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

Italiano: Il ciclo solare 23 (1996-2006) visto...

Italiano: Il ciclo solare 23 (1996-2006) visto dalla sonda NASA SOHO (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Planetary effects are too small by several orders of magnitude to be a main cause of the solar cycle.

Argiris Diamantis writes in with this tip:

Professor Cornelis de Jager from the Netherlands has put a new publication on his website. It is a study of Dirk K. Callebaut, Cornelis de Jager and Silvia Duhau. They conclude that planetary effects are too small by several orders of magnitude to be a main cause of the solar cycle. A planetary explanation of the solar cycle is hardly possible.

The paper is titled:

The influence of planetary attractions on the solar tachocline
Dirk K. Callebaut a, Cornelis de Jager b,n,1, Silvia Duhau c

a University of Antwerp, Physics Department, CGB, Groenenborgerlaan 171, B-2020 Antwerpen, Belgium
b Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, P.O. Box 59, NL 1790 AB Den Burg, The Netherlands
c Departamento de Fı´sica, Facultad Ingeniera, Universidad de Buenos Aires, 1428 Buenos Aires, Argentina

Abstract
We present a physical analysis of the occasionally forwarded hypothesis that solar variability, as shown in the various photospheric and outer solar layer activities, might be due to the Newtonian attraction by the planets.

We calculate the planetary forces exerted on the tachocline and thereby not only include the immediate forces but we also take into account that these planetary or dynamo actions occur during some time, which demands integration. As an improvement to earlier research on this topic we reconsider the internal convective velocities and we examine several other effects, in particular those due to magnetic buoyancy and to the Coriolis force. The main conclusion is that in its essence: planetary influences are too small to be more than a small modulation of the solar cycle. We do not exclude the possibility that the long term combined action of the planets may induce small internal motions in the sun, which may have indirectly an effect on the solar dynamo after a long time.

From the Introduction:

So far the study of solar variability has identified five solar periodicities with a sufficient degree of significance (cf. the review by De Jager, 2005, Chapter 11).

These periods are:

  • The 11 years Schwabe cycle in the sunspot numbers. We note that this period is far from constant and varies with time, e.g. during the last century the period was closer to 10.6 years.
  • The Hale cycles of solar magnetism encompasses two Schwabe cycles and shows the same variation over the centuries.
  • The 88 years Gleissberg cycle (cf. Peritykh and Damon, 2003). Its length varies strongly over the centuries, with peaks of about 55 and 100 years (Raspopov et al., 2004). The longer period prevailed between 1725 and 1850.
  • The De Vries (Suess) period of 203–208 years, with a fairly sharply defined cycle length.
  • The Hallstatt cycle of about 2300 years. An interesting new development (Nussbaumer et al., 2011) is the finding that Grand Minima of solar activity seem to occasionally cluster together and that there is a periodicity in that clustering. An example of such a cluster is the series of Grand Minima that occurred in the past millennium (viz. the sequence consisting of the Oort, Wolf, Sp¨ orer, Maunder and Dalton minima). This kind of clustering seems to repeat itself with the Hallstatt period.

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

Another approach to this problem is the study of climate variations in attempts to search for planetary influences. As an example we mention a paper by Scafetta (2010), who found that climate variations of 0.1–0.25 K with periods of 20–60 years seem to be correlated with orbital motions of Jupiter and Saturn. This was, however, not confirmed in another paper on a similar topic (Humkin et al., 2011). This is another reason for a more fundamental look at the problem: can we identify planetary influences
by looking at the physics of the problem?

The challenge we face here is twofold: planetary influences should be able to reproduce at least the most fundamental of the five periodicities in solar variability, and secondly the planetary accelerations in the level of the solar dynamo should be strong enough to at least equalize or more desirably, to surpass the forces related to the working of the solar dynamo. In this paper we discuss the second aspect, realizing that the attempts to cover
the first aspect have been dealt with sufficiently in literature while the second aspect was grossly neglected so far. A first attempt to discuss it appeared in an earlier paper (De Jager and Versteegh, 2005; henceforth: paper I). They calculated three accelerations:

1) One by tidal forces from Jupiter. They found aJup=2.8=10^-10 m/s^2.
2) One due to the motion of the sun around the centre of mass of the solar system due to the sum of planetary attractions (ainert).
3) The accelerations (adyn) by convective motions in the tachocline and above it.
It was shown in their work that the third one is larger by several orders of magnitude than the first and second mentioned accelerations. Soon after its publication it was realized that some of the forces are effective for a long time, which demands an integration of the forces over the time of action. That might change the results. It was also realized that more forces may be operational than the two mentioned in paper I. Therefore, in the present paper, we improve and expand these calculations; we investigate a few more possible effects; moreover, we study the effect of the duration of these actions as well.

Conclusions
We calculated various accelerations near or in the tachocline area and compared them with those due to the attraction by the planets. We found that the former are larger than the latter by four orders of magnitude. Moreover, the duration of the various causes may change a bit the ratio of their effects, but they are still very small as compared to accelerations occurring at the tachocline.

Hence, planetary influences should be ruled out as a possible cause of solar variability. Specifically, we improved the calculation of ainert in paper I and gave an alternative estimation. If the tidal acceleration of Jupiter were important for the solar cycle then the tidal accelerations of Mercury, Venus and the Earth would be important too. The time evolution of the sunspots would then be totally different and the difference between the
solar maximum and its minimum would be much less pronounced.

Taking into account the duration of the acceleration aJup does not really change the conclusions of paper I: the planetary effects are too small by several orders of magnitude to be a main cause of the solar cycle (they can be at most a small modulation); moreover,
they fail to give an explanation for the polarity changes in the solar cycle. In addition, the periods of revolution of the planets (in particular Jupiter) do not seem compatible with the solar cycle over long times. In fact, a planetary explanation of the solar cycle
is hardly possible. Besides, we estimated various other effects, including the ones
due to the magnetic field (buoyancy effect and centripetal consequence)
and those due to the Coriolis force; their relation to the tidal effects can be indirect at its utmost best (by influencing motions which might affect the solar dynamo).

As all planets rotate in the same sense around the sun their combined action over times of years may induce a small motion e.g. at the solar surface. This may have an influence on the meridional motion or on the poleward motions of the solar surface (Makarov et al., 2000), having in turn an influence on the solar dynamo (maybe leading to an effect like the Gnevyshev–Ohl rule). Again, this will be very indirect and the effect of one planet or one orbital period will be masked.

Full paper: > http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/2012-planetary-attractions1.pdf

Looks to me like Barycentrism just took a body blow – Anthony

About these ads
This entry was posted in Science, Solar and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

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

  1. Stephen Wilde says:

    A small modulation of the solar cycle over enough time seems to be all that we need to produce an amplifying effect within Earth’s atmosphere involving air circulation and albedo changes.

    The most likely culprit appears to be UV variability acting on ozone in the stratosphere and mesosphere.

    Individual planets are unlikely to have an effect but line them all up together periodically and that sounds more plausible.

    Rather than being a body blow against a planetary effect this paper seems to accept the possibility of a small such effect over enough time.

    Others have done much more detailed work with the periodicities involved in solar variations and planetary effects so let them now present their evidence.

    Interestingly many of them correctly anticipated the current spell of reduced solar activity whereas the established solar experts were predicting a very strong cycle 24 just a few years ago.

    A useful starting point can be found here:

    http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspots.html

    from one Timo Niroma

  2. Paul Westhaver says:

    There is a fantastic plot of the effects of the planets on the sun. I’ll put a link below. The image represents the center of mass of the solar system, (the sun’s wobble so to speak) as a consequence of the positions of the planets.

    In certain circumstances, it is seen that the center of mass of the solar system is not with the physical body of the sun itself but as much as 1/2 of a solar diameter about the sun.

    It seems to me that the gravitational effects show that the planets themselves have told us that they effect each other and the relative position of the sun.

    Consequently I view the study with a degree of skepticism.

    Further, Galileo was quite right either. The sun is not the center of the solar system. Sometimes the sun shares the actual center, but must often the center of the solar system is outside the solar disc. Barycenter is the technical term I believe.

    I suspect the effects of the planets on the sun are complicated and an appropriate model is not obvious to the authors.

  3. Anthony Watts says:

    Stephen, congratulations on being the first defender of the indefensible. I remain unimpressed with planetary Barycentrism and its variants. I remain even less impressed with the people who get their pretzels in a twist over it.

  4. briansj3 says:

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/04/11/some-thoughts-about-the-solar-system-barycentre/#comment-22899 has
    April 12, 2012 at 3:54 am

    Tim Channon says:

    “So far as I know no-one has yet directly linked barycentre effects with actual solar activity.”

    If you are referring to an actual eruptive event then you are right. However, if you are referring to the general level of solar activity then you are wrong.

    One dominant influence upon the Sun’s Barycentric motion is the periodic (19.858 years) alignments of the Jupiter and Saturn. Our paper in 2008:

    http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/138/paper/AS06018.htm

    shows that the timing of these alignments with respect to solar maximum can be used to predict the general level of solar activity on the Sun. The predictive method has worked since the earliest reliable solar sunspot data has been collected i.e. ~1698.

    Of course there are many other authors who have ways of predicting the Sun’s general
    level of solar activity based on the Sun’s Barycentric motion.

  5. cuibono1969 says:

    Ah, yes, The Jupiter Effect, 1982. Yet another catastrophe that didn’t quite work out.

  6. Anthony Watts says:

    @ cuibono1969:

    Yes that was just about as prescient as some climate disasters pushed by alarmists.

    Ten Notable Apocalypses That (Obviously) Didn’t Happen”. Smithsonian magazine. November 12, 2009.

    “In 1974, John Gribbin and Stephen Plagemann wrote a best-selling book, The Jupiter Effect, warning that in March 1982, an alignment of the major planets on the same side of the Sun would trigger a series of cosmic events – culminating in an earthquake along the San Andreas Fault that would wipe out Los Angeles.

    And we know how that worked out.

    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Ten-Notable-Apocalypses-That-Obviously-Didnt-Happen.html

    They later wrote a second book saying oh, wait, 1982 wasn’t it, it was 1980…and that’s what caused Mt. St. Helens to erupt…pure garbage.

  7. CK Moore says:

    “…the planetary effects are *too small by several orders of magnitude* to be a main cause of the solar cycle (they can be at most a small modulation…”

    “Too small by several orders of magnitude” also is a good explanation of why adding a hundred or so CO2 molecules per million in the atmosphere hasn’t resulted in catastrophic global warming. Not enough suds to wash.

  8. Stephen Wilde says:

    Anthony, I remain unconvinced but interested as regards planetary effects. It doesn’t matter to me for the purposes of my climate description as to WHY the sun does what it does.

    The paper you have put forward for discussion clearly does not rule out such effects as a potential modulating influence over enough time.

    “As all planets rotate in the same sense around the sun their
    combined action over times of years may induce a small motion
    e.g. at the solar surface. This may have an influence on the
    meridional motion or on the poleward motions of the solar
    surface (Makarov et al., 2000), having in turn an influence on
    the solar dynamo (maybe leading to an effect like the Gnevyshev–
    Ohl rule). Again, this will be very indirect and the effect of one
    planet or one orbital period will be masked.”

    It is clearly not a body blow to anything.

    REPLY: Yeah well, that’s your opinion, good luck with it. The WHY is everything. – Anthony

  9. George says:

    The most likely culprit appears to be UV variability acting on ozone in the stratosphere and mesosphere.

    UV is, in my opinion, more important than it has been given credit for. It is also likely important for ocean warming as it is the deepest penetrating solar radiation into the oceans (and ice). The UV variation also seems to be coincident with the magnetic variation so we likely get increases in cloud albedo at the same time that we get a decline in UV radiation. The two together may have a more significant impact than is currently appreciated.

  10. Paul Westhaver says:

    How come the planets know each other are there? There is this mysterious force that exists between matter that communicates great distances. It is called gravity.

    The force of gravity that holds Jupiter in orbit is equal and opposite to the force that Jupiter exerts on the sun. Jupiter is huge! So the force is huge.

    I imagine a small tide from Jupiter moving about the sun. The particles of Jupiter and the particles of the sun “know” each other are there otherwise they would not remain in orbit of each other. Seems they are pretty smart to have figured that out.

    So why do we say there is no effect?

    It is because we don’t yet have an adequate model.

  11. Volker Doormann says:

    „Hence, planetary influences should be ruled out as a possible cause of solar variability.

    What is ‘solar variability’? Size? Color? Shape? Neutrino rate? Rotation speed? Brightness?

    “Specifically, we improved the calculation of ainert in paper I and gave an alternative estimation.

    If the tidal acceleration of Jupiter were important for the solar cycle then the tidal accelerations of Mercury, Venus and the Earth would be important too.”

    If … If …

    That’s bad logic/philosophy but not science.

    s. here and here and here.

    V.

  12. People seem to forget that while gravitational forces vary with the inverse square of the distance (twice as far, one-fourth as strong), tidal forces vary with the inverse fourth power of the distance (twice as far, one-sixteenth as strong). This is why the sun’s powerful gravitational force has less tidal effect on earth than the gravity of our much more feeble, but much closer, moon. And so the tidal effects on the sun of the massive but distant outer planets (Jupiter, Saturn) are negligible.

  13. AnonyMoose says:

    Mercury affecting the Sun is as likely as a piece of notebook paper on the road affecting my car.

  14. ed says:

    Are not all of the planets and the sun linked magnetically to some degree? Aren’t sunspots magnetic in nature? is it possible that magnetic/planetary shielding may effect climate? Barycenter may be a proxy for other parameters no anthony?

    REPLY: Oh, please, next I’ll be hearing about the “iron sun”. What part of “…the planetary effects are “too small by several orders of magnitude” don’t you understand? – Anthony

  15. vukcevic says:

    Not by gravity, but electro-magnetic connection is a definite possibility, showing a promising result with even the simplest of calculations

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm

  16. peterhodges says:

    We do not exclude the possibility that the long term combined action of the planets may induce small internal motions in the sun,…

    their combined action over times of years may induce a small motion
    e.g. at the solar surface…

    They say themselves they do not exclude the possibility.

    And the key to me is “combined action”…the solar system is not a linear system, it is a non-linear system.

    Also, it seems to me that if the combined action of the planets can pull the entire sun around the solar system barycenter, then the combined action of the planets could also pull around a little surface material in tidal effects.

    REPLY: Yeah well, that’s your opinion, good luck with it – Anthony

    Geez if I was there I would fetch you a cup of coffee Anthony!

    Thanks for posting this up anyways, I foresee a 200+ comment post. Hopefully we keep it civil.

    REPLY:“Could” isn’t the same as “does”. Well, when Nicola and Tallbloke show up, I’m sure we’ll see fireworks. May as well go out with a bang. – Anthony

  17. cgh says:

    Anthony, your comments on The Jupiter Effect are spot on. That piece of mysticism was right up there with Worlds in Collision and Chariots of the Gods. One thing to be said for Velikovsky; he genuinely believed in what he was writing. That’s not so clear with the Jupiter boys.

