science is not settled’.
Doug in Seattle says:
October 3, 2010 at 11:53 pm
> The correlation is interesting, the proposed mechanism too, but the translation sucks – whats up with the parentheses?
If you go to the original article, all those parenthesized things are the text that would pop up if your mouse “hovers” over the term.
They’re annoying it the original, out of control in the translation!
I started the day with a mild headache, phrases like “the difference between radiation … received from the Sun … and one that is emitted by the Earth outward into the great length of wave … (IR)”
—–
Mike McMillan says:
October 4, 2010 at 1:53 am
> Also, “nucleus” better translates as “core.”
I figured that out, but then I couldn’t figure out what was the core.
> “solar activity is measured in tenths of a percent and not in parts per thousand Tenths of a percent IS parts per thousand.
That’s the other reason I went to the original, it says
I don’t claim to know French, but I fear in this case the translation is accurate.
> I quit. I’m moving on to Sea Ice Update.
Save a spot for me….
I would follow Anna V path.
Conservation of angular momentum.
Warmer years -> more leaves on trees -> higher moment of inertia -> lower angular velocity of Earth
And vice versa
anna v says:
October 4, 2010 at 4:32 am
this is an interesting summary:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=15
Anna V thanks for the link.
Great article!
It confirms what I said above
“The longer patterns in changes of the length of the day can last for decades. “These are caused by processes within Earth’s core,” says Gross. “The core is a fluid. Its motion generates Earth’s magnetic field. Changes in its motion can change the rotation of solid Earth. Observing the magnetic field at the surface gives us an idea of how fluid is moving within the core. These changes in the fluid motion inferred from the magnetic field match the longer period changes we see in the length of the day.”
Both the ions in the atmosphere, and the inductive components in the core/mantle respond in kind to the inductive shifts due to changes in the solar wind flux, in both the LOD and atmospheric angular momentum, so the atmosphere does not have to push upon the land mass to effect the LOD changes as they are being driven in tandem.
Dave Springer says:
October 4, 2010 at 2:22 am
————–Reply; the Boxer day quake and tsunami occurred concurrently with a massive shift in LOD, it is still unproven which was the cause, and which was the effect. The mainstream answer is the movement caused the LOD change, as this mechanism was not known to the general mainstream science back then, and so was the “logical answer”.
All too speculative so far I fear and unlikely to be a large enough forcing agent.
I think I’ll keep looking elsewhere 🙂
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 4, 2010 at 4:03 am
___________Reply; there are three unstoppable things in nature, truth, true love, and an Idea whose time has come.
vukcevic says:
October 4, 2010 at 2:41 am
“..Reason for change in the strength of magnetic field are currents in the ionosphere due to solar activity..
..No cosmic rays, no clouds, no winds required!”
Mostly I agree. But what about charge imbalance?
Once the cosmic rays increase in the radiation belt and you alter the.. ah…composition of the ionosphere and everything entering below. Increase cloud cover and then produce even more dampening effects within the lower magnetic system.
Howz about that for an oversimplified comment?
After reading the last comments on the Knot in the ribbon at the edge of the solar system “unties,” song pops up .. Dave Clark Five, “Catch Us if You Can.”
It was time to go..
vukcevic says:
October 4, 2010 at 4:08 am
“Earth’s rotation provides energy for generating magnetic field, reduce the magnetic field load by inducing currents, less energy taken out of globe’s ‘momentum’, than it simply follows angular velocity (translated into rotation rate) has to increase. This is due to the fact that generation of the Earth’s magnetic field is a dynamic process, not a static source of magnetism as a bar-magnet is.”
As I understand it, the Earth’s rotation induces the Coreolis effect in the liquid outer core which then organises electric currents that exist within it. The rotation itself does not generate those currents or their magnetic effects. To consider the earth as a dynamo with angular momentum as the driver of flux density requires a loss in energy to space to achieve deceleration and the opposite to achieve acceleration. Unless of course, the flux density requires no rotational energy to vary it with rotation itself being only the catalyst to the phenomenon.
Then there is the sloshing about of the tides.
“periods in the fortnightly band are always critical in GPS analysis, because they are possibly affected by aliasing due to imperfect reduction of the influence of short period ocean tides and processing characteristics. The reasons for the differences in the other terms mentioned are suspected to be either insufficient modelling of the atmospheric influence or inexact consideration of medium and long period ocean tides in the theoretical model, or even a combination of
both.”
from http://syrte.obspm.fr/journees2007/PDF/s4_11_Englich.pdf
It is not a trivial problem to cause a satellite to make successive passes over the equator, allowing for drag and velocity change, as well as the relative shift of the equator (and its definition) relative to a frame of reference such as a stellar one, or a network of coordinated satellites. This of course has consequences as the uses of satellites become more critical, such as GRACE.
EM Smith has brought up LOD before too.
vukcevic says:
October 4, 2010 at 2:41 am
One question Vuks, by looking at the field surface can we see where these sporadic weakenings are most likely to occur or are occurring?
I read about an idea, that changing LOD drives the changes in Pacific trade winds, which are responsible for ENSO, which drives other stuff. So the untied knots becoming suddenly tied.
There is a possibility other than the cosmic rays for the relation between the sunspot number and the LOD.
Sunspot number is a good measure of solar UV which changes about 1% during the 11 year solar cycle. Such a change in the UV intensity is reportedly sufficiently large to cause the tropopause temperature through changing the amount of UV-heating at the stratosphere, and hence, supposedly affects the activity of hurricanes due to the change in the temperature gradient.
If such an effect is possible for solar UV, then it may be also possible that the UV effect is transfered to the global wind circulation through an interaction between the stratosphere and the troposhere.
Once the wind pattern changes, it reflects on Length-of-Day as is known already.
The more we look with an open mind, the more we find, things we don’t know … Science is really fascinating when done right.
How could their not be some sort of interaction of the planets, the sun, on the planets of our solar system?
Carla says: October 4, 2010 at 6:32 am
………
GCR have important effect on heliosphere, and possibly occasionally extreme effect (in case of a supernova explosion – one in 50years in our Galaxy, but only if it is nearby e.g. Maunder min).
Since the Earth’s magnetosphere is stronger than heliosphere, I think that GCR effects on the Earth itself are overrated.
On this one, I think we should rely on data from THEMIS ; sun pumps 650,000Amps electric current into the Arctic, see Fig. 10 in
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/northern_lights_multi.html
As you can see both of my graphs refer to the Arctic:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LOD-GMF.htm
LOD by wind ?; hmm, is just that, ‘straw in the wind’.
I think this is only credible solution .
simpleseekeraftertruth says: October 4, 2010 at 5:59 am
……….
Here, as well as in the above comment, I should rely on the NASA’s science, see article
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=15
(link provided by anna v).
My take-away from this article: The Earth and Solar system generally are a dangerous place. The Earth alone is too complex to operate and didn’t come with any instructions, so we’re making things up as we go. This being a reactive situation, we’re always behind, and sometimes what we do is revealed as being silly when we learn more (burying apples to reduce warts, for example). We should leave before somebody gets hurt.
>I don’t claim to know French, but I fear in this case the translation is accurate.
It is’nt.
Ce qui les caractérise, c’est que les variations induites par celles de l’activité solaire se mesurent en dizaines de pour cent et non en partie par millier.
“dizaines de pour cent” means “tens of percent”, not “tenth of percent”.
Use “dizièmes” for “tenth”.
“Ce qui les caractérise, c’est que les variations induites par celles de l’activité solaire se mesurent en dizaines de pour cent et non en partie par millier. ”
The correct translation is “.. are measured in tens of percents and not in part per
thousand.”
Well, tens of percents is, for instance, 20% or 40%, but what is “part per thousand”? What part? How much? To me that sentence seems strange.
Current Indonesia earthquakes, beginning with the big tsunami in Dec 2004, and 2010 8,9 Chilean earthquake have changed LOD .