    As for the “Oh wait..” syndrome, the Millerites famously got this wrong twice in the late 19th century in predicting the Second Coming. Their method of prediction was based on Bishop Ussher. After the second spectacular failure of the world to end, they disappeared for a few decades, re-emerging as Jehovah’s Witnesses.

    People LIKE believing in catastrophism. What all of these various theories seem to have in common is to try to diminish the importance of human intelligence and achievement. In sum they are all an onslaught against the Enlightenment and rational thinking which brought us science and technology.

  18. Kasuha says:

    I don’t believe in barycentrism at all. What I believe in, however, is that other planets affect Earth’s orbit and that changes to this orbit are accompanied by changes in energy coming to Earth from Sun due to variations in distance between Sun and Earth. These changes don’t happen just on Milankovitch cycle scales tens of thousands years long. There are also much less pronounced changes on scales of just years. Variability of these changes is smaller than, but on the same order of magnitude as variability caused by sun activity – for instance March TSI varies by about 0.5 W/m2 over course of four years due to that and has shifted by about 2 W/m2 in last 100 years. These changes don’t need the planets to have any real effect on Sun itself but still may have effect on Earth’s climate, especially if we’re looking at such details like Earth average temperature in thousandths of a degree.

  19. Steve says:

    IF there is a corelation, there must be a reason for the corelation. The causality might be backwards, or there could be a cascade effect. But surely if there is a long sequence of corelation, there has to be some reason for it beyond the same coincidence happening over and over again.

  20. Paul Westhaver says:

    By the same token that I regard AGW as bad science, I say dismissing a hypothesis out of hand is equally bad science. The foundation of science is data. We have data that says that the planets and the sun are aware of each other gravitationally.

    What we don’t know is the effects of gravity on the swirling surface of the sun.

    I accept that gravity exists and operates predictable between celestial bodies.

    We can only now, from space, just barley measure the effect of the moons gravity on our oceans and our earth’s crust. So we have a model for that and data to support it. Imagine trying to make those measurements 93,000,000 miles away and if the earth was a ball of plasma.

    The difficulty in making the measurement does not mean the effects are not there.

  21. Paul Westhaver says:

    I always found it an interesting coincidence that the average rotational period of the sun, (it varies from pole to equator) is about the same as the period of the lunar orbit around the earth.

    … and the period of my 3 sister’s synchronized PMS….

    They are all the same… go figure.

  22. vukcevic says:
    April 15, 2012 at 11:47 am
    Not by gravity, but electro-magnetic connection is a definite possibility, showing a promising result with even the simplest of calculations
    As Einstein said: “make it as simple as possible, but no simpler”. You seem to be far out on the ‘no simpler’ scale. The supersonic solar wind expels all electric/magnetic effects.

  23. Kasuha says:
    April 15, 2012 at 11:51 am
    for instance March TSI varies by about 0.5 W/m2 over course of four years due to that and has shifted by about 2 W/m2 in last 100 years.
    1: TSI [in March or any other month] varies 1.5 W/m2 over the six years of half a solar cycle and the 2 W/m2 change in the last 100 years is not established. BTW, during the year from January to July, TSI varies about 100 W/m2 simply due to the elipticity of the Earth’s orbit. None of this has anything to do with the planets.

  24. Crispin in Johannesburg says:

    I believe this is a body blow to at least one approach to the plantary theories – that of direct gravitational pull being some kind of accelerator.

    We have known for ages that the pull on the surface is small relative to other things going on in the Sun. This paper reviews it. On the other hand, risking Anthony’s ire, there are other ideas which hold more water in my view. Small changes in solar activity have an amplified effect on the Earth’s cloud level. Why not expect something else could happen like that? Why are there so many examples of small influences having a large effect? We are not talking butterflies, we are talking about a few very large planets that dance in a repeating pattern, whose radii from the Sun are thenselves governed by mutual influence. It is not a coincidence that the Earth-Venus orbits have a 5:2 beat frequency.

    There is no discussion in the paper at all about a cyclic accumulation of effects which if you speed things up, starts to look more realistic to our puny, short lives. It is not the single effect of the pull and even the accumulated pull, but the cumulative effect of a small pull of a cyclical nature. This should be blindingly obvious when discussing orbital influences. It is quite a difference effect from straight gravitational pull and cannot be predicted from just the acting force alone. The sun is not a rock, it is a complex gaseous blob with many unknown ‘circuits’.

    A small girl on a swing pushed by a another small child can be seen swinging high in the air with masses of energy in the swing system. The force necessary to swing high is not the amount that one gets in a single push. It is the cyclical effect of having the push at the right time, repeatedly. According to this paper, the pushing child has not nearly the muscle power to make the other child swing so high. Yet the girl swings. Alchemy? Magic? Cyclic forces?

    The sun has very low frequency waves pulsing around it continuously. It sings on a very low note. Does this have any effect on internal behaviour? Surely it must. It must be resonant too, or it would not persists at the same frequency. So why should there not be resonances at the multiples of barycentric acceleration rates just as some who study them claim? Just because something happens slowly does not mean it cannot be the ‘swing set effect’ from a small cyclical perturbation. To rule them out before investigating them seems hasty.

    If Landscheidt was as wrong about his ENSO predictions based on the rate of solar acceleration as Hansen is about everything he ever predicted, then I would toss both models in the same trash bin. But they are not comparable at all. Landscheidt was refused publication of papers on the subject not because he did not know how and what to calculate to be able to predict things, but because he did not know what exact the mechanism was. Well that is true, he didn’t know. But he predicted ENSO events all the same, and the coming downturn, and the coming Minimum, in the face of endless criticism that the gravitational effect as to small to cause such cycles.

    So, skeptics, don’t invest in a garden swing set because according to the Callebaut et al, the consensus is that no child has enough energy to get another one swinging, by 4 orders of magnitude!

  25. Crispin in Johannesburg says:
    April 15, 2012 at 12:21 pm
    The sun has very low frequency waves pulsing around it continuously. It sings on a very low note. Does this have any effect on internal behaviour? Surely it must. It must be resonant too, or it would not persists at the same frequency.
    Typical periods for these waves are of the order of 3 to 5 minutes.

  26. Dr. Deanster says:

    All I’s gots to say on this …. is … what if their mathmatical model is wrong?? We here all have experience in positions on issues based on “models” … do we not?

    You can’t say what is false, until you know what is truth. We don’t know what is truth, and therefore any speculations, based in good science or not .. remains just a speculation. Hence, why in science you hear words like “this suggests” .. or “our data is consistent with” … ie., we don’t know Jack Schiet … but we’ll try and sound like we do.

    This is all reminiscent of the AGW crowd and their claims about Total Solar Irradiance. So they plug it in their models and manipulate the parameters to make it seem as if CO2 is going to cook our butts. So, we have this fine paper that creates some scenario in a mathmatical model, and then makes claims about what their mathimatical model says, … as if it is reality. But is it??

    I don’t know if there is a planetary/sun relationship on the suns activity …. and I’m not convinced by this paper that there is not a planetary/sun relationship on the suns activity. But to give the guys credit … science is about making hypotheses and going about testing them. At least they aren’t studying the impact of man’s CO2 emissions on the sun’s activity …

  27. Edim says:

    This reminds of the “TSI variation is too small” argument against solar mechanism for multi-decadal climate change.

  28. Edim says:
    April 15, 2012 at 12:29 pm
    This reminds of the “TSI variation is too small” argument against solar mechanism for multi-decadal climate change.
    And both hold true for precisely that reason: “too small”.

  29. Edim says:

    Leif, that’s argumentum ad ignorantiam and also very dogmatic. Paradigm paralysis?

  30. Kasuha says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 15, 2012 at 12:20 pm
    1: TSI [in March or any other month] varies 1.5 W/m2 over the six years of half a solar cycle and the 2 W/m2 change in the last 100 years is not established. BTW, during the year from January to July, TSI varies about 100 W/m2 simply due to the elipticity of the Earth’s orbit. None of this has anything to do with the planets.
    ____________________________________

    I was talking about changes to TSI introduced by changes to Earth orbit only – changes by the Sun activity go on top of it, i.e. either add or subtract. I know the annual variance is about 100 W/m2 but we are already all used to subtracting the annual period and looking at variations in the rest so I’m not doing anything new here.
    And yes there is a shift in TSI caused by gradual distortion of Earth’s orbit, I actually went ahead and made the necessary calculation (with a huge help of NASA tools usually used for astronomic purposes which provided precise historical space coordinates of Sun and Earth).

    http://www.volny.cz/kasuha/temperatures/TSI1850-2050.zip

    (there is a graph at about line 210 in the first sheet)
    I am not saying these variations are big. I am not even saying they have any measurable effect on climate as I did not perform any analysis in that regard. I am just saying they definitely are there.

  31. Paul Westhaver says:

    A teacher struck my daughter when she was in grade 3. I went nuts. The principal of the school said it didn’t happen. about 28 days later my daughter came home with bruise marks on her arm from the same teacher. I took my daughter to the ER and had the “finger mark” bruises diagnosed and photographed.

    I wrote a letter to the principle that if my daughter was ever touched by the teacher again i’d sue him and the school as well as have criminal charges laid.

    27 days later that teacher was out on “sick” leave.

    27 days after that she was out again… then the weekends got in the way and the pattern collapsed.

    My point is that patterns avail themselves. It is contingent on us to discover the nature of the pattern. Why did the teacher freak out on my daughter at 27 day intervals? I don’t know. I speculate that she had a recurring event in her life, like a paycheck issue or a hormonal issue or her wicka group meetings influence her.

    People are very good at sensing patterns and rhythms and 1s usually the foundation of the first guess in a new discovery. History is replete with people who thought that all that is to discovered is already discovered. In the mythological words attributed to Galileo…. yet it moves.

  32. vukcevic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 15, 2012 at 12:12 pm
    @ vukcevic The supersonic solar wind expels all electric/magnetic effects.
    except that
    The Supersonic solar wind is pushed out of the way by the CMEs. As you know far better than I do, during CME there is a direct electric and magnetic connection between a magnetosphere and solar surface layers, but for some reason forgot to mention.

    The Origin and Development of the May 1997 Magnetic Cloud
    C. E. DeForest , Stanford University, Stanford, California

  33. Logan in AZ says:

    This topic does not seem to include the well known concept of self-organized criticality (SOC, Per Bak) —

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organized_criticality

    For example, an artillery round is sometimes used to trigger an avalanche. Californians are waiting for a big earthquake, and the trigger could be very small as the stress slowly builds up to the rupture point. Thus one could get an approximate correlation of SOC events with tiny perturbations — and endless disputes from those who demand an impressive mechanism.

  34. Matthew R Marler says:

    Stephen Wilde: Rather than being a body blow against a planetary effect this paper seems to accept the possibility of a small such effect over enough time.

    How small does the effect have to be to be considered negligible for Earth atmospheric/climate science?

  35. Matthew R Marler says:

    Authors say: their combined action over times of years may induce a small motion
    e.g. at the solar surface…

    This was already noted by Peter Hodges, and probably others. Does not this quote of the authors tend to support claims by the solar enthusiasts that gravitational effcts are not so small as to be negligible?

    A “body blow” is not a knockout. If this is indeed a body blow, it will take many, many more such for a TKO.

  36. Schitzree says:

    REPLY: Oh, please, next I’ll be hearing about the “iron sun”. What part of “…the planetary effects are “too small by several orders of magnitude” don’t you understand? – Anthony
    ———————-
    The problem I have with the “too small by several orders of magnitude” argument is the same one I have with the “It must be CO2 causing the warming because we don’t know of anything else that could do it” argument. Evidence can prove something but a lack of evidence doesn’t necessarily disprove it.

    Not saying I’m accepting the Barycentrism argument, but I won’t write it of just because someone says they can’t figure out how it might work.

  37. Schitzree says:

    On a lighter note I love Oliver’s “Iron Sun” theory. Neutron Repulsion makes a great power source to go between Fusion and Anti-Matter in my star fighter RPG. great science fiction.

  38. Edim says:
    April 15, 2012 at 12:43 pm
    Leif, that’s argumentum ad ignorantiam and also very dogmatic. Paradigm paralysis?
    Not sure who the ignoramus is here.

    Kasuha says:
    April 15, 2012 at 12:43 pm
    I am not saying these variations are big. I am not even saying they have any measurable effect on climate as I did not perform any analysis in that regard. I am just saying they definitely are there.
    The Earth’s orbit is not static and in calculating the effect the actual orbit [perturbations and all] are taken into account. It is even necessary when compensating for the orbital changes to take into account that the photons of TSI left the Sun 8 minutes before they hit the Earth. The point is that Earth’s orbit is what it is [changing all the time].

    vukcevic says:
    April 15, 2012 at 12:54 pm
    The Supersonic solar wind is pushed out of the way by the CMEs.
    So the CMEs are even more supersonic than the solar wind, thus adds to the effectiveness of sweeping all electric/magnetic effect outwards preventing them from reaching the sun.

  39. G. E. Pease says:

    This four-page paper provides both theoretical and empirical evidence of a physical planetary cause for the observed periodic variations in the differential rotation of sunspots:

    Periodicities in the Sun’s “Torsional MHD oscillations” and planetary configuration,
    Javaraiah, J.

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1996BASI…24..351J

    From p. 352:
    “In the present paper we show that the amplitudes of the symmetric and antisymmetric torsional oscillations of the Sun depend upon the contribution of the major planets to the symmetric and asymmetric parts of the angular momentum of the solar system.”

  40. clipe says:

    When I was a child I didn’t need any help wrapping a swing around a crossbar.

  41. David Ball says:

    One of the reasons I was first attracted to WUWT? was all the interesting perspectives that were presented. One of the reasons I hated reading realclimate was the dogmatic insecurity presented. It is creeping into this blog even though Anthony definitely tries to be reasonable. Not a big fan of the barycentric idea ( it is apparently used to locate extrasolar planets) as a solar influence. Even though I do not agree with it, I am intelligent enough to know that we do NOT have all the pieces to the many puzzles of our universe. The insecure closed minds are doing a great deal of harm to what should be a friendly informative discussion.

    Another point is that a person (everyone) cannot be right about everything. Every great figure from science has some important contributions, but also a great number of things they were wrong about. Often due to lack of all the information necessary to draw correct conclusions.

    Chill and enjoy the process. Bring your best information. People can draw their own conclusions. My humble opinion only, for what it is worth.

    A friendly question to Dr. Svalgaard. Isn’t the earth’s magnetic field protecting us from the “far stronger” solar wind? Or did I miss something? Be nice, thank you.

  42. SØREN BUNDGAARD says:

    We are now able to identify planets in other solar systems, because their sun wobbles. We know their numbers of planets, their size and so on, but we could not measure any planet impact on our sun, if we measured it from another Solar System?

  43. Steven Mosher says:

    In the begining climate skepticism was sound. Folks wanted to see the data, wanted to see the code, wanted to understand the physics before they claimed knowledge. Over time the skeptical position has been infected by people who actually believe they Know that the planets influence the sun and they Know that the sun drives the climate. When asked for proof, when asked for a physical mechanism with proper forces and units, when asked for experiments, falsifiable experiments or even predictions, the response is silence or speculation or desk pounding: it could be x, it could be y, you havent ruled out grelims, or leprauchans. At best you get chart showing corelations and models whose functional form is aphysical. If mann or jones wrote some of the crap you see from the barycenter crew, they’d be laughed out of the room. But, up until recently, they’ve been tolorated. Tolerated perhaps because they attack climate science. Folks have looked the other way with respect to the sharing of code. They’ve looked the other way and not asked the tough questions about physics and tests and completeness. The planets do not explain the appearence of sunspots. They dont explain the timing, the size, the strength. They dont explain
    ANYTHING. Imagine they were perfectly corelated. They still would EXPLAIN nothing. And even if sun spots were perfectly corelated with temperature they would not EXPLAIN the climate. They would not explain the ph of the ocean, hurricanes, clouds, rain, temperature, the carbon cycle, volcanic effects, dust in the sahara, multi year ice, you name it. The climate is, as we all know, very complex. Sunspots do not explain it. cannot explain it.
    Does the sun play a role. Of course. Do sunspots. of course. Do GCR? maybe. Do GHGs? of course. Is our current understanding of the climate complete? nope. Check a GCM, it doesnt capture ALL of reality. it cant. Will adding the position of Jupiter to a GCM improve the hindcast.
    That’s testable. But to do that yu must express the effect of Jupiter in PHYSICS.

  44. David Ball says:
    April 15, 2012 at 1:25 pm
    A friendly question to Dr. Svalgaard. Isn’t the earth’s magnetic field protecting us from the “far stronger” solar wind? Or did I miss something? Be nice, thank you.
    Indeed it does, but to a point. And the solar wind is not ‘far stronger’. It is extremely weak. Its magnetic field is 10,000 times weaker than the Earth’s. The mass hitting the magnetosphere is equal to about one good-sized turkey per second. On the flip side, the magnetic field of the Earth concentrates and magnifies the effect of the solar wind: strong currents [with their attendant magnetic field variations] are set up by the interaction. These can have bad effects on transformers, satellites, and other technological infrastructure.

    Steven Mosher says:
    April 15, 2012 at 1:32 pm
    But to do that you must express the effect of Jupiter in PHYSICS.
    And therein lies the difficulty.

  45. Edim says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    “Not sure who the ignoramus is here.”

    I am sure. You are. I am too, just like everybody else. We’re all ignorant of something.

    Maybe the argument from lack of imagination fits better – P is too incredible or I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true; therefore P must be false. It’s a logical fallacy.

  46. SØREN BUNDGAARD says:
    April 15, 2012 at 1:32 pm
    We are now able to identify planets in other solar systems, because their sun wobbles. We know their numbers of planets, their size and so on, but we could not measure any planet impact on our sun, if we measured it from another Solar System?
    This is a good point. Unfortunately no effects on planets around other stars on stellar activity have yet been found. See the final slides of http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202011%20SH34B-08.pdf
    But this research is still ongoing, so perhaps one day we will get the final proof/disproff of this, althoung I have already gotten arguments from various sides that our solar system is unique in just the right combination of planets, etc, and that therefore only in our system will the planets drive solar activity. So strong is the belief in the planetary hypothesis than it, almost by definition, becomes impossible to falsify. Go figure…

  47. G. E. Pease says:

    This is the correct link to the Javaraiah paper referred to by me at 1:21 pm:

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1996BASI…24..351J

    Please note that the last part (…24..351J) needs to be included in the link, and the link must be a single color to open correctly in most browsers. It will open if copied to your web browser as a text line.

  48. Agile Aspect says:

    The most glaring deficency in the paper is the lack of N body calculation or surface integrals – or any numerical results other than a handful of point calculations.

    I would expect more from undergraduates.

    Since they haven’t evaluated even a single integral and the argument is based entirely on point calculations, this paper is equilvalent to claiming since the power production of the Sun is roughly 280 Watts/m^3 (note the units) – which is roughly equilvalent to the power production of a salmon – then it’s impossible to get a Sun burn.

    [SNIP: if you can rephrase that without being insulting it might get through. -REP]

  49. Crispin in Johannesburg says:

    @clipe

    You must be dreaming. By 4 orders of magnitude.

    @Leif
    Thanks re the frequency. There is a lesson from HAM radio history that relates to frequency. In the early days LF was king. Transmissions reached hundreds of miles. As transmission frequency rose so did distance until one fine day they tried 14MHZ and the whole world was ringing with chattering in Morse Code.

    I predict that when the low frequencies of the sun are probed sudden things will appear. Someone above mentioned the sun spots and planets. There is a clear relationship between the butterfly pattern and the position of the Earth-Moon-Venus barycenter. I found that very confirming re the ability of planets to affect the sun.

  50. David Ball says:

    Castor and pollux are incredible multi star systems. Hard to believe they even exist in the configuration that they do. Multiple links if you bing “castor and pollux”.

  51. David Ball says:

    Thank you for your kind response. Please correct me if I misunderstood, but does your response not contradict what you posted to Vukcevic?

  52. David Ball says:

    Last post is addressed to Dr. Svalgaard

  53. sophocles says:

    Schitzree says:
    April 15, 2012 at 1:13 pm
    The problem I have with the “too small by several orders of magnitude” argument is the same one I have with the “It must be CO2 causing the warming because we don’t know of anything else that could do it” argument. Evidence can prove something but a lack of evidence doesn’t necessarily disprove it.
    ===================================================
    You could try calculating it yourself. The planetary and solar masses
    (to about 26 decimal places) as well as their orbital diameters are
    available from NASA’s website. (I haven’t looked recently but I had
    no trouble finding them in 1998 …). Watch out for Saturn’s orbit: when
    I looked, NASA were apologising for the orbit having an uncertainty of
    about 240 metres …. (ROTFL — that only matters for slingshotting
    space craft, not for what we are looking at!!)

    The force of gravity between two objects varies directly as the product of
    the masses involved and inversely to the square of the distance between
    them (inverse square law) thus:
    F = G(m1m2)/d^2
    where G is the gravitational constant = 6.67300 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2

    There was a bit of hysteria at the end of the last century because of an
    alignment of the planets (1997-8? ). An English insurance company hired
    an “expert” to investigate it’s likely liabilities (I’m sure the expert knew
    how to charge for his “services” appropriately)

    Rather than dismiss the Insurance Company’s fears as trivial—the most
    liability I saw they had was due to hysteria—I worked the exercise for
    myself with respect to the forces applied to the Earth. I took the orbits
    as circular for ease of use. I normalised all results to the Sun’s force
    so the Sun’s gravitational force on the Earth = 1.

    Jupiter’s value was 0.001, the moon’s 10,000. Distance counts!

    Mercury, Venus, Mars, Saturn and the rest were at least (if my memory serves me
    well) at least one order of magnitude less than Jupiter’s contribution when
    summed. At 10^-4 or less, the forces are too trivial to matter for anything
    except the most subtle effects—and these would probably take millions
    of years to be felt.

    More calculation showed the extra tidal height caused by the alignment
    was somewhat less than 1mm—so no tidal waves or king tides to worry
    about. Now, this is for all the planets lined up and the forces exerted on
    the Earth.

    Given the Sun’s immense mass and energy, and the distances the larger
    planets are from the Sun, the forces acting against it by the planets are
    trivial—too trivial for the observed effects. There’s a good book published
    some years ago called “Orders of Magnitude” (I think that was it’s title)
    which is worth absorbing. It brings home the reality of the differences between
    the orders of magnitude we experience really well.

  54. Smokey says:

    Steven Mosher, April 15, 2012 at 1:32 pm:

    I agree with you about the failure of the barycenter conjecture to explain reality. However, I don’t think barycentrism is the “skeptical position”. Someone who claims that they KNOW the major cause of climate change to be barycentrism is every bit as closed-minded and unskeptical as those who claim they KNOW that CO2 is the major cause of climate change [like Dr. Lacis, who insists that CO2 is the "control knob" of the climate]. None of them are scientific skeptics, and they are using the argumentum ad ignorantium fallacy to make their case.

    Real skeptics look at a conjecture or a hypothesis and say, “Show me.” In other words, provide us with a convincing, transparent, testable, observation- and evidence-based argument that cannot be falsified, no matter how hard everyone tries [and that must include the proponents of the hypothesis as well].

    That seems to be much too rigorous for most climate scientists. But that is the scientific method. The alternative is post-normal science, or as I prefer to call it, pseudo-science. Feynman called it cargo cult science. None of it is true skepticism.

    When a model provides consistent, testable and accurate predictions, I will accept that model and be grateful for it. But any such model is still in the future. When a model makes consistently accurate predictions for the next 1, 5, 7, 10, 30 years, etc., most all of us will sit up straight and pay attention. The corollary to such a model will be that the sensitivity number for 2xCO2 will be accurately known, and that will decisively settle the debate over “carbon”.

    Intelligent decisions can then be made regarding CO2 emissions; maybe they are a problem, or maybe they are not a problem. Curent observations indicate that the rise in CO2 is harmless. If that begins to change, my view will change with it. But so far, we have good reasons to be skeptical of the claims that the rise in CO2 from a tiny trace gas, to a still tiny trace gas, is any kind of a problem at all. Where are the bodies?

  55. Stephen Wilde says:

    Any effect on the sun that there might be from the planets only has an indirect relevance to climate changes particuarly since there is plenty of internal system variability in addition to anything that the sun affects.

    However, the sun does seem to have some sort of top down effect on the atmosphere and it is apparently out of proportion to TSI changes but not so much out of proportion to UV changes.

    If we were to note any sort of correlation between planetary positions and solar activity levels that would be helpful in predicting one component of the cause of climate changes.

    We wouldn’t even need to know why the correlation occurs. It would still be useful for predicting trends and changes in trends which is about the best we could expect from the current science anyway.

    We will soon enough find out whether the current quiet sun causes or contributes to a downward trend in tropospheric temperatures.

    If it does, then that will be another success for those who anticipated both the low cycle 24 and a cooling climate in consequence.

    For my part it doesn’t matter to me why the sun varies or what causes it. There is enough delay between changes in solar behaviour and the resulting effect on albedo and ocean heat content for us to be able to get an idea of future climate trends from what the sun is doing now.

    Accurate predictions of solar changes would however be nice to have and it is interesting that the barycentric crowd got it righter than the solar establishment. Successful predictions are supposed to carry weight aren’t they ?

  56. DirkH says:

    Crispin in Johannesburg says:
    April 15, 2012 at 1:57 pm
    “There is a clear relationship between the butterfly pattern and the position of the Earth-Moon-Venus barycenter. I found that very confirming re the ability of planets to affect the sun.”

    Got a source/graph link?

  57. Paul Matthews says:

    This is hardly big news. Solar physicists have know for decades that the solar cycle is to do with an internal oscillation in the sun’s magnetic field, nothing to do with planets. See any textbook on the subject, such as Eugene Parker’s book.

  58. Edim says:
    April 15, 2012 at 1:41 pm
    I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true; therefore P must be false. It’s a logical fallacy.
    That is not the issue. The point was that in both cases, the driver is too small to account for the effects claimed, by known physics. This is not that we are ‘ignorant’ of the cause, on the contrary: according to what we know the driver is insufficient.

    Smokey says:
    April 15, 2012 at 2:16 pm
    Someone who claims that they KNOW the major cause of climate change to be barycentrism is every bit as closed-minded and unskeptical
    They have even on this blog used phrases like “us in the know…”.

    David Ball says:
    April 15, 2012 at 2:13 pm
    Thank you for your kind response. Please correct me if I misunderstood, but does your response not contradict what you posted to Vukcevic?
    No, I was talking about the solar wind’s effect on planetary magnetospheres, which is established. Vuk was talking about just the opposite: the effect of planetary magnetospheres on the Sun which is nil.

  59. sophocles says:

    While I’m on the subject of Orders of Magnitude (OoM):

    The Earth’s atmosphere is about 78% Nitrogen, Oxygen is about 21%
    (20.9% for the pedantic) and Argon at about 0.93%. All the other gases
    make up the remaining 0.17%. —which is less the 2 thousandths of
    the atmosphere. Of this, CO2 is at 0.039% (or 390 billionths).

    Between the tropics (Cancer and Capricorn), water vapour can make up
    up to about 4% of the atmosphere. At less than 0.04% of the atmosphere
    CO2 is one one-hundredth of the quantity of H2O —or two Oom less—
    and, unless it was a magic gas, it would have about the same ORDER
    of influence with respect to water vapour.

    But it seems CO2 does have a little magic about it (but not as much as
    has been attributed— enter the Rayleigh Effect. The RE is a saturable
    effect. It’s best known for making the sky blue and colouring the iris in
    eyes. Beyond an initial influence on the atmosphere, each doubling of
    CO2 has less and less effect on temperature. We are well past the initial
    effect stage. Nir Shaviv (see his blog http://www.sciencebits.com) demonstrates
    (mathematically) an absolute maximum sensitivity to such doubling of
    1.5 degrees C. Sherman Idso arrives at a figure of about 0.4 degrees C from
    about 6 different paths. Others have suggested about 0.15 degrees C.

  60. Volker Doormann says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    April 15, 2012 at 1:32 pm
    Folks wanted to see the data, wanted to see the code, wanted to understand the physics before they claimed knowledge. Over time the skeptical position has been infected by people who actually believe they Know that the planets influence the sun and they Know that the sun drives the climate. When asked for proof, when asked for a physical mechanism with proper forces and units, when asked for experiments, falsifiable experiments or even predictions, the response is silence or speculation or desk pounding: it could be x, it could be y, you havent ruled out grelims, or leprauchans.

    Folks want to see the data, want to see the code, want to understand the physics before they claimed knowledge.

    Over time the skeptical position has been infected by people who reject that the planets influence the sun and they Know that the sun is not the driver the climate.

    When asked for proof, when asked for a physical mechanism with proper forces and units, when asked for experiments, falsifiable experiments about the existence of time, the existence of space, the existence of velocities, the prove that gravitational forces between objects are delayed after Einstein – in case of Quaoar/Sun 6 hours in one direction – without any effect of the trace of the bodies after Kepler, the response is silence or very silence.

    If there are simple questions whether the space is infinite or finite, whether has time a beginning or whether time has an end, whether physicians have falsified the dimension of time, there is only entertainment consumed.

    If the folks want to understand the physics before they claimed knowledge, and claim knowledge about the physics of time, the physics of space, the physics of velocity, that’s fine. What velocity has a ball which is fling by a woman walking backwards in a running train to South East in Finland out of the window in noon on the 3th of January while the distance Earth/Sun is lowest, but the Earth is running clever without any energy input?
    Who have knowledge how gravitational force is transmitted from Moon the Earth? Who have knowledge why time is decreases by gravitational force, and atomic clock running slower? Who have knowledge why the measured gravitational force is decreased if the Moon eclipses the Sun?
    Who can give a physical prove about colors, from what folks has knowledge?
    Who proves knowledge?
    Who is infected?
    People believe in physics, because the visible world of color, smell, space is defined as real by authorities.