Thus, the Earth (specifically the mantle), the rotation is accelerated or slowed according to the fluctuations of cosmic rays under the influence of solar activity through the zonal winds,
“Gone with the wind” ? That’s the Flintstones’ universe explanation.
-Earthquakes cause LOD changes, however earthquakes are electromagnetic phenomena, as evidenced by earthquake lights.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29238677/Earthquake-3
-Before and during earthquakes gravity acceleration decreases. Changes in the local field may trigger these events.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38598073/Unified-Field
Very interesting. That part about “zonal winds” seems to match the explanation in the article anna v linked to.
Jerry says:
October 4, 2010 at 2:42 am
That there is correlation is one thing, causation is quite another, and to my mind, the bigger guy always wins – i.e. the Sun is the driving factor
Not necessarily. Attila Grandpierre, Hungarian astrophysicist and rock musician insists solar photosphere as an environment is many orders of magnitude more favorable to life than the surface of Earth. What is more, solar cycles can not be explained without specific biological coupling mechanisms of extremely high algorithmic complexity, regenerating magnetic activity and intricate plasma flow patterns for billions of years against a 30,000 year thermal dissipation timescale.
Therefore the sun is full of life (based on magneto-hydrodynamic structures like filaments, current sheets, plasmoids, etc.)
From Fossils to Astrobiology
Cellular Origin, Life in Extreme Habitats and Astrobiology, 2008, Volume 12, Part 2, 4, 369-385
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-8837-7_18
Cosmic Life Forms
Attila Grandpierre
Activity of living systems is driven by information. In this realm the winner is not always the bigger guy, quite the opposite, often it is the smarter and more attentive one.
Perception is sensitive to specific patterns of energy, not to its magnitude. Therefore it is quite possible solar beings have already learnt to decode silly TV infomercials and as they drive them mad the same way they do with most of us, they decide to get rid of the annoyance by frying the source 🙂
It might be worse than we thought.
Doug asks, “… whats up with the parentheses?”
As one can tell, this is Google’s automatic translation. In the French source, these words are linked to a definition (as we find on some English sites) to be displayed in a balloon on mouseover, so Google puts the definition in in parentheses.
The amazing thing about automatic translation is not how relatively dreadful it is but rather how good it is. I remember reading a lot of reports back in the ’60s from MIT’s defense-funded machine translation project — the results were disappointing, to say the least…
It’s wiggle matching, guys. No proof of A causing B. At best, C causes A and is periodic, and C causes D which causes B, which then has the same period. At worst, B and A could be completely independent, but merely have similar periods. For this very limited 50-year sample, the apparent synchronicity could just be an artifact of the sample era. Note how bad the “fit” gets at either end. So far, I am completely unimpressed.
proxima says: “dizaines de pour cent” means “tens of percent”, not “tenth of percent”.
Use “dizièmes” for “tenth”.
My dictionary says “dixièmes.”
vukcevic says:
October 4, 2010 at 7:28 am
“I should rely on the NASA’s science, see article”
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=15
Thank you for that but if you are citing literature, please excuse the Wiki links to the following;
The field is similar to that of a bar magnet. The Earth’s magnetic field is mostly caused by electric currents in the liquid outer core. The Earth’s core is hotter than 1043 K, the Curie point temperature above which the orientations of spins within iron become randomized. Such randomization causes the substance to lose its magnetization.
Convection of molten iron within the outer liquid core, along with a Coriolis effect caused by the overall planetary rotation, tends to organize these “electric currents” in rolls aligned along the north-south polar axis. When conducting fluid flows across an existing magnetic field, electric currents are induced, which in turn creates another magnetic field. When this magnetic field reinforces the original magnetic field, a dynamo is created that sustains itself. This is called the Dynamo Theory and it explains how the Earth’s magnetic field is sustained.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field
In the case of the Earth, the magnetic field is induced and constantly maintained by the convection of liquid iron in the outer core. A requirement for the induction of field is a rotating fluid. Rotation in the outer core is supplied by the Coriolis effect caused by the rotation of the Earth. The coriolis force tends to organize fluid motions and electric currents into columns (also see Taylor columns) aligned with the rotation axis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo_Theory
—————-
Kiminori Itoh,
Thank you for your clarity of expression.
Since I have come to understand [thanks to Leif] that the energy distribution of solar radiation varies during a 11 yr (actually 22 yrs) solar cycle, I have been wondering if that variation may play out in a mechanism that can have a possible significant effect on climate. Your suggestion is interesting in that regard.
The problem I have with that possible mechanism is whether the magnitudes of the variance and the magnitudes of the differences in the amount of energy in them can really have a significant effect on climate. I just do not know. If the variance can have a significant effect then to me it implies an extremely high sensitivity in the mechanism, which always tends to make me skeptical.
John
Nylo says:
October 4, 2010 at 1:26 am
Any news from the CLOUD project?
.
It appears there is NO news from the CLOUD experiment regarding the CERN-LHC
.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/1635/2010/acp-10-1635-2010.pdf
Abstract. During a 4-week run in October–November 2006,
a pilot experiment was performed at the CERN Proton Synchrotron
in preparation for the Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor
Droplets (CLOUD) experiment, whose aim is to study the
possible influence of cosmic rays on clouds.
simpleseekeraftertruth says:
October 4, 2010 at 9:44 am
As you would accept, that is only a theory. Question remains open unless phenomena are understood as in a single field theory.
High sunspots = high solar magnetic field => braking effect on Earth’s magnetic field.
High sunspots = high solar magnetic field => reduced cosmic rays, Svensmark, etc.
A causes B. A also causes C. B and C are not (necessarily) causally related.
To my skeptical mind, just because we can measure something means simply that, we can measure it. Measurement like correlation is not causation. At first glance this looks more like percussion being mistaken for accuracy. I tend to go with the big guy wins idea.
simpleseekeraftertruth says: October 4, 2010 at 9:44 am
…….
Wikipedia article is Ok, but not terribly reliable. If you want to know, then get it from experts, here are some where you can see complexity of GMF.
http://www.epm.geophys.ethz.ch/~cfinlay/teaching/core_l5.pdf
Maps start at page 36/55, or if you are really into it
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/WMM/data/WMM2010/WMM2010_Report.pdf
start 62/104
The discussion of the angular momentum of the earth’s core and the transfer of energy to the oceans are good reasons for the changes to the length of day in my opinion. But the moon and sun are also involved.
I skimmed through Anthony’s translated article as I found it to be difficult to understand and not making too much sense. However, the length of day or the speed of rotation of the earth has a number of components such as the angular momentum of the spinning earth, the rotation of the earth-moon couple, and the rotation of the earth-moon center of mass with the sun. All of these together set up a complex set of equations. And note that the angular momentum must be conserved. All of these interactions could well be the cause of the length of day changes.
OT: I want to know the change in velocity of an individual on the earth’s surface at any time relative to…say the sun or the galaxy center. This velocity change would include the changes in speed and direction since velocity is a vector.
@tallbloke – good job! And there is also a correlation between the decreasing number in pirates and an increase in temperature, as anyone knows who read the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Err.. right, what was I gonna say? A correlation does not make a….
Must be an English translation here some where.
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 37, L15307, 5 PP., 2010
doi:10.1029/2010GL043185
Solar forcing of the semi-annual variation of length-of-day
We study the evolution of the amplitude A of the semi-annual variation of the length-of-day (lod) from 1962 to 2009. We show that A is strongly modulated (up to 30%) by the 11-yr cycle monitored by the sunspot number WN. A and WN are anticorrelated, WN leading A by 1-yr. A is therefore directly correlated with galactic cosmic ray intensity. The main part of the semi-annual variation in lod is due to the variation in mean zonal winds. We conclude that variations in mean zonal winds are modulated by the solar activity cycle through variations in irradiance, solar wind or cosmic ray intensity.