    V.

  61. vukcevic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: April 15, 2012 at 1:19 pm
    ……..
    You know well what I am talking about, but I am impressed with your ability to ‘wear your jacket inside out’, here is little reminder

    For the readers of the blog, lines represent magnetic field and [field] aligned currents.

  62. vukcevic says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    April 15, 2012 at 1:32 pm
    ……
    Steve I’d like to draw your attention at Dr. Svalgaard’s quote:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm

    BTW. If you get anything as close in the CO2 department I’m your convert.

  63. vukcevic says:
    April 15, 2012 at 3:01 pm
    For the readers of the blog, lines represent magnetic field and [field] aligned currents.
    There are no field aligned currents and no magnetic back reaction on the sun. These will have to travel at the Alfven speed which is an order of magnitude less than the outward speed. The ‘current’ you are talking abound are streaming and counterstreaming electrons bouncing back and forth between the ‘foot points’ on the sun and thus there is no net current. The electron flux is very small compared to solar wind density and is mirrored back before actually reaching the sun. I have explained this a zillion times. You are still hard of leaning.

    vukcevic says:
    April 15, 2012 at 3:02 pm
    Steve I’d like to draw your attention at Dr. Svalgaard’s quote
    Except that the correlation is not REALLY good. It is in fact rather lousy and breaks down at the left hand side of your graph and before.

  64. pat says:

    Now that is damn interesting, and much as i was taught in college. But with the recent observation of extra-solar planets, with mass determined by wobble, a second look was surely called for.

  65. Harriet Harridan says:

    Sheesh. I’d like to add my voice to those saying just because we haven’t found a mechanism does not mean it can’t exist. The universe is wonderful with plenty of secrets yet to discover. A few centuries back *everybody* was certain that the sun went round the earth. Then Copernicus came along to say different. A few years back pretty much *everybody* said GCR’s were orders of magnitudes too small to nucleate clouds. Now we have Jasper Kirkbys physical CERN results which say different. Anthony: don’t decry people for looking and asking – that’s what it’s all about.

  66. Schitzree says:

    @ sophocles

    I understand that with what we know of Gravity that its effect is too small to cause what has been observed. That dosn’t mean that the planets CAN”T have an effect, just that IF there is a connection it is something we haven’t thought of yet. All that your post does is attempt to prove a negative to so many decimal places.

    If there is an alignment between planetary motion and solar activity then something must be causing it, even if we don’t know what it could be. I seem to remember though that the alleged alignment is actually pretty weak, and if the alignment isn’t good the whole thing is meaningless anyway.

  67. David Archibald says:

    One the one hand you have a standard de Jager and Duhau paper, a collection of assertions without much science behind it, and on the other hand you have Ed Fix’s model, based on the NASA planetary data and the ideal spring relationship. Ed Fix’s model hindcasts very well which means that we can be confident about what it is predicting. The de Jager and Duhau paper is just noise.

  68. Harriet Harridan says:

    Dr Svalgaard,
    “It is in fact rather lousy and breaks down at the left hand side of your graph and before”.
    Hubris

  69. phlogiston says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    April 15, 2012 at 1:32 pm
    In the begining climate skepticism was sound. Folks wanted to see the data, wanted to see the code, wanted to understand the physics before they claimed knowledge. Over time the skeptical position has been infected by people who actually believe they Know that the planets influence the sun and they Know that the sun drives the climate.

    For some of us, climate skepticism has to be more than just haggling over the value of CO2 sensitivity and amplification. The present paper does not (yet) try to deny the existence of solar cycles – only to falsify claims of strong planetary forcing. Climatic cycles are clear over all timescales as are solar oscillations – but to frustrate easy attribution, their frequencies modulate. So the real scientist (who grew up just being curious about things) wants to know what are these oscillations and what causes them, and if they can be predicted in future.

    However establishment climate scientists (who grew up with an instinct of which playground bullys to fawn in front of) established the CAWG hypothesis by looking only at the 20th century. “Preindustrial” climate was quietly assumed to be static in Edenic perfection before this (a position correctly ridiculed by Lindzen). The coincident rises of CO2 (over a volcano in the Pacific) and global temperatures was considered proof enough for a complacent view that the science was settled as a basis for activism.

    It has been the skeptic community forcefully questioning this simplistic hypothesis and bringing alternative views, that has forced the AGW community – retrospectively and in a bolt-on way – to wake up to the existence of climate history data on all timescales over the earth’s age, that show fluctuation to be the norm, with suggestive frequencies but which resist stable correlation with any fixed periodic forcing. (Again as Lindzen puts it, it is climate stasis that would be the oddity – something akin to climate death.) The AGW brigade revisits data-series after data-series with sometimes absurdly concocted tortuous stories of how CO2 responds to temperature forcing then leads then amplifies, and is still the controller of climate even during significant periods when temperatures and CO2 levels move in the opposite directions. The latest example of this is the attempt to pin the AMO on anthropogenic aerosols (many AGW faithful reading the paper will at least be learning about the AMO for the first time.) Sort of education by rebuttal.

    Callebaut et al. may have succeeded in showing the model of solar variation as a nonlinear oscillator strongly forced by orbital periods is not sustainable. This has in a sense always been obvious – if it were strongly forced then the fit with orbital periods and harmonics would be trivial and beyond dispute – no-one argues about what causes the sea tides for instance.

    If solar (and also terrestrial climatic) cycles are NONLINEAR OSCILLATORS [linguistic note: the greek language would be useful here, it has 4 "if"s, (1) if and it is, (2) if and it isnt, (3) if and it might be but might not be and (4) I wish it was but it is not; the appropriate ones here are 1 or possibly 4 ] then there are 3 types of such nonlinear oscillators. These are (1) strongly and (2) weakly periodically forced from outside, and (3) internal (no external forcing).

    What is ignored here is the other possibility that solar (and climatic) oscillations are weakly periodically forced. Lin et al showed that in the case of weak periodic forcing, the relation between the forcing frequency and the resultant system oscillation can be very complex and it can be hard or impossible to find a signature of the forcing frequency.

    Ref:
    Resonance tongues and patterns in periodically forced reaction-diffusion systems. Anna Lin et al., DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.69.066217, Cite as: arXiv:nlin/0401031v1 [nlin.PS].

    Consider the well known corn starch forced nonlinear complex spatiotemperal oscillations :

    In particular look at the periodic behaviour of the high order structures like holes and fingers. It would be easy to show this movement is on no way related to the 120 Hz forcing frequency of the bowl shaking. Does this disprove that the shaking causes the periodically moving structures? – no.

    (Note the complex and possibly intractable relationship between weak forcer and system frequency / pattern raises questions of proof and falsifiability of such a model – some hard mathematical thinking might be needed to look for appropriate clues.)

    So strong orbital forcing by itself might be a straw man. It may well be that the forces involved are far too low for this to be a possiblility. But in the stillness of space uninterrupted by other forces for millions of years, who is to say that even very small periodic gravitational fluctuations from the planets might set in motion weakly forced periodic oscillation.

    An the third possibility of course is internally generated nonlinear oscillation such as in the classic Belousov-Zhabotinsky reactor, which requires no outside forcing.

  70. vukcevic says:

    David Ball
    Steven Mosher

    I hope one day Anthony may find time to read it.
    Dr. Svalgaard knows all the facts just likes to play little hiding game.
    Here how my hypothesis work
    CMEs that emanate out of the sun, are linked to it via a loop made of electric currents and magnetic field

    moving through heliosphere, while still connected to the sun, as shown by this NASA animation

    If the swirling concentration of electro & magnetic energy (often referred to as magnetic cloud or magnetic rope) doesn’t hit a magnetosphere it progresses to the distant reaches of the heliosphere and disperses along the heliopause.
    If it does hit a magnetosphere, a reconnection ensues, part of it is short-circuited and some of the energy is discharged.

    http://www.igpp.ucla.edu/public/THEMIS/SCI/Pubs/Nuggets/reconnection/262351main_reconnect.mpg

    Since the ‘magnetic rope’ is connected to the source, i.e. the sun, the short circuit effect is fed back to the solar surface (CME solar feedback) as an electro-magnetic energy shock-wave of great intensity (analogous to a short circuiting effect on any source of electric current).
    Two gas giants (Jupiter and Saturn) have huge magnetospheres many hundreds times of the Earth’s (Jupiter’s magnetosphere extends to ~ 5AU), so the reconnection events are that more powerful and far more frequent.
    Certain configurations of Jupiter and Saturn’s orbital locations will envelop larger or smaller extant of the heliosphere, thus changes in the volume of the electro-magnetic interaction space will result in modulating intensity of ‘CME solar feedback’ in the time domain. The feedback effect can be sufficiently strong to regulate behaviour of the weak sun’s magnetic polar field, which is widely accepted to be a precursor of the following sunspot cycle (known as Svalgaard’s theory).
    Proposed result of the above spatio-temporal modulation can be expressed in numerical form as an equation where planetary orbital parameters modulate strength and polarity of the solar dipole:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm

    The above equation shows that there is high correlation between observed data and numerical interpretation of above postulated hypothesis.
    Sunspots (as the solar activity in general) in the origin and the consequence are essentially of the electro and magnetic nature, where the gravitational effects are negligible. Thus the role of gravitation force is limited and only important as far as it moves two major magnetospheres along the planetary orbits.

  71. vukcevic says:

    Zillion times, heh.
    Vukcevic formula as confirmed by the research results from
    Hulburt Center for Space Research, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC
    Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung, 37191 Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany
    Links, data and graphics here:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC17.htm

  72. David Ball says:

    I hope some have looked at Castor and Pollux. it boggles the mind that this configuration can occur naturally. Imagine the field currents in that magnetic spaghetti junction.
    There are probably even more bizarre configurations that are beyond our ability to see.

  73. Paul Westhaver says:

    I did an experiment in my lab once… just for the heck of it since one of my old profs mentioned it one day. It is relevant.

    In a very large room light a cigarette and allow the plume to develop. After about 3 minutes a laminar stream of smoke about 24 inches tall is formed above the cigarette it is very stable an looks like a solid.

    At that point and while well on the other side of the room, simply snap your fingers.

    The plume immediately disrupts and produces an log parade of VonKarmen vortices.

    The acoustic energy from the snap is long dissipated while the cigarette smoke plume continues to generate the votices. I propose that small gravitational events trigger swirling events on the sun that outlast the trigger event.

    Try it yourself with a candle plume.

  74. Geoff Sharp says:

    Interesting that de Jager offers no rebuttal to the Wollf & Patrone paper which of course has nothing to do with tidal effects.

    It is also interesting that no one has offered a valid rebuttal to the very accurate method of prediciting solar grand minimum and overall solar modualtion that results from Carl Smith’s AM graph.

    Carl’s graph gives a a brand new method that is different from Landsche..t, Fairbridge & Charvàtovà that proves far more reliable and is exactly on track for SC24. A new article explaining the differences in methods and where the pioneers went wrong is now posted.

    http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/243

    This article also addresses the incorrect statements posted on Tallbloke’s blog re Landschei..t’s failed 1990 grand minimum prediction along with Tallbloke’s incorrect use of the Landschei..t PTC event that he wrongly perceives as having control over solar output. Tallbloke’s use of censorship is an injustice to his readers by not allowing the facts to be presented through his biased moderation.

  75. Paul Westhaver says:

    Leif,
    Fluid instability requires infinitesimal triggers. A step gravitational event can have long lasting and durable consequences.

    Look here:

  76. David Ball says:

    Vukcevic, I have read your links for some time now. I wish I knew enough to say whether I think you are right or wrong. I do think it is a mistake to dismiss you out of hand. You have uncovered some very interesting connections that have been relatively unexplored. Your steadfast approach is reasonable and may prove fruitful. Doug Cotton made the mistake of trying to hammer his ideas down peoples throats. Slow and steady wins the race. I wish Dr. Svalgaard would take the time to look closely at your stuff and help guide you. Then all of us would benefit. Perhaps it may lead to more clues to how all of it works. Adversarial is never a good stance for anyone, IMHO. Part of the reason those promoting AGW have lost credibility.

  77. Myrrh says:

    Volker Doormann says:
    April 15, 2012 at 2:51 pm
    Over time the skeptical position has been infected by people who reject that the planets influence the sun and they Know that the sun is not the driver the climate.

    When asked for proof, when asked for a physical mechanism with proper forces and units, when asked for experiments, falsifiable experiments about the existence of time, the existence of space, the existence of velocities, the prove that gravitational forces between objects are delayed after Einstein – in case of Quaoar/Sun 6 hours in one direction – without any effect of the trace of the bodies after Kepler, the response is silence or very silence.

    If there are simple questions whether the space is infinite or finite, whether has time a beginning or whether time has an end, whether physicians have falsified the dimension of time, there is only entertainment consumed.

    If the folks want to understand the physics before they claimed knowledge, and claim knowledge about the physics of time, the physics of space, the physics of velocity, that’s fine. What velocity has a ball which is fling by a woman walking backwards in a running train to South East in Finland out of the window in noon on the 3th of January while the distance Earth/Sun is lowest, but the Earth is running clever without any energy input?
    Who have knowledge how gravitational force is transmitted from Moon the Earth? Who have knowledge why time is decreases by gravitational force, and atomic clock running slower?

    Just been discussing the last:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/08/a-couple-of-pertinent-quotes/#comment-956548

    Waking up this morning and recalling a thought I had about this yesterday re that light slows down through different mediums, it’s slowed down by our atmosphere and slows down even more in the ocean, that is, different pressures affect it, I’ve decided to check to find out exactly what is being adjusted in GPS. It’s not Einstein’s ‘time dilation’, it’s adjustment for a physical phenomenon that there’s a difference in travelling from east to west from travelling west to east. Nothing to do with Einstein’s speed slowing down time.

    The GPS and the Constant Velocity of Light
    Paul Marmet

    “One must conclude that there exists no space-time distortion of any kind. It is no longer necessary to fascinate people with the magic of relativity. Unless we accept the absurd solution that the distance between N.Y. to S.F. is smaller than the distance between S.F. and N.Y., we have to accept that in a moving frame, the velocity of light is different in each direction. As mentioned above, this difference is even programmed in the GPS computer in order to get the correct Global Positioning. This proves that the experimental velocity of light with respect to a moving observer is c±v.”

    http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/illusion/index.html

  78. Dr. Deanster says:

    sophocles says: …. “At 10^-4 or less, the forces are too trivial to matter for anything
    except the most subtle effects—and these would probably take millions
    of years to be felt. ” …

    Thus .. if it takes millions of years for it to be felt, and considering that the phenomenon is ongoing, and the Universe is 5 Billion years old ……. errrr … wouldn’t that mean that every second, of every minute, of every hour, of every day, of every year … is a point in time where those “millions of years” are achieved??

    I”m no physicists … but I do know that once you get something roling, it takes less energy to keep it rolling, because you are no longer accelerating. This paper says there is a “small effect”. Over Billions of years, who’s to say that that small effect doesn’t have some effect on the sun? And like I said, this process has been going on for billions of years. Thus, it would seem to me that yes, the energy involved is very small, and it would take millions of years for it to achieve effective movement, but .. it’s been at for billions of years.

  79. Bart says:

    Robert Sheaffer says:
    April 15, 2012 at 11:40 am

    “…tidal forces vary with the inverse fourth power of the distance…”

    Inverse cube.

  80. AJB says:

    More interested in that big ugly thing that’s about to poke it’s head around the corner. Let’s see what it looks like around the 23rd.

  81. Pamela Gray says:

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

  82. Bart says:

    Myrrh says:
    April 15, 2012 at 5:08 pm

    “It’s not Einstein’s ‘time dilation’, it’s adjustment for a physical phenomenon that there’s a difference in travelling from east to west from travelling west to east.”

    .Unh-uh. I assure you GPS uses both Special and General Relativistic corrections.

  83. David Ball says:

    So, Pamela, you should be able to explain it all to us then, ……….

  84. Dr. Deanster says:

    Pamela .. not all “but”s are associated with believe, .. but .. sometimes it’s associated with an inquirey. But’s .. Butts’, whichever, are what push science forward, and beyond dogma.

  85. Ian W says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 15, 2012 at 1:49 pm

    SØREN BUNDGAARD says:
    April 15, 2012 at 1:32 pm

    We are now able to identify planets in other solar systems, because their sun wobbles. We know their numbers of planets, their size and so on, but we could not measure any planet impact on our sun, if we measured it from another Solar System?
    This is a good point. Unfortunately no effects on planets around other stars on stellar activity have yet been found. See the final slides of http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202011%20SH34B-08.pdf
    But this research is still ongoing, so perhaps one day we will get the final proof/disproff of this, althoung I have already gotten arguments from various sides that our solar system is unique in just the right combination of planets, etc, and that therefore only in our system will the planets drive solar activity. So strong is the belief in the planetary hypothesis than it, almost by definition, becomes impossible to falsify. Go figure…

    This paper is taking Leif’s heliocentrism to extremes. As Soren Bungaard states (and also see http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/extrasolar_planets/extrasolar/radial_velocity.html ) Extra solar planets are found by detecting the parent star’s wobble. Or as the link above puts it:
    The radial velocity method, also known as Doppler spectroscopy, is the most effective method for locating extrasolar planets with existing technology. Though other approaches hold great promise for the future, the vast majority of Exoplanets discovered so far were detected by this method.

    The radial velocity method relies on the fact that a star does not remain completely stationary when it is orbited by a planet. It moves, ever so slightly, in a small circle or ellipse, responding to the gravitational tug of its smaller companion. When viewed from a distance, these slight movements affect the star’s normal light spectrum, or color signature. If the star is moving towards the observer, then its spectrum would appear slightly shifted towards the blue; if it is moving away, it will be shifted towards the red.

    We are so FORTUNATE our Earth is orbiting the only star in the universe that does not wobble due to its orbiting planets

    Perhaps Anthony you can persuade Leif to provide the mathematics supporting this uniqueness of our home star. Or alternatively, he could produce a paper showing how misleading the claims are for finding extrasolar planets using Doppler spectroscopy to detect changes in stars’ radial velocity, as they are based on incorrect mathematics. This would be a seminal moment overturning a scientific consensus!

    And no – there is no sarc tag – there are two totally contradictory claims here. One of them must be false.

  86. Arun says:

    This is so weird.

    It’s as is Anthony, Mosher, and several other skeptics don’t understand resonance. Please see e.g. Scafetta 2010, Figure 6. http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.4639

    Steve Mosher: You said ” Imagine they were perfectly corelated. They still would EXPLAIN nothing. And even if sun spots were perfectly corelated with temperature they would not EXPLAIN the climate.” “That’s testable. But to do that yu must express the effect of Jupiter in PHYSICS.”

    Why so much negativity? There are some impressive correlations and some basic guesses at the mechanism. Just because we don’t know the precise mechanisms — after all, we are talking about complicated vibrations of a ball of plasma and the resultant effect on the magnetic fields on multi-year/multi-century timescales — doesn’t mean that we should discount this difficult line of research. I see it is highly plausible and it warrants further study. The correlation is quite suggestive of causation, and “barycentrism” is certainly not dead just because the “causation” has not been nailed. Nobody is claiming that the specific physics of the causation has been nailed. However causation is quite plausible.

    From the intro of the paper that you just posted!:
    “In Section 3 we present evidence to show that there is a direct link between the decreases and increases in the Sun’s orbital angular momentum about the CM of the Solar System, and the observed decreases and increases in the Sun’s equatorial rotation speed.We believe that this
    link provides strong circumstantial evidence that there is a spin–orbit coupling mechanism operating between the Jovian planets and the Sun. We propose that it is these
    changes in the Sun’s rotation speed that are responsible for variations in the speed of themeridional flow.We postulate that it is the planetary induced changes in speed of the
    meridional flow that control both the duration and strength of sunspot activity on the Sun’s surface.”

    “In this paper, we have followed Jose (1965) lead and looked for a possible links between the torques applied to the Sun by the Jovian planets and the level of sunspot activity. The evidence that we found to support such a link was both direct and indirect.”

  87. Arun says:

    BTW in my post I am assuming that modulations of the solar magnetic field has a strong influence on Earth’s cloudiness through the Svensmark effect, which I see as well supported by CLOUD results, the Danish experiments, Nir Shaviv and Svenmark’s papers, etc. etc. See Kirkby’s slides at http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073 .

  88. Sparks says:

    I thought everyone knew that the gravitational effect of the planets on the Sun has minimal effect in the short term, I don’t believe the paper is wrong on this!
    At the moment I’m currently studying this area of solar physics and the relationship of the Sun with the planets (it is still very interesting to me and hasn’t lost it’s mystery yet) and I have made no major conclusions only that I do believe that the entire solar system has it’s interactions.

    The “influence of planetary attractions” on the solar tachocline has a wide area of study left that this paper has not touched on, It’s not what this paper is saying that is important and warrants study, it’s what it isn’t saying, if every time a new paper came out and all scientists, engineers etc.. downed the tools of their trade, went home and call it a day ‘job well done, problem solved’ then there would be no more reason to study anything further and a lot of progress would be lost.

    It is very interesting to note what the long term relationships of the outer planets have on the fluid mechanics that drive the higher or lower activity of the sun’s conveyer belts, If anything this paper is only regurgitating what I thought we already know. Better still, when people study they study at their own pace and they are always discovering and rediscovering the information at completely different times and may have a different outlook based on their current understanding of the information, that’s how personal educational development basically works.

    Anthony, did you wake up this morning and think ‘Hmm, I’ll think I’ll pick a fight with the solar geeks!!’. Bravo mate!

  89. u.k.(us) says:

    David Ball says:
    April 15, 2012 at 5:46 pm
    ==============
    You begged Leif to be nice.
    Be nice to Pamela.

  90. Paul Westhaver says:

    ARUN
    I agree. a 180 degree phase change of a forcing input to the following response (resonance) is not obvious to 95% of scientists yet it exists in nature and any electrical engineer or physicist should be able to verify this.

    Exceedingly small inputs yield infinite response… furthermore, if you bang a system it always rings in its naturally resonant harmonics. Whether that applies here I can’t say but simple minds breed simple models and simpler minds breed no models at all.

    I say since we see wobbly stars all over the place… it bear reason that planets gravitationally effect stars so why not ours.

  91. Paul Westhaver says:

    The wind in the Tacoma Narrows should not have been able to blow down the suspension bridge, yet the bridge came down nevertheless. So much for convensional wisdom.

  92. ed says:

    anthony, whats your theory on why the sun has a 11 yr cycle and flips polarity every 22 yrs?

  93. ed says:

    seriously…just dont tell me its some wackadoodle solar dynamo theory thing…

  94. David Ball says:

    u.k.(us) says:
    April 15, 2012 at 7:09 pm
    There is some background there that you may not be aware of. If you read her posts, she always claims to have it all figured out (climate) and talks of the AMO, PDO, etc. and acts as if she understands the entire mechanisms and process, yet never explains herself fully or what drives those processes. I am afraid you have confused lack of kindness with calling her bluff.

  95. David Ball says:

    Nice of you to be a gentleman.

  96. ed says:
    April 15, 2012 at 7:35 pm
    anthony, whats your theory on why the sun has a 11 yr cycle and flips polarity every 22 yrs?
    Here is the modern theory of the solar cycle: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1008.2432v2.pdf and it flips every 11 years, not 22.

    vukcevic says:
    April 15, 2012 at 3:50 pm
    Since the ‘magnetic rope’ is connected to the source, i.e. the sun, the short circuit effect is fed back to the solar surface
    And here is where you go wrong. Such changes can only be transmitted at the Alfven speed which is less than 50 km/sec compared to the 500 km/sec outward flow of the solar wind [or even faster for a CME].

    Geoff Sharp says:
    April 15, 2012 at 4:32 pm
    Interesting that de Jager offers no rebuttal to the Wollf & Patrone paper which of course has nothing to do with tidal effects.
    Part of the reason is that the W&P paper is an embarrassment to the authors and no rebuttal is needed. You have been told several times what is wrong with W&P. Here is the story once more: http://www.leif.org/research/Gough-Comment-on-Wolff-Patrone.doc
    Douglas Gough is the foremost expert of solar dynamics.

  97. wayne says:

    Crispin in Johannesburg:

    Excellent, excellent point on reinforcing harmonics, and very pertinent. That same aspect has come across my mind in the past. You can only say something of a force’s effects if it is either one-time or doesn’t reoccur in matching frequencies, even if those frequencies do no exactly match across time. I can still swing the kids high even though my timing is, what should I say, in perfect harmony. Far too many ‘scientists’ toss such perfectly correct science questions and possibilities in the trash bin, why?, it doesn’t match the current mantra (which is really not questioning, thinking and exploring all corners at all)

  98. David Ball says:
    April 15, 2012 at 4:42 pm
    I wish Dr. Svalgaard would take the time to look closely at your stuff and help guide you.
    I don’t think anybody has looked more carefully at Vuk’s stuff than I. I have tried to guide and help him, but Vuk is learning resistant. A trait often found in this pseudo-debate.

  99. wayne says:
    April 15, 2012 at 8:35 pm
    I can still swing the kids high even though my timing is, what should I say, in perfect harmony.
    What is wrong with that analogy and all the other resonance pleadings is that the ‘pushing force’ is too small. To stay with the analogy, it is like a mosquito landing on the little girls knee at every swing. That tiny influence is swallowed up by the friction and noise of the system and will have no effect.

  100. David Ball says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 15, 2012 at 8:35 pm
    “I don’t think anybody has looked more carefully at Vuk’s stuff than I. I have tried to guide and help him, but Vuk is learning resistant. A trait often found in this pseudo-debate.”
    Is not constructive dialogue.

  101. ed says:

    yes anthony, 22 yr cycle, 11yr flips, that’s what i meant , spoke too quickly. solar dynamo isn’t convincing or even provable really, certainly not settled…no more settled than magnetic or gravitational planetary relationships of which is frowned upon. why thw frown? good scientists have open minds and maintain thier objectivity, otherwise…can you believe trex will finally be given feathers ?

  102. David Ball says:
    April 15, 2012 at 8:49 pm
    “I don’t think anybody has looked more carefully at Vuk’s stuff than I. I have tried to guide and help him, but Vuk is learning resistant. A trait often found in this pseudo-debate.”
    Is not constructive dialogue.

    Dialogue with whom? I have tried to educate Vuk about the facts and the physics, but he refuses to learn. This is not rocket science, but simple application of well-known physics. As constructive as can be.

  103. Mooloo says:

    The wind in the Tacoma Narrows should not have been able to blow down the suspension bridge, yet the bridge came down nevertheless. So much for convensional wisdom.

    Tacoma Narrows are notably windy. People have known for centuries that wind can bring things down. People have known about resonance bringing down bridges too. What they were unable to do at Tacoma was predict beforehand the resonance of the bridge. So while it was unfortunate, it did not come as a shock to engineers. Like so many of your pithy examples, this one lacks quite a lot as an example.

    You seem to be relying on resonance. But the planets aren’t orbiting in anything like a coherent resonant pattern. How are Jupiter (orbital period 4,332 days) and Saturn (orbital period 10,759 days) going to set up any resonance in something churning away as fiercely as the Sun?

    It’s astrology is what it is. A lot of wiffle about how it might work, but unable to argue the actual point.

    Equations. Give me equations. Then, and only then, we can test what you say has some validity.

    Note that the warmers do actually provide equations. They give numbers and physical explanations, on both a micro and macro level. We might disagree about whether they are right, but they at least give equations and numbers.

    You. You give hand waving.

  104. Anthony says “Looks to me like Barycentrism just took a body blow – Anthony”

    I think that Anthony was too exited. The things are quite more complex, and they are already extensively explained in my latest published paper:

    N. Scafetta, “Multi-scale harmonic model for solar and climate cyclical variation throughout the Holocene based on Jupiter-Saturn tidal frequencies plus the 11-year solar dynamo cycle.” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics in press (2012).

    http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Scafetta_JStides.pdf

    First, the new paper by Callebaut, de Jager and Duhau [2012] simply repeats the argument that the planetary tides are quite small, which is well known, and de Jager simply repeats the arguments on the same topics in his 2005 papers.

    A response to these people is already contained in my paper at page 13, where I wrote

    “For example, de Jager and Versteegh (2005) further developed the classical argument that planetary tidal elongation on the Sun is tiny. However, this critique simply requires the existence of a strong amplification feedback mechanism that may be provided by a tidal stimulation of the nuclear fusion rate (Wolff and Patrone, 2010), which perhaps may be also helped by collective synchronization resonance effects.”

    Note that Callebaut et al., do not say anything about the above issues.

    However, the best response to Callebaut et al. [2012] is written in de Jager and Versteegh (2005) itself where in the conclusion the authors say:

    “Therefore they cannot significantly influence the solar dynamo unless a completely different hypothesis is forwarded”.

    So, the things are simply not as by Callebaut, de Jager and Duhau think that they are.

    About the other arguments referring the reproduction of the longer cycles such as the Grand Minima, the millennial cycles and so on, I am sorry for Anthony, but my paper answers them all.

    From the abstract of my paper:

    “The major beat periods occur at about 115, 61 and 130 years, plus a quasi-millennial large beat cycle around 983 years. We show that equivalent synchronized cycles are found in cosmogenic records used to reconstruct solar activity and in proxy climate records throughout the Holocene (last12,000years) up to now. The quasi-secular beat oscillations hindcast reasonably well the known prolonged periods of low solar activity during the last millennium known as Oort, Wolf, Sporer, Maunder and Dalton minima, as well as the seventeen 115-year long oscillations found in a detailed temperature reconstruction of the Northern Hemisphere covering the last 2000 years. The millennial three-frequency beat cycle hindcasts equivalent solar and climate cycles for 12,000 years. Finally, the harmonic model herein proposed reconstructs the prolonged solar minima that occurred during 1900-1920 and 1960-1980, the secular solar maxima around 1870-1890, 1940-1950 and 1995-2005, and a secular upward trending during the 20th century.”