Received 11 March 2010; accepted 4 May 2010; published 13 August 2010.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL043185.shtml
So this means we can increase the size of the cosmic ray torus (they think it’s either stellar or interstellar CR) around the planet in the magnetosphere’s radiation belts and not be a cause of something to do with drag and slowing ..
huh ok well that’s “Kind of a Drag.” The Buckinghams
vukcevic says:
October 4, 2010 at 10:36 am
“simpleseekeraftertruth says: October 4, 2010 at 9:44 am”
Thank you for that but a search of both found neither reference concerns itself with the coreolis/coriolis effect. Elsewhere I have found references that do provide me with information and current thinking on that which I will digest to ascertain where I might be wrong.
Oh yes we talked to SAMPEX and indeed a CR torus exists in the radiation belt. You know that thing presses right up near that .. never mind. Van Allen get a little pushy.
But here we go..
New radiation belt spotted around Earth.
“A joint U.S.-German satellite launched last year has identified a belt of radiation around Earth that holds an unusual collection of matter from outside the solar system. The discovery of these exotic ions trapped in orbit provides an opportunity to study the environment beyond our solar system without having to leave Earth’s own backyard, say space scientists who announced the findings last week in Baltimore at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union..
..The new information comes from measurements made by the Solar, Anomalous, and Magnetospheric Particle Explorer (SAMPEX), ..
..The radiation belt identified by SAMPEX joins two others that were discovered in 1958 by physicist James A. Van Allen of the University of Iowa in Iowa City. All three belts hold electrically charged particles that have become trapped by Earth’s magnetic field. The outer Van Allen belt contains mostly energetic electrons, while the inner Van Allen holds mostly fast-moving protons. The newly discovered belt resides within the inner Van Allen belt and stores energetic ions of oxygen, nitrogen, and neon, says SAMPEX scientist Richard A. Mewaldt of Caltech.
The scientists believe this collection of ions is a trapped form of so-called anomalous cosmic rays. Unusual because of their composition and charge, such rays are born in a complex process that starts outside the solar system in the interstellar medium, which contains debris from supernovas, remnants of the Big Bang, and other matter.
As our solar system moves through the interstellar medium, the flow of protons emanating from the sun pushes aside any charged particles. But this solar wind does not affect neutral elements, which can slip into the solar system. As the elements drift toward the sun, solar radiation bombards them, stripping one electron from each and forming ions. These ions feel the push of the solar wind and are carried to the edge of the solar system. There they hit a magnetic shock wave that energizes them and forms the anomalous cosmic rays, some of which head toward Earth..”
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/New+radiation+belt+spotted+around+Earth-a013887278
This image shows just how touchy feely the Van Allen belts get with the SAA..
http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/tour/tr11.gif
Dark Matter is corrugated, and as we speed through the undulations in the density of Dark Matter, they effect both the Sun and the Earth.
Q.E.D.
Please send the Noble Prize to the enclosed e-mail address……. 😉
Carla says:
October 4, 2010 at 12:37 pm
We oldies, who knew old radios, call those “condensers”. Now you have complicated simple matters by invoking spirits from beyond, like dark holes, anti-matter, dark matter, etc., etc.
Gotto quit the Ouija board gaming, it’s a dangerous thing for kids. 🙂
Some years ago, when I was studying the influence of magnetic storms on the atmosphere, I remember reading that the series of big flares in early August 1972 altered the measured length of the day. Instead of looking at general correlations between cosmic rays or sunspot numbers and day lengths, it might be useful to examine the behaviour of the day length in the weeks following very big flare events. If there seems to be a consistent behaviour it would be worth speculating on possible mechanisms.
And frankly, I cannot see how winds can be responsible for the variation in day-length.
Wind direction (generally W-E in mid-level N Hem) is caused by the Coriolis force. But Coriolis is only a notional force, not a real force, as it is the Earth that moves, not the wind.
So the rotational speed of the Earth is being effected by a force that is not real? Sorry, you will have to explain that one again in more detail.
Here is a GRAPH to satisfy all sides of the argument:
Sorry, I posted only part sentence
Here is a GRAPH to satisfy all sides of the argument :
Daily LOD values 1964 – 2004 with the inferred magnetic field, annual and seasonal variations.
Ralph says:
October 4, 2010 at 12:47 pm
That’s Philip Pullman’s “His Dark Materials” 🙂
Voodoo science, go to Haiti you’ll get a PHD on it there.
Chris Clark says:
October 4, 2010 at 1:01 pm
You got it buddy!:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38598073/Unified-Field
vukcevic says:
October 4, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Is it decreasing along with Sun’s polar fields?
A paper maybe worth looking at is “Civil Engineering 163 May 2010 Pages 74-80 Paper 09-00041” which shows a correlation between Sunspot Number and the level of Lake Victoria; records from 1896 – 2005, but intriguingly the correlation was lost between 1930 and 1970. I’ve since seen a paper (for which I’ve lost the citation) claiming correlation between solar activity and flow in the Nile. We won’t really have a full understanding of climate variability until these kind of observations can also be slotted in.
JohnH says:
October 4, 2010 at 1:56 pm
There are several papers by Shahinaz Yousef on the issue:
http://www.virtualacademia.com/pdf/cli222_234.pdf
JohnH says:
October 4, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Here it is:
THE SHARP RISE OF LAKE VICTORIA, A POSITIVE INDICATOR TO SOLAR WOLF-GLEISSBERG CYCLES TURNING POINTS
Shahinaz M. Yousef & Morsi Amer
Astronomy & Meteorology Dept., Faculty of Science ,Cairo University
ABSTRACT
The Sun experiences long range cycles of the order (80-120) years known as the Wolf – Gleissberg cycles. 1877-1878 marks the end of one of those cycles and the beginning of a series of three low activity 12 years solar cycles. 1878 was also characterized by a sharp rise in Lake Victoria level followed by continuous drop till 1890. Later on, the lake level rose and fall in sympathy with solar cycles till the end of the low activity period around 1922 when such correlation ceased to exist.
The maximum of the following Wolf – Gleissberg cycle occurred around 1958, followed by another ~2.5 meters sharp rise in lake Victoria level in the early sixties.
Again 1997 marked the end of the past Wolf–Gleissberg cycle and the beginning of a new era of lower activity solar cycles. As a consequence, the level of Lake Victoria rose sharply by 1.6 meters and at present dropping down is in progress. Such drop is expected to last up till the end of the present 12 year solar cycle in the same fashion as in the 1887 case, leading to drought conditions around 2009±2-3 years.
It seems a few people don’t realise that the atmosphere has quite enough mass for wind patterns to have an effect on the rotation rate, ie, LOD. I worked for many years in an organisation which supplied date to the Bureau Internatianale d l’Heure in Paris, on both the instantaneous LOD and the variation of Latitude (polar wandering). Earth has quite a few wobbles of various kinds from a number of sources!
JohnH says:
October 4, 2010 at 1:56 pm
…………….
I had some correspondence from prof. Alexander before he published his work. Here is an extract:
Memo 12/07, 27 March 2007
Dear Mr Vukcevic
……..
I have determined the following with a very high level of confidence.
1.There is a 21-year (20.8) statistically significant periodicity in the hydrometeorological data based on a very large and comprehensive database routinely published by the responsible authorities.
2.But there is no 11-year (10.4) periodicity.
3.The reason is obvious. Alternating sub-periods have different numerical characteristics. This was noted and recoded in biblical times and on many occasions here in South Africa during the past more than 100 years.
4.These are the alternating wet (flood) and dry (drought) cycles.
5.Both wet and dry cycles begin with sudden changes from sequences of drought years to successions of up to about five years of abnormally high rainfall and floods.
6.These sudden changes are closely but not precisely, synchronous with sunspot minima.
7.A very good example is that the largest floods in several of our major coastal rivers occurred in 1856. These floods together with the largest flood in the Loire River at Orleans in France and the sunspot minimum all occurred within months of each other. Several of our rivers experienced their maximum floods in the mid-1800s.