    About the claim that Humkin Solheim, Stordahl [2011] do not confirm my results in my 2010 paper that focused on the decadal multidecadal scale, this is funny. Humkin et al. are using an ice core record to study the Holocene that does not have the precision of the global surface temperature records and anly the secular and above scale could be well detected. Humkin et al. study also a shorter local record since 1900 and this confirms my finding. Finally, Solheim wrote me many times saying that they are finding my same cycles.

    This paper is no a body blow of any kind. Just a poor paper repeating things that are already very well known.

    The thing are quite more complex.

    First,

  105. Bart says:

    FTA: “We calculated various accelerations near or in the tachocline area and compared them with those due to the attraction by the planets.”

    The tidal forces are small. Of that, there can be little doubt. Are they too small? I am not so sure anymore, as I discussed here.

    sophocles says:
    April 15, 2012 at 2:15 pm

    “More calculation showed the extra tidal height caused by the alignment was somewhat less than 1mm—so no tidal waves or king tides to worry about. “

    Is that based on the eccentricity of equi-potential surfaces? Because while that is reasonable assumption with a significantly incompressible fluid like ocean water, I’m doubtful it is with compressible gases. Compressible fluid pressure increases exponentially with depth, and static equilibirum will require balance of the pressure gradient with the gravitational pull.

  106. u.k.(us) says:

    David Ball says:
    April 15, 2012 at 7:53 pm
    Nice of you to be a gentleman.
    =============
    You obviously don’t know the meaning of the word.

  107. Well:
    Anthony says “Looks to me like Barycentrism just took a body blow – Anthony”

    The paper by Callebaut, de Jager and Duhau [2012] has nothing to do with “Barycentrism” in any case.

    Callebaut, de Jager and Duhau are talking about tides, but in a naive way.

  108. David Ball says:

    Dr. Svalgaard, I am not saying Vukcevic is right or wrong, but explain what he has found. Simples.

  109. I believe that Anthony just need to read my papers and try to understand them.

    His comments and articles on these issues are quite embarassing!

  110. Kasuha says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 15, 2012 at 1:19 pm
    The Earth’s orbit is not static and in calculating the effect the actual orbit [perturbations and all] are taken into account. It is even necessary when compensating for the orbital changes to take into account that the photons of TSI left the Sun 8 minutes before they hit the Earth. The point is that Earth’s orbit is what it is [changing all the time].
    ________________________________________

    I’m glad that you confirm my conclusions.

  111. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 15, 2012 at 8:22 pm

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

    A private opinion is hardly a rebuttal, lets see the real thing published in a journal. Contrary to Moloo’s uninformed statement Wolff & Patrone have provided the theory and numbers that is so far unchallenged. Anthony and others clearly need to bring themselves up to speed with the new progress made in planetary theory.

    REPLY: I have people emailing me the same “you need to get up to speed” thing about “chemtrail” theory. – Anthony

  112. johanna says:

    Harriet Harridan says:
    April 15, 2012 at 3:36 pm
    Sheesh. I’d like to add my voice to those saying just because we haven’t found a mechanism does not mean it can’t exist. The universe is wonderful with plenty of secrets yet to discover. A few centuries back *everybody* was certain that the sun went round the earth. Then Copernicus came along to say different. A few years back pretty much *everybody* said GCR’s were orders of magnitudes too small to nucleate clouds. Now we have Jasper Kirkbys physical CERN results which say different. Anthony: don’t decry people for looking and asking – that’s what it’s all about.
    ————————————————————
    Harriet, I assume that “everybody” excludes Pythagoras (6th century BC), Aristarchus (3rd century BC), and Copernicus (15th – 16th century AD), among others. And, these guys were not passing blog commenters.

    Here’s hoping that the rest of your views are more soundly based in fact.

  113. Paul Westhaver says:

    Mooloo,

    The trouble with metaphor is if folks miss the metaphor then you get into arguing about the metaphor instead of the issue at hand. You both missed the metaphor and misunderstood the metaphor. so…First the metaphor.. If the structural engineers knew about Von Karmen Vortex shedding in 1940, which they didn’t as I correct you, then they ought to have designed for it because the bridge wobbled at wind speeds as low as 8 knots. The nuance in the metaphor which you also missed was the counter conventional wisdom 180 degree phase change between the forcing function and the displacement. This is, counter intuitive and nothing is mechanics prepares you for that reality.

    Until one encounters a physical event like bridge resonance, or exceeding Mach 1 for the first time one’s models fall apart in anticipating the outcome. The supersonic nozzle of a rocket engine is built like a subsonic diffuser… and that was not obvious either….nobody understood choked flow before encountering Mach 1.

    Point is, it is in appropriate to assume a model is correct and proclaim success when empirical evidence instructs you otherwise. That is science. It is full of disappointments. The bridge fell because the engineers did not account for vortex shedding. The first rocket engines were limited to Mach 1 because they did not comprehend supersonic flow. They had the wrong models.

    In terms of understand periodic behavior of the sun, I contend that all options out to be on the table since nobody ,and I mean nobody, can predict what the sun is going to do within a year.

    You don’t know what you don’t know.

    All the paper accomplished was to weakly contribute to conventional wisdom that 250 year old models don’t account for modern observations. Which means the observations are correct and the model is wrong. Time to find another model…. and who knows what that may or may not be… even Anthony can’t answer that.

  114. Paul Westhaver says:

    How may of you can state the relationship between a dinner plate spinning in the air and the rate of wobble that it experiances. By the way, the answer to that question underlied Feyman’s Nobel Prize. Sometimes what you think you know is wrong. Most times you don’t even notice.

  115. ferd berple says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    April 15, 2012 at 11:25 am
    REPLY: Yeah well, that’s your opinion, good luck with it. The WHY is everything. – Anthony

    The ocean tides on earth are much larger than that predicted by gravity. Does this prove that the sun and moon cannot be the cause of the tides?

    If the cycles of planetary orbits can be used to reliably predict solar cycles, then this would have value. However, the notion that we disprove this by suggesting gravitational forces are too small is a nonsense. By the same logic, the sun and moon cannot be the cause of earth’s ocean tides.

    The value in science is not in knowing “why” – that is a question for philosophy. The value in science is prediction. Thus, Newton’s work on gravity has great value because it can predict. However, as an explanation of “why” Newton recognized that his work provided no answer.

    “Why” we have ocean tides is not used to calculate the tide tables. We don’t predict tides based on gravitational effects of the sun and moon. Rather we calculated future tides based on the cycles of the past tides, in relationship to the orbit of the earth and moon.

    In an infinite universe, the answer to “why” is infinite. Why is the sky blue? Is it blue because of the wavelength of light it reflects? It is it blue because it had to be some color, and that color turned out by chance to be blue? Or is it blue because if it was some other color life would not have developed on earth and we would not be here to discuss the matter?

  116. Volker Doormann says:

    Paul Marmet
    “One must conclude that there exists no space-time distortion of any kind.

    I do not know, what it means.

    Physics is developed from history and social dimensions like meter, second, hour, day, week, year, kilogram or gram, and physics is using these definitions of kings or dead people, but none of these idols of physicians have any meaning in the science of nature; relevant in physics is only energy [J]. Because the nature has a_local property of electromagnetism, what means that nature is not a function of space, energies can interchanged in this nature. But the very thing is that the processes in nature ever only can be processed in the object ‘spacetime’, which is never to be separated in fragments. That spacetime is an object in nature we can see on the identity of distance/delay of energies in nature (echos) and the impedance is measured in units of [ohm] or [V/A] in the new defined dimensions in physics. An other fact, that spacetime is an element in nature, is the fact that the linearity of spacetime getting nonlinear in gravitational fields as we all know from the Mercury trace, which is different to the linear Kepler relation.

    I do conclude from this that there is spacetime in nature and is modified by gravitational fields.

    BTW. I wrote: “When asked for proof, when asked for a physical mechanism with proper forces and units, when asked for experiments, falsifiable experiments about the existence of time, the existence of space, the existence of velocities, the prove that gravitational forces between objects are delayed after Einstein – in case of Quaoar/Sun 6 hours in one direction – without any effect of the trace of the bodies after Kepler, the response is silence or very silence.“
    QED. There is silence by the first claimer (S.M.).

    There is a proverb in German: “Wash me the fur, however do not make me wet.” The rule is often claimed here by prominent regulars, last in the saying: show me planetary functions changing the terrestrial climate by varying the oven Sun, but don’t touch my climate point of view.

    Accepted in this room.

    V.

  117. Paul Westhaver says:

    Foucault (FooKoe) had tremendous intuition into periodic behavior yet he had enormous trouble with algebra. Have you ever flicked a car radio ariel? It wobbles back and forth in 1/4 wave mode. If your are clever you can excite 3/4 wave and higher harmonics.

    Say you snap the anntenna off the car and put the antenna into the chuck of an electric drill and flick the free end of the antenna. What happens?

    Foucault made a record of first observing this behavior and then he had a heck of a time mathematically describing it.

    Periodic systems, like his pendulum, like his gyroscope, like his vibrating rod all yielded results that violates common sense. I think the sun’s behavior is in the category of violating common sense.

  118. Crispin in Johannesburg says:

    DirkH says:

    >>“There is a clear relationship between the butterfly pattern and the position of the Earth-Moon-Venus barycenter. I found that very confirming re the ability of planets to affect the sun.”

    >Got a source/graph link?

    I had a quick look and didn’t find it in the folder so possibly not. The thing to search for is the EMV Barycentre because that was the topic. I was really surprised by the 5:2 resonance of Earth-Moon (taken as a single unit) and Venus, and the fact that anyone noticed a pattern at all between the position of the EMV barycentre and the shape of the butterfly pattern.. As I recall the author pointed particularly to the more equatorial portion of the chart.

    From what I have read and the comments here, it is clear that for the effect of gravity (or in this case the net gravity of the EMV system) people assume the gravity works evenly on the whole sun. I am not yet convinced because denser (cooler) masses of gas should be affected more than hot gas of a similar volume and the sun rotates quickly enough to cause many ‘draggings’.

    Thanks again Leif re the mosquito mass relative to the girl on the swing. Quite right on the relative mass even if pushed for a year. Now, put the girl in frictionless space and have the mosquito push cyclically for 4 billion years. That is 9 orders of magnitude more.

    Another analogy is the mass of cosmic rays striking the earth relative to the mass of the atmosphere. Obviously ‘they cannot have any effect’ because of the relative mass difference, right?

  119. ferd berple says:

    Mooloo says:
    April 15, 2012 at 9:18 pm
    Equations. Give me equations. Then, and only then, we can test what you say has some validity.

    Show the calculatation for the height of tides anywhere on earth. Tides are not calculated based on gravity. Rather, the tides are calculated similar to a horoscope. Based on past observation of the tidal behavior in relationship to the position of the sun and moon. Astrology is based on the past observation of human behavior in relationship to the sun, moon, and planets.

    In point of fact, the prediction of tides using Astrological methods is much more exact than that provided using the equations for gravity, yet we know that gravity is “why” we have tides. According to the “scientific” arguments put forward, this should be impossible.

  120. tallbloke says:

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

    Appeal to authority.

    Gough’s comment starts with this sentence:

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

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

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

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

  121. ferd berple says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 15, 2012 at 8:44 pm
    What is wrong with that analogy and all the other resonance pleadings is that the ‘pushing force’ is too small. To stay with the analogy, it is like a mosquito landing on the little girls knee at every swing. That tiny influence is swallowed up by the friction and noise of the system and will have no effect.

    Yet the bite of the mosquito can kill the girl. Before we recongnized infectious disease, it would have been hard to believe something so small could have such a large effect.

  122. Paul Westhaver says:

    Moolo said:

    You seem to be relying on resonance. But the planets aren’t orbiting in anything like a coherent resonant pattern. How are Jupiter (orbital period 4,332 days) and Saturn (orbital period 10,759 days) going to set up any resonance in something churning away as fiercely as the Sun?

    I reply: I don’t think you get the point. I said I don’t know. Futhermore I don’t think you know what resonance,i based on what you just wrote…… it isn’t simply division yielding integers….

    In terms of periodic behavior the sun express one sunspot cycle in 11 trips of the earth around the sun. 1:11. It has a pole reversal 1:22. Expressing 1:2 sunspot cycle to pole reversal. THAT is observation. Also the moon orbits the earth in about 27.3 days and the average rotation of the sun is the same, about 27.3 days. 1:1. That is observation… even better than an equation. There are more of them. Again, periodic behavior, not resonance.

    Mooloo said: Equations. Give me equations. Then, and only then, we can test what you say has some validity.

    I say I prefer data….

  123. Myrrh says:

    Bart says:
    April 15, 2012 at 5:32 pm
    Myrrh says:
    April 15, 2012 at 5:08 pm

    “It’s not Einstein’s ‘time dilation’, it’s adjustment for a physical phenomenon that there’s a difference in travelling from east to west from travelling west to east.”

    .Unh-uh. I assure you GPS uses both Special and General Relativistic corrections.

    ==========

    Nope. It uses Sagnac -“the Sagnac effect published in 1914 it has been shown experimentally that light takes a longer time to go around the world Eastward than Westward. The Sagnac effect is well known. It has been added in the Global Positioning System (GPS) to determine time and coordinates on Earth. The Sagnac effect is also used in optical gyroscopes. It is very well extablished.”

    You can find Sagnac on the page you posted. That the actual physics used is not discussed and not correctly attributed in write ups on GPS should alert you to there being a problem ….

    Also from my post I linked to: “However, following the Sagnac effect published in 1914 it has been shown experimentally that light takes a longer time to go around the world Eastward than Westward. The Sagnac effect is well known. It has been added in the Global Positioning System (GPS) to determine time and coordinates on Earth. The Sagnac effect is also used in optical gyroscopes. It is very well extablished.”

    That’s the effect actually taken into producing the GPS system. Falsifying Einstein, GPS is adjusted for light travelling at different speeds going east to west from the speed it goes west to east as per SAGNAC.

    See, http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/faq/michelson_morley.html for a deconstruction of Michelson-Morley:

    “There is also another experiment testing the asymmetric distortion of space.
    It is the Brillet-Hall experiment. We can also see that this experiment is perfectly compatible with Galilean space, contrary to Einstein’s relativity.

    One must conclude that the Michelson-Morley results and the Brillet-Hall experiment disprove Einstein’s relativity.
    We hope that someone will bother to read carefully the paper:
    “The Overlooked Phenomena in the Michelson-Morley Experiment”
    at:

    http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/michelson/index.html

    and
    “Design Error in the Brillet and Hall’s Experiment”
    at:

    http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/brillet_hall/index.html

    before the end of the 21st century.”

    My bold italics. I think Marmet was being optimistic to even hope if the entrenched views of ‘the science establishment’ which claims stuff works to the impossible fisics of relativity while it actually uses traditional physics to make stuff work isn’t even questioned.

    I think this could be part and parcel of the strange idea some here have that there is no gravity as traditional physics teaches..

    But heck, if you’re comfortable with the idea that the distance to New York from San Francisco is shorter the distance from San Francisco to New York and that someone running down the corridor of a train is going to get to the next station slower than someone sitting still in a carriage who will reach the station faster, then feel free – I just hope there will be some left who could design the GPS system from scratch..

  124. Myrrh says:

    Volker Doormann says:
    April 15, 2012 at 11:33 pm
    Paul Marmet
    “One must conclude that there exists no space-time distortion of any kind.

    I do not know, what it means.

    He is referring specifically to Einstein’s theory of relativity and means as he continues in that paragraph:

    “Unless we accept the absurd solution that the distance between N.Y. to S.F. is smaller than the distance between S.F. and N.Y., we have to accept that in a moving frame, the velocity of light is different in each direction. As mentioned above, this difference is even programmed in the GPS computer in order to get the correct Global Positioning. This proves that the experimental velocity of light with respect to a moving observer is c±v.”

    http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/illusion/index.html

    An other fact, that spacetime is an element in nature, is the fact that the linearity of spacetime getting nonlinear in gravitational fields as we all know from the Mercury trace, which is different to the linear Kepler relation.

    Einstein’s spacetime is nonsense, what he was good at was to use traditional physics to claim this proved his, as Bart has shown, this is still being done with the claims for the GPS system.

    Here’s Marmet’s look at the perihelion of Mercury. http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/mercury/index.html

    “Abstract.
    Using Einstein’s general relativity, it is generally believed that space and time distortions are absolutely required to explain the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. This is untrue. The advance of the perihelion of Mercury was first calculated in 1898 by Paul Gerber (1A). We show here that this phenomenon can be fully explained using Newton’s physics and mass-energy conservation, without any relativity principle. Without having to introduce any new physics, we arrive to the same equation as predicted by Einstein. Therefore, the relativity principles are useless.”

    Do you see the trick here?

  125. wayne says:

    Leif, seems Crispin has already made my exact response for me… what of ‘x’ billion mosquitoes. If random, no effect possible, in synch, may so. I just think such thoughts are worth saying and thinking about. May be nothing, maybe not, but raising it for others to themselves consider, as Crispin did, that I view as good science thought, the simple act of consideration.

  126. vukcevic says:

    David Ball says: April 15, 2012 at 8:49 pm
    …………..
    Thanks for your help, even if Dr. Svalgaard agreed with some of my ideas it would not change anything.
    While I am guided by intuition, Dr. S’s knowledge in this field is immense, he has my respect, his comments via email exchange are always helpful, but even he occasionally may be wrong, often intentionally…
    Dr.S.’s theory is successful in predicting SC max one cycle ahead; my hypothesis allows to go further in time by using the ‘Svalgaard’s method’, and that definitely would not do.
    5-6 years ago Dr. Hathaway also totally rejected what I was suggesting, since then his theory failed him dismally, while my equation is still holding the line.
    Some of the baricentric advocates take themselves far too seriously, I do it for fun.

  127. Paul says:

    We certainly need open investigative minds on this subject. I also believed that the Solar Cycles were the result of internal mechanisms.

    Whilst looking at past cycles I noticed something that looked very interesting, so last July I created a simple Planetary model and from the output I could see that from about mid December it was likely that the overall activity of the Sun should take a tumble.
    On the 5th October when this was posted on this site “Big jumps in September solar activity metrics”, I made a small post predicting this ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/05/big-jumps-in-september-solar-activity-metrics/ ) . My model also shows that we are likely to see a further significant drop between August through January 2013, which might be significant enough to produce some completely spotless days. If this proves to be so, we are witnessing a very interesting Cycle.

    It may be that what I am doing does not prove that the Planets modulate Solar activity, but we must all continue with our investigations with open minds.

  128. vukcevic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    …Vuk is learning resistant ……. but simple application of well-known physics.

    Hi doc, like that one, I made a progress from ‘man of superior ignorance’.
    It appears your colleagues at NASA are also learning resistant but simple application of well-known physics
    Two Models: THEMIS Decides Which One is Right: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/two_models.html

    Somewhere up the thread Dr.S mentions ‘one electric turkey/sec’, for those not ‘with it’ he is referring to:
    “NASA’s fleet of THEMIS spacecraft discovered a flux rope pumping a 650,000 Amp current into the Arctic. “The satellites have found evidence for magnetic ropes connecting Earth’s upper atmosphere directly to the Sun,” says Dave Sibeck, project scientist for the mission at the Goddard Space Flight Center. “We believe that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms”. Even more impressive was the substorm’s power. Angelopoulos estimates the total energy of the two-hour event at five hundred thousand billion (5 x 1014) Joules. That’s approximately equivalent to the energy of a magnitude 5.5 earthquake.”

    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/11dec_themis/

    That is some turkey !

  129. vukcevic says:
    April 16, 2012 at 1:32 am
    Thanks for your help, even if Dr. Svalgaard agreed with some of my ideas it would not change anything.
    The problem with your polar field correlation is that it [as I said] conflicts with observations. Your formula predicts that the polar fields do not reverse signs in in the cycle with minimum in 2031 and in 1911:

    We don’t know about 2031 yet, but we do know that in 1911 the polar fields changed sign as usual. How do we know this: there is something called the 22-year cycle in geomagnetic activity that depends critically on the sign of the polar fields. The explanation of this can be found here http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf [section 9]. We can follow that effect back to the 1840s and see that the cycle continues unbroken, hence that the polar fields behaved as usual, also in 1911.

    tallbloke says:
    April 16, 2012 at 12:00 am
    “The paper by Wolff and Patrone narrates one of those fairy tales that has not gripped me sufficiently to read beyond the first few pages.”
    Because the error occurs in the very first few pages, so no need to continue.

    The embarrassment belongs to Leif for touting Gough’s comment as a rebuttal, not to the reviewers of Wolff and Patrone’s paper for accepting it.
    The embarrassment belongs to Wolff and Patrone. As Gough says
    “What they should do is go back to the original publications of Rayleigh and Chandrasekhar and try to understand them. If they succeed, and if they are honest, they would then withdraw the paper.”
    Gough’s comment was not meant as a rebuttal, but as an explanation of why it is not worthwhile to write a formal rebuttal [which you and other faithful would not accept anyway].

  130. tallbloke says:

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

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

    Argumentum ad ignore’em?

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

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

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

    It is noticeable that we did get a low solar cycle in the 1970’s, and that we are getting another now. It is also noticeable that the first period is followed by the very low cycles of the Dalton Minimum and after the second period, solar activity recovered. The third and fourth and fifth periods also coincide with cycles which are lower than the cycles either side of them. Would these simple observations have been missed by Landsche..t? I doubt it.

    The offer to Geoff Sharp to submit a guest post to the Talkshop, where we are currently running several lively threads on planetary effects on solar activity has been on the table for over a year, and I hope he can drop the personal stuff long enough to accept it and discuss the science there.

  131. Volker Doormann says:

    Myrrh says:
    April 16, 2012 at 1:02 am
    Volker Doormann says:
    April 15, 2012 at 11:33 pm
    Paul Marmet
    “One must conclude that there exists no space-time distortion of any kind.

    I do not know, what it means.

    He is referring specifically to Einstein’s theory of relativity and means as he continues in that paragraph:
    “Unless we accept the absurd solution that the distance between N.Y. to S.F. is smaller than the distance between S.F. and N.Y., we have to accept that in a moving frame, the velocity of light is different in each direction. As mentioned above, this difference is even programmed in the GPS computer in order to get the correct Global Positioning. This proves that the experimental velocity of light with respect to a moving observer is c±v.”

    No. I have worked some years (1967-1970) on a compass. If you propagate light in a fiber ring in both directions on a non rotating place the frequencies both are identical on the detector. If there is any rotation on a ship, a rotating planet or an aircraft, both frequencies are different because of a Doppler effect.

    No one ever has given a proof for a velocity of any kind.

    “An other fact, that spacetime is an element in nature, is the fact that the linearity of spacetime getting nonlinear in gravitational fields as we all know from the Mercury trace, which is different to the linear Kepler relation.”

    Einstein’s spacetime is nonsense

    EOD because of ignore my arguments + OT.

    V.

  132. jbird says:

    From the abstract:
    >>The main conclusion is that in its essence: planetary influences are too small to be more than a small modulation of the solar cycle. We do not exclude the possibility that the long term combined action of the planets may induce small internal motions in the sun, which may have indirectly an effect on the solar dynamo after a long time.

    That seems to leave them a little wiggle room, or maybe it should be called “wobble” room.

    I admit to being an ignoramous on this subject so we can dispense with which category I fit into. However, speaking from the standpoint of an ignoramous and someone who has much to learn, I admit to having been pursuaded by the barycentric theory. On the surface, it has seemed like common sense. Its attractive to me because its intuitive.

    Soooo, maybe someone here can explain to me how the sun, as well as other stars, can be “tugged” by their orbiting planets, but not have their “internal motions” influenced as well. I don’t really have a horse in this race; I’m just curious.

  133. tallbloke says:

    Leif says of Gough’s ‘criticism’ of Wolff & Patrone 2010:
    Because the error occurs in the very first few pages, so no need to continue.

    Well, you keep saying this, but argument by assertion doesn’t carry any weight, and a reviewer would quite rightly reject it.

    vukcevic says:
    April 16, 2012 at 2:25 am
    650,000 Amps …. That is some turkey

    Someone’s goose is cooked, I agree. ;-)

  134. Geoff Sharp says:

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

    Skimming papers and picking comments out of context is not a good look. Theodore makes it very clear in all his papers that the PTC event (what you think is a solar downturn) is a mechanism for changing phase. ie phase reversal. Show me in one of his papers where the PTC event is linked with grand minima. I find it lame we are even discussing this issue, you have no idea. Do you understand what the PTC event is?

    Your offer of a guest post is 2 years late, and considering your recent censorship performance I would not entertain the idea.

    I am still wanting to know what this comment on your blog meant?

    “Geoff wants to claim the glory to himself and in the memory of the late Carl Smith”

  135. vukcevic says:
    April 16, 2012 at 2:25 am
    Somewhere up the thread Dr.S mentions ‘one electric turkey/sec’
    Wrong. I was talking about the mass of the solar wind impacting. No electricity here. The solar wind is electrically neutral as Lindeman showed back in 1919 http://www.leif.org/EOS/Lindemann-1919.pdf

    “NASA’s fleet of THEMIS spacecraft discovered a flux rope pumping a 650,000 Amp current into the Arctic. “The satellites have found evidence for magnetic ropes connecting Earth’s upper atmosphere directly to the Sun,” says Dave Sibeck, project scientist for the mission at the Goddard Space Flight Center. “We believe that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms”. Even more impressive was the substorm’s power. Angelopoulos estimates the total energy of the two-hour event at five hundred thousand billion (5 x 1014) Joules. That’s approximately equivalent to the energy of a magnitude 5.5 earthquake.”
    They are way behind. This was calculated by me back in 1973 http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic-Response-to-Solar-Wind.pdf “Therefore the total substorm energy dissipation amounts to 5 x 10^14 Joule corresponding to an earthquake of magnitude 6.7 on the Richter scale”. A 5.5 quake only releases 10^13 Joule [or 50 times less] so Angelopoulos needs to learn a bit too. Anyway, the point is that the Earth and other magnetospheres extract only about one percent of the energy of the solar wind impinging on them so do not disturb the solar wind significantly and any disturbance cannot travel upwind. I mentioned that the interaction with the magnetosphere concentrates the extremely weak solar wind into a small area [the auroral zone], so you can get relatively large local effects, enough to melt transformers and disrupt power lines. But melted transformers do not control the solar cycle.

  136. vukcevic says:
    April 16, 2012 at 2:25 am
    “NASA’s fleet of THEMIS spacecraft discovered a flux rope pumping a 650,000 Amp current into the Arctic. “The satellites have found evidence for magnetic ropes connecting Earth’s upper atmosphere directly to the Sun,”
    again, they are way behind [or you are, believing that this is news and contrary to what I'm telling you]. This was discovered in 1968 by me: http://www.leif.org/research/DMI-R6.pdf
    “3) it shows that the geomagnetic field in high latitudes, and in turn the configuration of the magnetosphere, is high influenced by the interplanetary magnetic field. The close correlation between the type of daytime-perturbation and the sense of the interplanetary magnetic field seems to indicate that the magnetosphere is open as suggested by Dungey”
    Dungey [1961] suggested that the solar wind magnetic field is connected to the Earth’s magnetic field and I showed that that was indeed the case.

  137. Blade says:

    Steven Mosher [April 15, 2012 at 1:32 pm]

    Steve, you made a lot of self-evident and obvious good sense in this comment with one gigantic exception:

    “If mann or jones wrote some of the crap you see from the barycenter crew, they’d be laughed out of the room.”

    You must know that this proposition isn’t even remotely true.. Mann, Jones, Trenberth along with their AGW clergy of Ehrlich, Hansen, McKibben, Algore, Suzuki (… ad nauseum) would never be laughed out of the room. Their ‘side’ has already far, far exceeded any of these ‘out there’ pet theories and opinions about gravity wells and electric suns from ‘skeptics’ that get you so agitated. I mean, certainly after the obvious whitewashes of the unbelievable admitted thwarting and obstruction of FOI requests you cannot really believe what you wrote!

    Even if Mann’s UVA or PSU emails were found to contain Mark Foley like bad behavior with young boys he would still be A-Okay with all of the eco-Kooks and .99% of the major media as well as with Scientific journals and public pseudo-Science rags like Nature and Scientific American.

  138. Volker Doormann says:

    ferd berple says:
    April 15, 2012 at 11:18 pm
    „Why is the sky blue?

    Is it blue because of the wavelength of light it reflects? It is it blue because it had to be some color, and that color turned out by chance to be blue? Or is it blue because if it was some other color life would not have developed on earth and we would not be here to discuss the matter?”

    It is not the sky, which is blue.

    Physics is a part of science, which deals [only!] with forces and energies. Physics can measure the energy [eV] of photons, the polarisation, and the phase because these properties of photons are outside world.

    Physics cannot work with elements in nature, which have neither a force nor a matter or an energy. Alike brightness, or recognized truth, or the reckonable harmony in music, color has no dimension in physics; it exist only in a living immaterial consciousness. This means that the term color is a social convention of a number of living humans sayings. Like a meter of a kg or a second or a velocity these objects are not observables in physics.

    This knowledge is a taboo in physics, because physics and their gurus claims to be the science per se, but that is wrong. Physics is good to start wars or warm the own house, or tell people that CO2 is a killer of our Earth; physics is blind to reality, truth, woman, judge/rightness, love, music, poetry, art or the own consciousness.

    V.

  139. anna v says:

    Peter Hodges said:
    Also, it seems to me that if the combined action of the planets can pull the entire sun
    around the solar system barycenter, then the combined action of the planets could also pull around a little surface material in tidal effects.

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

    The motion of the barycenter that so fascinates people weak on physics is just like a planetarium, like a clock keeping time where the gears are the sun and planets. Any correlation with a physical measurement cannot be causal, because there is no force to cause effects.
    Observations are full of correlations, but correlation is not causation , it is just a datum to be examined in order to find the true cause.