8.I found the top graph in the Wikipedia article interesting in this connection as it shows a large period of magnetic activity coincident with these floods. This is repeated again from about 1960 to the end of the century with signs of it dying off. Is this confirmation that global cooling is around the corner?
9.Six of us have just submitted a paper for publication that we believe breaks new ground on the solar linkage. If all goes well it should be published before the end of June.
10.There are still some gaps that need to be filled and we are working on them. I have therefore copied this email to my colleagues as they may wish to exchange views with you.
11.Despite a diligent search, I was unable to find any evidence of the postulated consequences of sustained global warming in the hydrometeorological data.
Kind regards and thanks again,
Will
His work was published 3 months later in the JOURNAL OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/alexander2707.pdf
Subsequently I was contacted by
P. J. Mason, Black & Veatch Ltd, UK; who also dealt with the subject, forwarding a pdf attachment, published in : Hydropower & Dams Issue Three, 2006.
which I could email if of interest.
JohnH says:
re my post above (October 4, 2010 at 2:45 pm)
In prof. Alexander email in point 8. he refers to ‘top graph in the Wikipedia’, Hale cycle he found
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hale-cycle.gif
I uploaded some months earlier (rectified version of http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/solar-formula.gif.
The article since has been deleted by a ‘certain solar science zealot’, but graph is still there.
BTW: Have you ever wondered to what cycle refers this: “The Sun experiences long range cycles of the order (80-120) years known as the Wolf – Gleissberg cycles”
The answer is obvious: To human life duration.
As the Iphone has an acceleration sensor which enables it the display´s image to rotate at will, it can run an APP to display the acceleration of gravity, which, in special for people living in earthquakes zones, would give them a few minutes warning when such a geological event is coming, as gravity acceleration decreases in such cases.
There are several apps which can be downloaded with this purpose.
Fascinating. Clearly LOD does correlate with solar cycles. Some time I hope to read up more.
I would like to hear Leif’s comment on this basic evidence of correlation.
“It seems also that the usual suspects are here singing their favorite tunes.”
One thing I learned a long time ago was that science isn’t a democracy. It isn’t even a republic. It doesn’t care what I think or what you think, it just is. If you can line up 1000 people who believe something is so and only 1 who believes it isn’t so, it will still be what it really is, what we think it is notwithstanding.
I also notice people jump in with their pet explanation for this or that or the other. It almost seems as if they believe that if they can simply become the majority view, then it makes their view the reality. It gets tiresome.
John Daly has LOD (expressed as excess day length in ms) from 1860 here and from 1623 here.
Does the correlation extend back that far ?
I suggest checking out the recently launched website “Solar Chord Discovery” : http://www.solarchords.com
It was literally just launched – days ago. I’ve spotted a few errors, but overall the information is clear.
Mr. Bailey calculated the changing Earth-Sun distance (the “solar chord”) and found that periods of high variability occur when the sun’s path around the solar system barycenter (SSB) enters certain patterns (primarily caused by the motions of the gas giants Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune). The sun’s motion in relation to the SSB (giving us solar angular momentum) also correlates to sunspot activity, but Mr. Bailey notes that it is the variable Earth-Sun distance, not the sunspots, that has the large weather changing (and over time, climate changing) affect.
The NASA link provided by anna v suggests,
The length of the day–how fast or slow the Earth rotates–depends on how Earth’s mass is distributed. Its mass includes the atmosphere, the solid Earth and its fluid core.. No water? anything external like the 38mm movement of the moon away from the earth?. It has been suggested that earthquakes and dam building can redistribute mass.
Jerry says:
October 4, 2010 at 2:42 am
I simply ask if the rotational period of the earth affects solar activity, or if solar activity affects the rotation of the earth.
That there is correlation is one thing, causation is quite another, and to my mind, the bigger guy always wins – i.e. the Sun is the driving factor
It’s time people stopped thinking in terms of simple chains of cause and effect and started considering the solar system as, well, a system. Feedback control loops operate by having a response to an input which modulates the output from the ‘main driver’.
The empirical evidence is being gathered.
Enneagram says:
October 4, 2010 at 10:01 am
ref:
simpleseekeraftertruth says: October 4, 2010 at 9:44 am
“As you would accept, that is only a theory. Question remains open unless phenomena are understood as in a single field theory.”
Would that be a single field theory unifying magnetism & gravity? If so, I have to admit that I can only believe that which I understand. You will have to put me down as a failure on that one;-]
The moon also causes tides in the atmosphere (of about a month duration):
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/moon-causes-monthly-atmospheric-tides/
which also leads to ideas of a mechanism for other bodies to raise similar tides in the sun, which could modulate nuclear output…
Oh, and one distraction: When I first started looking at this (after Ian Wilson presented on it) I got pulled into the idea of “Spin Orbit Coupling”. This works at the atomic level, so seems to me it ought to function at the macro level too; yet it simply gets ignored. I have no idea if it is ignored because it’s a pain to do the math or if it is just because some (unclear to me) physics causes it to be constrained to atomic scale events…
But if it can work at the macro level, some of the orbital shifts would translate into minor spin changes.
Yeah, I know, yet another goblin to chase… But it just bugs me when there is a clear bit of law of physics and for no clear reason it gets ignored at a different scale of event. I like my physics to stay constant… so I guess I have no future in quantum mechanics…
simpleseekeraftertruth says:
October 5, 2010 at 3:22 am
It is so simple that we, so accustumed to complexities, we just reject it.
Try it again:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38598073/Unified-Field
Ralph says:
October 4, 2010 at 1:02 pm
“And frankly, I cannot see how winds can be responsible for the variation in day-length.”
It’s quite simple. If (part of) the atmosphere is moving East-West or West-East around the globe, it has an angular momentum ~mvR. If the velocity (or moving air mass) changes, so does the angular momentum. But since the angular momentum of the Earth as a whole (including the atmosphere) doesn’t change (on this time scale), the angular momentum of the body of the Earth has to change in the opposite direction. If the wind speeds up, the rotation of the body slows down, and vice versa. The mass of the atmosphere is of order one millionth the mass of the Earth, jet stream and trade wind speeds of order one tenth the speed of planetary rotation, so expect an impact on the length of day up to ~1e-7 x 1e5 s ~ 10ms. Not all of the atmosphere is continually charging round the lines of latitude at full speed, so the net effect and seasonal variations will be substantially smaller, as observed.
“Coriolis is only a notional force, not a real force, as it is the Earth that moves, not the wind.”
Coriolis and centrifugal forces are real forces; they are called “fictional” not because they are unreal, but because they are created by rotating or non-inertial frames of reference. Gravity is another “fictional” force. If you think it’s not real I invite you to jump off a cliff and tell me if you still think so after hitting the bottom! Ultimately, fact and fiction come from the same root – the Latin for “do” or “make”.
tallbloke says:
October 5, 2010 at 12:07 am
re: the Sun is the driving factor
“It’s time people stopped thinking in terms of simple chains of cause and effect and started considering the solar system as, well, a system. Feedback control loops operate by having a response to an input which modulates the output from the ‘main driver’.”
But the feedback from the rest of the solar system to the sun is very, very weak. The tidal effects are minuscule and any electromagnetic effects would have to propagate back upstream against a supersonic flow; not absolutely impossible, but very very difficult (requiring, eg., high energy collimated jets, such as we observe in quasars and black hole accretion disks, but do not observe coming from the planets).
I posted a couple of months ago on LOD vs. mass distribution. I am curious why my graph of amplitude change from a couple of years ago looks nothing like what is posted above. http://i36.tinypic.com/30d88dh.jpg
Also LOD is down 22 seconds from 1973. http://www.iris.washington.edu/data/problem/2006/timing_issue.htm
vukcevic says:
October 4, 2010 at 2:41 am
“Here as an alternative view: …”
Do you understand the skin effect and why that means that the Earth’s magnetic core cannot be significantly affected by external changes in the magnetosphere on this time scale? If you think you have an explanation that gets around this rather fundamental limitation by all means elucidate us; but please don’t just ignore the problem or pretend it doesn’t exist or doesn’t matter.
Steve says: October 4, 2010 at 11:10 pm
Wow, hats off gentlemen, this man has a true-Nobel-prizewinner quality, like Svensmark, but building on Landscheidt and Rhodes Fairbridge and going further, with exquisite clarity. Read his science pages listed here. Enjoy the orrery he recommends. Tallbloke I strongly advise you to get the book and do a review.
Paul Birch says:
October 5, 2010 at 7:32 am
Have you visited the earth’s core lately, how is it?
Paul Birch says:
October 5, 2010 at 7:17 am
But the feedback from the rest of the solar system to the sun is very, very weak
That was believed long ago, in the epoch of the “Flintstones’ Universe conception” ( a kind of “pebbles universe” where only rounded stones existed and also where there were some extravagant sky wanderers made of Ice-Cream and stars’dust, called by the famous physicist Fred Flintstone, “comets”).
I am old too but I use to refresh my mental windows once in a while: Ask your grand children!
Paul Birch says: October 5, 2010 at 7:32 am
………….
Yes indeed I do (and frequency factor, and 1/e). Even so electric currents are induced by ionosphere to depths up to several hundred kilometres of lithosphere!
But it is not the induced currents, that reach the core, it is their magnetic field, which works against the geomagnetic field, resultant as vector sums of two, as a result is reduced. As an indication of this effect I offer suggestion that there is an inverse correlation between GMF and solar output, in the Arctic region’ where such electric currents are strongest:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC9.htm
However other readers may be interested to know that NASA has an ongoing project investigating possible link solar wind – ionosphere currents – earthquakes.
The variation of the horizontal component H of the geomagnetic field is the crucial parameter in the Magneto-Seismic Effect MSE to be discussed in a companion paper. The connection of earthquake activity to possible solar or solar wind drivers is not well understood; many authors have attempted correlations in the past with mixed results. We will use data from the S3C Great Observatory and from ground-based magnetometer arrays to show long term trends near solar minimum for ultra low frequency (ULF) fluctuations, specifically the Pc5 (˜1 – 8 mHz) band.
The role of ionospheric currents will be highlighted in a companion paper.
R. Kessel, F. Freund & G. Duma
Lab for Solar and Space Physics, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771 [ramona.l.kessel@nasa.gov
Department of Physics, San Jose State University and Ecosystem Science and Technology, NASA Ames Research Center, MS 242-4, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000
For anyone interested in matching LOD changes to known weather or other terrestrial events I’ve done a higher resolution GRAPH
Not sure were all the data in the header comes from but this is the plot I get for LOD and SSN
http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/387/lodsunspot.png
There seems to be no correlation worthy of note.
LOD here
http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/
SSN here
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/MONTHLY
vukcevic says:
October 5, 2010 at 11:46 am
“Yes indeed I do (and frequency factor, and 1/e). Even so electric currents are induced by ionosphere to depths up to several hundred kilometres of lithosphere!
But it is not the induced currents, that reach the core, it is their magnetic field, ”
I suggest you go and read up on the skin effect again. It prevents varying magnetic fields from penetrating a conductor. Neither the magnetic field, nor any induced currents, could penetrate the Earth’s core (on this time scale, ie, at these frequencies).
“Several hundred kilometres” is less than a tenth the depth the fields would have to penetrate, even to reach the outer regions of the magnetic core, let alone into its dynamo, where the conductivity will be much higher and the skin depth correspondingly smaller.
Enneagram says:
October 5, 2010 at 5:44 am
Thank you for the link, I had seen this and am sure it is edifying, however, my original question @ October 4, 2010 at 3:28 am was on how a reduction in braking force can cause an acceleration. Its a ‘laws of motion thing’ I thought but links kindly supplied by Vukcevic & yourself suggest I need to involve myself in Unified Field Theory! Well, very kind of you but I am a little bit busy what with the twins and the roof problem and all !-)
Paul Birch says: October 6, 2010 at 3:26 am
………….
And perhaps you can explain how the core’s electric currents generated magnetic field penetrates trough the same skin effect of the lithosphere in the opposite direction !
Also you may wish to consider effect of geomagnetic field on instability in anarcho-capitalism- Paul Birch
E.M.Smith says:
October 5, 2010 at 5:05 am
I got pulled into the idea of “Spin Orbit Coupling”
Some may call it “resonance” or whatever, however yours it is not “Oh, and one distraction”, it is really the same phenomenon: We do not need to divide reality in so many details, which differ only in frequency and wavelength (“the devil is in the details”, rather it makes simple things obscure by multiplying it to infinite quantities). The field is one. (see above link). We should return to the simplicity of numbers and elemental geometry or music in order to comprehend reality.
Richard Holle says:
October 4, 2010 at 5:40 am
There are three unstoppable things in nature, truth, true love, and an Idea whose time has come.
Great!. The time is due; changes, if resisted, cause pain, a pain which only affects our cherished ego, then we could get rid of that “suffering” if we just wanted to, but this is the harder task a man can accomplish: to die in order to resurrect.
Stephen Wilde says:
October 4, 2010 at 5:39 am
All too speculative so far I fear and unlikely to be a large enough forcing agent.
A back of the envelope SWAG calculation, dK= I w dw (rotational kinetic energy change with a change in the angular speed) shows that the potential “forcing” has a maximum of about 0.1 Watts/m^2 for the maximum difference in angular speed.
vukcevic says:
October 6, 2010 at 5:24 am
“And perhaps you can explain how the core’s electric currents generated magnetic field penetrates trough the same skin effect of the lithosphere in the opposite direction !”
I don’t have to, since it is you, not I, that is promoting the relevance of changes in the core. I have made no such claim. However, points to note include the longer timescales (lower frequencies) and greater energy densities. The core is the dog, the magnetosphere the very tip of its tail.
Do you still not understand that the skin effect attenuates imposed magnetic field variations exponentially with depth, and that this poses very grave problems for your “alternative” theory? If you want to rescue your theory the onus is on you to show how this difficulty can be overcome – with hard physics, not merely by handwaving or attacking other people’s ideas.
You already contradicted yourself in your statements. Neither you or I or anyone else has a theory how geomagnetic field is generated. It is only a hypothesis (there is a difference between two !).
My ideas are new and controversial , I do not have to prove anything to anyone, you can take it or leave it. There is a long queue of people and scientists ready to rubbish what I write, you are more then welcome to join.
Paul Birch says:
October 6, 2010 at 9:15 am
You speak about the “skin effect”, however if you could see a skin like Oppenheimer saw his conference table, as moving energy, you would see an “electric double layer” : That’s music you know, waves, and each crest of those waves is that “skin” you like so much. The fact of the matter (literally) is that earth’s skin, that surface you walk on, it is a transient congealment of energy,, composed of several layers or “skins” which interact with the environment, with its “mother liquor”, An aggregation of cathode deposits arranged according to its potential: the more negative ones the last to be deposited on (that is why the earth’s surface is called SIAL -aluminum silicate-) that sea of energy it is not a dead universe of “rounded stones” but a vibrant and live spectacle to behold.
vukcevic says:
October 6, 2010 at 11:21 am
“You already contradicted yourself in your statements.”
I don’t think I have. Please quote the alleged contradiction.
“Neither you or I or anyone else has a theory how geomagnetic field is generated. It is only a hypothesis (there is a difference between two !).”
I don’t care whether you call it a hypothesis, theory, conjecture or view; it still has to obey the laws of physics.
“My ideas are new and controversial , I do not have to prove anything to anyone, you can take it or leave it. There is a long queue of people and scientists ready to rubbish what I write, you are more then welcome to join.”
If you refuse to subject your ideas to scientific test, or wantonly ignore basic physics, then you are merely fabricating a fantasy. All right for science fiction, perhaps, but not for science. And if you pretend it’s real, while turning your back on reality, then it’s rubbish (and old, rehashed rubbish at that).
Paul Birch says:
October 6, 2010 at 2:29 pm
If you refuse to subject your ideas to scientific test, or wantonly ignore basic physics, then you are merely fabricating a fantasy.
Which is what Vuk does, so let’s just treat it as entertainment.
Thanks doc for coming to my defence, despite being solar scientist, you are still on ‘terra firma’; you may be also entertained by ideas of ‘moving planet Mars with mirrors’.
http://www.paulbirch.net/MoveAPlanet.pdf
http://www.paulbirch.net/SpinAPlanet.pdf
by curtsey of the above
P.s. Have you given any further thought to
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-Mc.htm
vukcevic says:
October 7, 2010 at 12:50 am
P.s. Have you given any further thought to
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-Mc.htm
You still need to add 1.7 nT to McCracken’s values before ~1950.
vukcevic says:
October 7, 2010 at 12:50 am
“Thanks doc for coming to my defence, despite being solar scientist, you are still on ‘terra firma’; you may be also entertained by ideas of ‘moving planet Mars with mirrors’.”
He wasn’t coming to your defence, and the planet-moving technique in those JBIS papers uses high-velocity mass-streams, not solar sails (which is one of a variety of suggestions from previous workers, but which is unfortunately unable to transfer sufficient momentum to accomplish significant orbit modification within reasonable timescales <1Myr). Mirrors are required only to provide the initial energy from a solar-orbiting light-sail windmill, and could be replaced by any other suitable energy source. The technique is entirely consistent with known science and engineering principles.
Leif Svalgaard says: October 7, 2010 at 3:28 am
You still need to add 1.7 nT to McCracken’s values before ~1950.
I hope your Euro-vacation was enjoyable.
Graph is now corrected.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-Mc.htm
I think there is still good reason for concern regarding the pre 1930 svalues.
(CETs are normalised to corrected McCracken).
Vuk etc. says:
October 7, 2010 at 4:27 am
I think there is still good reason for concern regarding the pre 1930 values.
Don’t know what you are talking about.
There are various indications that the dips in the ‘HMF’ [actually in the cosmic ray flux] are caused by climate/weather effects, so the correlation [if any] may just be climate with climate.
vukcevic says:
October 5, 2010 at 11:46 am
Yes indeed I do (and frequency factor, and 1/e). Even so electric currents are induced by ionosphere to depths up to several hundred kilometres of lithosphere!
But it is not the induced currents, that reach the core, it is their magnetic field, which works against the geomagnetic field,..
..However other readers may be interested to know that NASA has an ongoing project investigating possible link solar wind – ionosphere currents – earthquakes..
..The role of ionospheric currents will be highlighted in a companion paper..
Good stuff Vuks.
How do the ionspheric field currents communicate with the surface fields and how do the surface fields, commuicate with core fields. Maybe through a series of cylinders which they are now suggesting exist based on current studies.
This graph Vuks is interesting..
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Daily%20LOD.htm
Made me start thinking about this again..since you had about 50 years up there..
Solar Wind Loses Power, Hits 50-year Low
“The average pressure of the solar wind has dropped more than 20% since the mid-1990s,” says Dave McComas..
..Curiously, the speed of the million mph solar wind hasn’t decreased much—only 3%. The change in pressure comes mainly from reductions in temperature and density. The solar wind is 13% cooler and 20% less dense..
..In addition to weakened solar wind, “Ulysses also finds that the sun’s underlying magnetic field has weakened by more than 30% since the mid-1990s,” says Posner. “This reduces natural shielding even more.”
Unpublished Ulysses cosmic ray data show that, indeed, high energy (GeV) electrons, a minor but telltale component of cosmic rays around Earth, have jumped in number by about 20%..
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/23sep_solarwind/
hmmm heliosphere shrunk, Earth’s atmosphere “lowered.” (could say magnetosphere shrunk) and the core field has decreased.
Don’t tell Leif, but I am starting to feel delusional .. hahahha
If we have a contact point with the radiation belts showing a visible weakened “depression,” in the earths surface field and an adjacent ..
Then there’s Jupiter losing the S. Hemi stripe thingy..
Jupiter loses a stripe
21:49 11 May 2010 by David Shiga
Jupiter has lost one of its prominent stripes, leaving its southern half looking unusually blank. Scientists are not sure what triggered the disappearance of the band.
Jupiter’s appearance is usually dominated by two dark bands in its atmosphere – one in the northern hemisphere and one in the southern hemisphere.
But recent images taken by amateur astronomers show that the southern band – called the south equatorial belt – has disappeared.
The band was present at the end of 2009, right before Jupiter moved too close to the sun in the sky to be observed from Earth. When the planet emerged from the sun’s glare again in early April, its south equatorial belt was nowhere to be seen.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18889-jupiter-loses-a-stripe.html
And there’s that equatorial belt thingy again..
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 7, 2010 at 4:46 am
…..so the correlation [if any] may just be climate with climate.
I am the one who usualy jumps into conclusions, not this time.
I did a quick look at period of your ‘special interest’ 1780-1840, subtracted my not so perfect North Atlantic precursor (I am well aware of your scepticism on this, still in the process of trying to interpret data) and got this:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-Mc.htm
a perfectly respectable CR’s graph.
Hi Carla, for the above I have to come back when I look at data available if any, but for time being, it is all a bit of speculation
vukcevic says:
October 7, 2010 at 9:45 am
a perfectly respectable CR’s graph.
You can see the effect of volcanoes. Does not look like respectable CR. And forget about the silly NAP.
1) The HMF deduced by McCracken is based on what he calls a “pseudo-Climax neutron monitor record”. In constructing this record he merges 10Be with neutron monitor data. But he is mixing oranges and apples. He forgets (or does not know – although Beer should) that the 10Be data lags 2 years behind the sunspots and the HMF (mainly because of the residence time of 10Be in the atmosphere). Thus all his data from before ~1980 (where the 10Be series from Dye-3 in Greenland stops) should be shifted 2 years earlier. This louses up any detailed comparisons of single years. I discovered this by painstakingly making a large magnification (3 feet across) copy of his Figure showing HMF as a function of time.
2) When shifting the HMF(10Be) data 2 years it becomes evident that they are too low before ~1950 by 1.7nT. When adding 1.7 nT before 1950, his data now agrees well with S&C, RL&F, and L&S.
3) There is a strong disagreement 1883-1896 (the “crack” in the floor). There are other cracks 1809-1820, 1694-1710, and a smaller one ~1766. 10Be is deposited by adhering to stratospheric aerosols which then drift down and rain out. The amount of aerosols in the stratosphere is controlled mainly by volcanic eruptions. There were such strong eruptions in 1693 (Hekla on Iceland, having large effect on nearby Greenland), 1766 (Hekla), 1809 (see Dai JGR 96, 1991), 1814 (Mayon), 1815 (Tambora), 1883 (Krakatoa). I suggest (although will have to study the mechanism) that these events are the reason for the cracks.
More on 1809:
Title: Ice core evidence for an explosive tropical volcanic eruption 6 years preceding Tambora
Authors: Dai, Jihong; Mosley-Thompson, Ellen; Thompson, Lonnie G.
Publication: Journal of Geophysical Research (ISSN 0148-0227), vol.
96, Sept. 20, 1991, p. 17,361-17,366.
Abstract: High-resolution analyses of ice cores from Antarctica and Greenland reveal an explosive volcanic eruption in the tropics in A.D. 1809 which is not reflected in the historical record. A comparison in the same ice cores of the sulfate flux from the A.D. 1809 eruption to that from the Tambora eruption (A.D. 1815) indicates a near-equatorial location and a magnitude roughly half that of Tambora. Thus this event should be considered comparable to other eruptions producing large volumes of sulfur-rich gases such as Coseguina, Krakatau, Agung, and El Chichon. The increase in the atmospheric concentration of sulfuric acid may have contributed to the Northern Hemisphere cooling observed in the early nineteenth century and may account partially for the decline in surface temperatures which preceded the eruption of Tambora in A.D. 1815.
Title: Two major volcanic cooling episodes derived from global marine air temperature, AD 1807-1827
Authors: Chenoweth, Michael
Publication: Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 28, Issue 15, p. 2963-2966), 2001
DOI: 10.1029/2000GL012648
Abstract: A new data set of global marine air temperature data for the years 1807-1827 is used to show the impact of volcanic eruptions in ~1809 (unlocated) and 1815 (Tambora, Indonesia). Both eruptions produced cooling exceeding that after Krakatoa, Indonesia (1883) and Pinatubo, Philippines (1991). The ~1809 eruption is dated to March-June 1808 based on a sudden cooling in Malaysian temperature data and maximum cooling of marine air temperature in 1809. Two large-scale calibrated proxy temperature records, one from tree-ring-density data, the other using multi-proxy sources are compared to the marine air temperature data. Correlation is highest with maximum latewood density data and lowest with the multi-proxy data.
Muscheler, R., F. Joos, J. Beer, S. A. Muller, M. Vonmoos, and I. Snowball, 2007: Solar activity during the last 1000 yr inferred from radionuclide records. Quaternary Science Reviews, 26, 82-97, doi: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2006.07.012.
Abstract: Four 10Be records from Greenland ice cores (Camp Century, GRIP, Milcent and Dye3) together with two 10Be records from Antarctic ice cores (Dome Concordia and South Pole). In general, the 10Be and 14C records exhibit good agreement that allows us to obtain reliable estimates of past solar magnetic modulation of the radionuclide production rates. Differences between 10Be records from Antarctica and Greenland indicate that climatic changes have influenced the deposition of 10Be during some periods of the last 1000 yr. The radionuclide-based reconstructions of past changes in solar activity do not always agree with the sunspot record, which indicates that the coupling between those proxies is not as close as has been sometimes assumed. The tree-ring 14C record and 10Be from Antarctica indicate that recent solar activity is high but not exceptional with respect to the last 1000 yr.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.2675
A Comparison Of New Calculations Of The Yearly 10Be Production In The Earths Polar Atmosphere By Cosmic Rays With Yearly 10Be Measurements In Multiple Greenland Ice Cores Between 1939 And 1994 – A Troubling Lack Of Concordance Paper #2
W.R. Webber, P.R. Higbie, C.W. Webber
We have compared the yearly production rates of 10Be by cosmic rays in the Earths polar atmosphere over the last 50-70 years with 10Be measurements from two separate ice cores in Greenland. These ice cores provide measurements of the annual 10Be concentration and 10Be flux levels during this time. The scatter in the ice core yearly data vs. the production data is larger than the average solar 11 year production variations that are being measured. The cross correlation coefficients between the yearly 10Be production and the ice core 10Be measurements for this time period are <0.4 in all comparisons between ice core data and 10Be production, including 10Be concentrations, 10Be fluxes and in comparing the two separate ice core measurements. In fact, the cross correlation between the two ice core measurements, which should be measuring the same source, is the lowest of all, only ~0.2. These values for the correlation coefficient are all indicative of a "poor" correlation. The regression line slopes for the best fit lines between the 10Be production and the 10Be measurements used in the cross correlation analysis are all in the range 0.4-0.6. This is a particular problem for historical projections of solar activity based on ice core measurements which assume a 1:1 correspondence. We have made other tests of the correspondence between the 10Be predictions and the ice core measurements which lead to the same conclusion, namely that other influences on the ice core measurements, as large as or larger than the production changes themselves, are occurring. These influences could be climatic or instrumentally based. We suggest new ice core measurements that might help in defining more clearly what these influences are and-if possible-to correct for them.
From the text: "Indeed this implies that more than 50% the 10Be flux increase around, e.g., 1700 A.D., 1810 A.D. and 1895 A.D. is due to non-production related increases!"
Dr. Svalgaard
Thank you for the extensive notes. I went through them twice, nothing in there is in any contradiction with my findings. At least it does indirectly confirm that the Dalton minimum activity was not be exceptionally low.
I have made that point on another thread
I have also referred to your reply
p.s. you may find eventually that NAP is not that silly at all, magnetic field is not the engine, just a rev-counter
vukcevic says:
October 7, 2010 at 2:30 pm
p.s. you may find eventually that NAP is not that silly at all, magnetic field is not the engine, just a rev-counter
I don’t think so. The currents that might be responsible are much too feeble, but I know that physics is not your strong side, so carry on with the entertainment.
Keep the graph, it may be only reasonably accurate 10Be record you may find for the Dalton minimum period. I did not say what NAP is …..
This just in:
ftp://tai.bipm.org/iers/conv2010/tn36.pdf
It is the latest ‘convention’ on Earth Orientation Parameters, especially the LOD [in chapter 8].
Went through McCracken paper (2007) again; have you got a link to the dipole strength data, you and the solar fraternity use for 1600-to present (preferably annual) ?
Thanks.
vukcevic says:
October 9, 2010 at 5:16 am
Went through McCracken paper (2007) again; have you got a link to the dipole strength data, you and the solar fraternity use for 1600-to present (preferably annual) ?
which dipole?
The Earth’s geomagnetic dipole.
quote: “The data have been adjusted to remove the effects due to the long-term change in the geomagnetic dipole.”
vukcevic says:
October 9, 2010 at 5:16 am
Went through McCracken paper (2007) again; have you got a link to the dipole strength data, you and the solar fraternity use for 1600-to present (preferably annual) ?
Assuming you mean that of the Earth, a good source is here:
http://jupiter.ethz.ch/~cfinlay/gufm1/model/gufm1_epochs/
click on each year to get the value for that year, e.g. for 1973:
1973.00 mf
14 -4 1973.00
-0.301444570312E+05 -0.203294860840E+04 0.570135839844E+04 -0.185369750977E+04
The first number on the third line [-0.30144…] is the dipole strength, -30144.457 nT
extending the data:
http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/research/geospace/presentations/pub_store/serial106.pdf
For your purposes [?] simple linear extrapolation past 1990 will do.
vukcevic says:
October 9, 2010 at 5:16 am
Went through McCracken paper (2007) again; have you got a link to the dipole strength data, you and the solar fraternity use for 1600-to present (preferably annual) ?
Lots of good [very recent] stuff here:
http://www.isaes2011.org.uk/research/geospace/presentations/Edinburgh_2010.html
vukcevic says:
October 9, 2010 at 5:16 am
Went through McCracken paper (2007) again; have you got a link to the dipole strength data, you and the solar fraternity use for 1600-to present (preferably annual) ?
Fig. 3 of http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/research/geospace/presentations/pub_store/Whaler_100920.pdf
shows the very large uncertainties in the estimates….
vukcevic says:
October 9, 2010 at 5:16 am
Went through McCracken paper (2007) again; have you got a link to the dipole strength data, you and the solar fraternity use for 1600-to present (preferably annual) ?
My own version [combination of GUFM1 and IGRF] since 1900 is
1900 -31518
1905 -31430
1910 -31325
1915 -31188
1920 -31045
1925 -30914
1930 -30797
1935 -30709
1940 -30652
1945 -30601
1950 -30559
1955 -30504
1960 -30428
1965 -30332
1970 -30217
1975 -30101
1980 -29991
1985 -29872
1990 -29773
1995 -29692
2000 -29619
2005 -29555
2010 -29497
For intermediate years linear interpolation is sufficient.
vukcevic says:
October 9, 2010 at 5:16 am
Went through McCracken paper (2007) again; have you got a link to the dipole strength data, you and the solar fraternity use for 1600-to present (preferably annual) ?
You should have little difficulty enjoying this:
http://www.sci.muni.cz/~chadima/geomagnetismus/Geomagnetismus1.pdf
Leif, I appreciated the delineation of model types (reduction, conventional, useful). I wonder if climate and weather models are so delineated. I know that these models can be classified as either statistical or dynamical (as in the ENSO El Nino model sets). But I appreciate the model type system outlined in the link you provided as having functional utility to climatology. Yes?
vukcevic says:
October 9, 2010 at 5:16 am
Went through McCracken paper (2007) again; have you got a link to the dipole strength data, you and the solar fraternity use for 1600-to present (preferably annual) ?
Last, but not least: an understanding of the physics id important. Good material here:
http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/SP_1279_6_Swarm.pdf
See pages 12-15 on LOD and the few nT ocean effect.
Pamela Gray says:
October 9, 2010 at 7:51 am
the link you provided as having functional utility to climatology. Yes?
Which link?
Leif Svalgaard says:
………..
Thank you for the data and links. Goes and Swarm articles are useful.
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/documents/wmm_2005.pdf
is far more informative than Czech version except for couple of extra maps.
The intention is add the difference between GM dipole and local field to the McC’s numbers ( 1800-1830 for start, shouldn’t take to long just 30 samples) and than take away NAP, which is not same as the gmf but it is loosely (inverted) correlated to it. I shal inform you about result.
One interesting point: Tambora and Mayon appear caused dip in McC data, while Kamchatka in 1830 had opposite effect, a big spike.
Thanks again.
Result is a bit more realistic for SC4, (to be left on back burner).
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-Mc1.gif
vukcevic says: October 9, 2010 at 2:34 pm
The above link should be:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-Mca.htm
Lucy Skywalker says:
October 4, 2010 at 6:52 pm
Fascinating. Clearly LOD does correlate with solar cycles. Some time I hope to read up more.
But WHERE is the correlation:
http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/387/lodsunspot.png
LOD here
http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/
SSN here
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/MONTHLY
thefordprefect says:
October 10, 2010 at 7:03 am
But WHERE is the correlation:
http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/387/lodsunspot.png
Nowhere, of course.
You have to torture the data first. The LOD has many periodic components. In particular there is one with a period of six months. The claimed correlation is between the amplitude of that particular one and the sunspot number. No mention of why just that one [out of the multitude of other ones] shows any correlation.
After Greenland gmf (instead of dipole) correction of McCracken data here is Dalton minimum by 10Be.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-Mca.htm
vukcevic says:
October 10, 2010 at 11:19 am
After Greenland gmf (instead of dipole) correction of McCracken data here is Dalton minimum by 10Be.
Unjustified junk.
Leif Svalgaard says: October 10, 2010 at 2:50 pm
………………….
You may not like the idea, but the facts do not care for opinions, and the fact is that NAP is a very important factor, with its effect built in the McCracken data. I shall email details to him. I expect similar response; the aim is not concord but a test of the science’s integrity.
Difference between the Earth’s magnetic dipole and Greenland’s gmf gradient (1780-1840) is only 1.8%, so its contribution is a minor factor and for simplicity can be left out.
Consequence is serious: radioactive isotopes dating calculations need reassessment.
Here it is again:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-Mca.htm
vukcevic says:
October 11, 2010 at 12:53 am
Consequence is serious: radioactive isotopes dating calculations need reassessment.
The way to do this is by getting more and better ice cores, not by ad-hoc monkeying with shaky data. You are out of your depth here and I doubt Ken M will take any notice of your nonsense.
I am not interested in your rude outbursts here or elsewhere.
I am not particularly concerned if there is or no response from Dr. McCracken. Since I am looking into odd corners of science where there is data available, if I come across something of interest, causal or coincidental, I consider it my duty to bring it to the attention of the author, if identifiable and contactable, and put it in public domain. His response may be similar to yours about the sun’s polar magnetic field, all depending on degree of author’s paranoia about their output.
I have no emotional attachment to what I write, I am prepared to formulate an idea on bases of data, but if I find contradictory evidence, I am just as likely to discard it.
On matter of NAP, I found data closely relating to CETs (convincing me that the gmf is just a usefull pointer, but I do not know why) some time before I came across McCracken data.
I do not think that the better ice cores could change anything, it is factor that the ice core data is good, that NAP variable is absorbed and so confirms existing records of the physical process which in no way can be caused or affected by the GCR and afterfacts, similarly there is no evidence that NAP can be affected by climatic or temperature events.
vukcevic says:
October 13, 2010 at 2:02 am
I consider it my duty to bring it to the attention of the author, if identifiable and contactable, and put it in public domain.
There is already enough junk on the Internet. Consider my comments as peer review [which your ideas do not pass]. You have no ‘duty’ to pollute various forums.
‘ There you go again’ (RR).
I am not interested in peer reviews (lot of those fall by the wayside), just good solid verifiable data on which I base my conclusions.
Now if you are in business of science (and displayed good old scientific curiosity) you would made an effort to find out what is the data I have used as base of my work, or alternatively you would say : ‘here is actual 10Be data file as compiled from the Greenland ice cores, compare two and let me know what the result is’.
Your determined pursuance over various web blogs is welcome, convinces me and possibly others there is something to be concerned about.
My friend ‘radun’ made it through the ‘taminos’ censorship, I might try it again, (may I see you there too?), just waiting for Dr. McCracken response if any, it appears that he has already looked at the emailed link:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-Mca.htm
vukcevic says:
October 13, 2010 at 4:47 am
I am not interested in peer reviews
Says it all, I think.
By LAPWilson.
Re Solar Chord Science and the n-body issue
Fred Bailey replied elsewhere:
“Lucy Skywalker mentioned in an earlier post that my work may resolve the three body problem that Newton failed to achieve. I wish it were so but regrettably it is not. In my opinion, there is only one reason why a person of his calibre could not solve that problem, and that is because it is totally unsolvable.
The problem with the n-body solution, is that no matter what computing power one has at one’s disposal, one cannot tell the computer, or indeed one’s own brain, what the original vector starting points and vector co-ordinates are at the point of conception.
Prof. Steven Hawking has just made known his thoughts on the subject of the Universe’s conception, where he states that it all began without the necessity of the help of God. It only required the presence of Gravity. ( my thoughts…..perhaps that is what God is! ). Because of this dilemma, I think that the solution of the n-body problem will never be achieved.
Having said all this, I do believe that my work is important in the short term, ie., over periods of time measured in hundreds of years, because the drift in the vector quantities over these periods will not significantly alter the patterns of the solar bodies relationships, and therefore, neither will it significantly alter the Chord dimensions that I calculate, to give us the wattage’s received upon Earth in the coming decades.
This approach can be replicated every so many centuries, by updating the vector information by observation; which in turn will show the trends in chord length changes; so that the Earth’s climate changes can be monitored as the approach of the next ice age takes place, as it surely will, as past geological evidence shows.”
Many people, even highly credentialed scientists, have difficulty absorbing and comprehending the key elements of Solar Chord Science. Indeed it seems that sometimes the highly credentialed have become so captured by long standing traditional ideas of astrophysics that it is very hard to shift the mind into new modes of thinking; into additional dimensions of mental challenge.
The difficulty comes about because it is necessary to contemplate SCS in three dimensions and in perpetually changing vector force terms. One can fairly easily think of force vectors in a two dimensional aspect, such as the two dimensions of the elliptic plane, but it becomes far more complex to think about the force vectors which exist when the third dimension (movement of the elliptic plane along the galactic path) is added as well. Then add the fourth dimension of time to introduce the fully dynamic force vector phenomena. It requires deep thought analysis, an openness of mind and a preparedness to challenge traditional precepts of some highly respected and credentialed entities of science (and a couple no longer quite as respected as they once were).
LAPWilson (SCS Associate/Contributor)