    An example by what I mean that the motion of the barycenter is just like a clock hand: Take a clock where you are, and a clock in the north pole, and note the times. They are higly correlated but are not causing each other; the true cause being that the gears have been calibrated to have this correlation.

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

  140. tallbloke says:

    Leif says:
    Anyway, the point is that the Earth and other magnetospheres extract only about one percent of the energy of the solar wind impinging on them so do not disturb the solar wind significantly

    And solar variation in TSI terms is maybe 0.1 to 0.3% on the centennial scale. And the Earth’s average surface temperature variation is maybe around 0.5% from the little ice age to now.

    I’m not making any claim for causation here, just comparing the magnitude of some pertinent figures.

  141. Peter Taylor says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  142. Ulric Lyons says:

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

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

  143. tallbloke says:

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

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

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

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

    Like this:

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

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

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

  144. izen says:

    An interesting set of responses, from a flat rejection that the quoted paper has ANY implications for the hypothesis that barycentric variation affects the solar cycles, to an appeal to ‘keep and open mind’. As if ‘skepticism’ is equivalent to an avoidance of judgement.

    That the energy signature of the possible influence is several orders of magnitude below any credible possibility of direct influence makes it certain that barycentric variation is NOT a direct factor in solar cycles.
    The only way for it to have any effect on solar activity is if it indirectly affects an inherent non-linear system that will vastly amplify the very small gravitational changes.
    But that faces the same problem that negates the hypothesis that GCRs modulate cloud cover. As the CERN experiments are showing, the rate of cloud formation may be affected by GCRs, but IF cloud formation is THAT sensitive to GCRs, then that effect is swamped by the much stronger influence of biogenic DSM and other sources of cloud condensation nuclei.

    I would guess that the extreme reluctance of some to abandon the barycentric hypothesis is rooted in an ideological/emotional adherence to an ‘Anything but CO2′ belief.
    This is most explicit when the negligible influence of planetary tidal effects on the Sun is compared to the change in CO2 which is also asserted to be infinitesimal.
    Except of course that it isn’t, the 30% rise in the component of the atmosphere responsible for around 20% of the GHE is not a negligible effect. It leads to a measurable increase of over 1W/m2 in DWLWR even without any likely feedbacks.
    Unlike the barycentric variations it has a known, direct and measurable effect on the energy flows within the climate system. The energy changes are a significant percentage of the total and a clear physical process is known to be at work. In contrast the barycentric variation is tiny, has no known physical means of affecting the solar activity and its popularity in the face of such counter evidence is surely more to do with those rejecting the role of CO2 finding solace in any possible alternative, however unlikely, or just plain incomprehensible, as a amelioration of their cognitive dissonance.

  145. AJB says:

    Leif Svalgaard says, April 15, 2012 at 8:22 pm

    Here is the modern theory of the solar cycle: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1008.2432v2.pdf

    All well and good but where does the ‘random kick’ come from that brings it back out of a grand minima?

  146. Geoff Sharp says:

    This comment is repeated as I was caught in the Landsche..t sin bin.
    Geoff Sharp says:
    April 16, 2012 at 3:31 am

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

    Skimming papers and picking comments out of context is not a good look. Theodore makes it very clear in all his papers that the PTC event (what you think is a solar downturn) is a mechanism for changing phase. ie phase reversal. Show me in one of his papers where the PTC event is linked with grand minima. I find it lame we are even discussing this issue, you have no idea. Do you understand what the PTC event is?

    Your offer of a guest post is 2 years late, and considering your recent censorship performance I would not entertain the idea.

    I am still wanting to know what this comment on your blog meant?

    “Geoff wants to claim the glory to himself and in the memory of the late Carl Smith”

  147. anna v says:

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

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

    Even this interpretation is wrong. The sun is a huge gravitational well and is pulling the planets in their dance around it; you are putting the cart before the horse. If one takes the center of mass of all the planets, when to first order one could legally add the planetary mass and look at it like a satellite of the sun, it will be going around the sun like a fly around honey. The sun is pulling the planets and not the other way around. It is as if you said that the moon pulls the earth around it, where what it does at most is create the tides; and we know that the tides on the sun due to the planetary pull are just a few milimeters or so.

  148. beng says:

    Leif has been saying for yrs basically the same thing as this post.

    Just a friendly tip, those who ignore high-school physics (orders of magnitude) risk losing any interest in their posts, even if they otherwise make valid points. Some have unfortunately already reached this point. Too bad.

  149. AJB says:

    izen says, April 16, 2012 at 5:39 am

    “… is rooted in an ideological/emotional adherence to an ‘Anything but CO2′ belief.”

    “… is surely more to do with those rejecting the role of CO2 finding solace in any possible alternative, however unlikely, or just plain incomprehensible, as a[sic] amelioration of their cognitive dissonance.”

    Psycho babble about CO2 ‘belief’ in the face of the giant heat pump with a gigantic heat sink under it in which we live that seems to by-pass most of the claimed effect of the 5 – 2 = 2 hypothesis has no place in this discussion. In case you missed it, we’re talking about the origin and timing of the of the solar cycle; not Gaia Worship Disorder (GWD).

  150. David Ball says:

    u.k.(us) says:
    April 15, 2012 at 9:23 pm
    Where is her explanation? If being correct makes me no gentleman, so be it.

  151. Geoff Sharp says:

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

    The sun is a huge gravitational well and is pulling the planets in their dance around it

    Not a great example of solar system dynamics displayed in your post anna. There is absolutely no doubt re the movement of the Sun around the SSB is a direct result of of the big 4 planet positions even though their combined mass is not superior, but yes once that movement is enacted the planets have no choice in following their gravitational host.

  152. Pamela Gray says:

    Izen, is your 20% including the water vapor connection or just the teeny, tiny rise in CO2 ppm itself? If you are including water vapor, this affect can be measured in terms of relative humidity. In CO2 theory, we should be seeing an increase in water vapor, thus relative humidity.

  153. tallbloke says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  154. vukcevic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    ………………
    Yes, I’ve heard of geomagnetic activity, and actively follow it

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Tromso.htm

    Indeed the Arctic is in direct link via the magnetosphere with the solar poles (as the 29 day component in the spectrum graph in the above link shows).
    NASA also says: “The satellites have found evidence for magnetic ropes connecting Earth’s upper atmosphere directly to the Sun,”
    So we all agree on that one, except you say it can only be uni-directional, I think it is likely to be a bi-directional link, the NASA is for time being silent.
    The above isn’t only valid for the Arctic, but it is hugely magnified in the Jupiter’s magnetosphere since it is 5AU wide, it reaches to Saturn, it is regularly perturbed by the S’s magnetic field, as shown by second component of the equation:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm

    As far as sign is concerned, it is matter of choice of representing the sun’s dipole intensity polarised or as the absolute value, so really shouldn’t be matter of any concern.

    It has to be to your credit that the THEMIS spacecraft is confirming that what you found on the terra firma is found in the space above.

  155. David Ball says:

    anna v says:
    April 16, 2012 at 6:01 am
    “and we know that the tides on the sun due to the planetary pull are just a few milimeters or so.”
    “But” covers millions of square kilometers. Just a bit of mass there.

  156. LazyTeenager says:

    Stephen Wilde says
    A small modulation of the solar cycle over enough time seems to be all that we need to produce an amplifying effect within Earth’s atmosphere involving air circulation and albedo changes.
    ————–
    It’s not clear what this means. However the earth’s atmosphere is highly dissipation as is the sun’s, so I am betting friction will scotch any amplifying effect.

  157. tallbloke says:
    April 16, 2012 at 5:11 am
    “Anyway, the point is that the Earth and other magnetospheres extract only about one percent of the energy of the solar wind impinging on them so do not disturb the solar wind significantly”
    And solar variation in TSI terms is maybe 0.1 to 0.3% on the centennial scale. And the Earth’s average surface temperature variation is maybe around 0.5% from the little ice age to now.
    I’m not making any claim for causation here, just comparing the magnitude of some pertinent figures.

    but you have no concept of proportions. What is important is also how much of the sky seen from the sun these magnetospheres take up compared to the rest. For the biggest one [Jupiter's] the ‘target’ area is only 1/50,000 of the sky so the one per cent has to be divided by 50,000 for comparisons.

    Peter Taylor says:
    April 16, 2012 at 5:14 am
    Can anyone explain to me how the magnetic field transfers angular momentum?
    Basically because the field is frozen into the matter, so if matter [stellar wind] is ejected from the star to a larger distance, but forced to rotate with the same speed as the star [because of the frozen-in condition], the angular momentum of that matter increases [and that of the star decreases to conserve the total].

    Given the power of the solar wind to impact the electric body of the Earth (through magnetic storms) – a power amplified by the angle of the fields as they interact, could not reverse currents have similar pulses and powers?
    Any magnetic/electric changes cannot propagate upstream in the solar wind, because such disturbances move with the so-called Alfven speed [because the wind is a plasma] which is ten times slower [at the Earth] than the speed by which the plasma is moving away from the Sun.

    the law of the conservation of matter and energy would lead me to infer that as no significant amount of energy/matter leaves the heliosphere
    The conservation law is for a closed system, which the heliosphere is not. There is no return flow over the poles. We have had a spacecraft fly over the poles and it found at all time an outward flow [actually twice as fast as the latitude of the Earth].

    Finally….often left out of everyone’s equations are voltage shocks.
    There are lots of shocks in the solar wind, but they are not ‘voltage shocks’.

    What is required is a combination of open minds, scientific scepticism and analytical skill married to a wilingness to actually investigate (along with some time and/or money)
    Contrary to common beliefs [at least on the blog] scientists actually have these qualities [with the possible exception of the money], but they are impoverished ‘weapons’ against people who KNOW their cyclomania [but do not know basic physics].

    tallbloke says:
    April 16, 2012 at 5:33 am
    the Wolff-Patrone mechanism for the general curve
    The W&P effect [as I have said before] does not operate in a real star [read the comment].

  158. LazyTeenager says:

    cuibono1969 on April 15, 2012 at 11:17 am said:
    Ah, yes, The Jupiter Effect, 1982. Yet another catastrophe that didn’t quite work out.
    ———–
    Never fell for the Jupiter Effect.

    Tidal forces vary as the inverse cube of the distance. The effect is tiny between the sun and Jupiter.

    And there is the obvious thing that these alignments happen all the time with no ill effect.

    Same reason I think this barycentric idea is dumb.

  159. Geoff Sharp says:

    tallbloke says:
    April 16, 2012 at 6:59 am

    These are Ivanka Charvatova’s EMPIRICAL, PEER REVIEWED OBSERVATIONS. Her diagrams appear in one of the standard US college physics textbooks. I suggest you read it.

    Charvatova’s observations are perhaps the most pure amongst the planetary pioneers, but her observations are over very long time periods and only gives us a very vague perspective over many decades. To drill down further we need to understand what planetary positions control the disordered orbit…. which she was not aware of. Charvatova could roughly gauge an overall scale of solar downturn over an epoch but did not have the info to determine solar output down to the solar cycle. That information is now available along with the strength of the downturn at the solar cycle level.

  160. highflight56433 says:

    Our sun wobbles due to the solar objects orbiting it. The sun is a gas body that readily changes “shape” by the actions of the sun’s planets. That shape changing may cause some changes in the solar activity.

  161. vukcevic says:
    April 16, 2012 at 7:01 am
    you say it can only be uni-directional, I think it is likely to be a bi-directional link, the NASA is for time being silent.
    I have explained many times why it is not bi-directional. NASA is silent because the one-way street is not a research issue, but rather a fact [you also don't see NASA trumpet that they have established that the Earth is not flat].

    David Ball says:
    April 16, 2012 at 7:04 am
    “and we know that the tides on the sun due to the planetary pull are just a few milimeters or so.”
    “But” covers millions of square kilometers. Just a bit of mass there.

    You have to compare with the motions already going on: Millions of Texas-sized plasma cells move up and down at 500 meters/second.

  162. Ulric Lyons says:

    “Hence, planetary influences should be ruled out as a possible cause of solar variability.”

    Given a very large quantity of high quality correlations of short term solar variability, including successful astronomically based based forecasts of the most practical kind, i.e. terrestrial weather predictions, there is no way planetary influences can be ruled out. What is in question here is tidal forces, it`s not the only possible mechanism.

  163. Stephen Wilde says:

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

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

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

  164. vukcevic says:
    April 16, 2012 at 7:01 am
    As far as sign is concerned, it is matter of choice of representing the sun’s dipole intensity polarised or as the absolute value, so really shouldn’t be matter of any concern.
    It is not of choice, but of physcis. The sign is very important. And also a matter of misuse of statistics. Remove the sign and calculate your R^2 for the unsigned values and compare with the value of R^2 you quote now [0.9285]. Then report back.

  165. David Ball says:

    To me, this is an excellent thread. Really gets the intellectual “juices” flowing. Perhaps someone will trigger an idea that will knock a giant piece of fruit off the tree of knowledge and advance the science that wee little bit. Nothing personal at my end. Grateful to all. Especially our host and mods.

  166. Dr. Deanster says:

    Anna V … says …..
    “The sun is a huge gravitational well and is pulling the planets in their dance around it; you are putting the cart before the horse. If one takes the center of mass of all the planets, when to first order one could legally add the planetary mass and look at it like a satellite of the sun, it will be going around the sun like a fly around honey. The sun is pulling the planets and not the other way around. It is as if you said that the moon pulls the earth around it, where what it does at most is create the tides; and we know that the tides on the sun due to the planetary pull are just a few milimeters or so.”
    ______________________________
    Good point …. the idea is that the two planets are connected by a “string” of sorts, consisting of the gravitational pull. If this were not true, Jupiter would fly off into space by the pure inertia of the energy it produces in its orbit. In fact, I’d say that the gravitational pull of the Sun on Jupiter is more important on this than the gravitational pull of Jupiter [ie., the Sun could not orbit Jupiter, because it simply does not have the mass and gravitational pull to keep the Sun in orbit .. the sun would pull jupiter around as if it weren't even there].

    It seems to me that this discussion is all tied up in the extent of the gravitational pull of Jupiter on the Sun, but that is irrelevant. The two planets are connected, as if by a string, and the “center of mass’ between the two is 7% the Suns radius, “outside” of the limits of the sun’s space. Thus, it doesn’t matter what the gravitational pull is, The Sun will wobble as a result of Jupiter orbiting around it. And because of this connection, the energy of Jupiters orbit will be tranferred to the sun, and vice versa.

    Further, as you noted, the Sun pulls the planets, but as anyone knows who has put a ball on a rope, any variation in the speed of the sun’s orbit will have an effect on the forces exerted. Forces are greatest when the ball is behind the rotation, less when in perpindicular, and less still in the moments that you slow down and the ball actually leads the force, as the mass of energy switches from the force to the object, … in this case, from the sun to Jupiter. Thus, there is a moment, and I can’t say what that’d be in terms of the orbits, where Jupiter is actually pulling the sun, as opposed to the sun pulling Jupiter.

  167. tallbloke says:

    Leif says:
    tallbloke says:
    April 16, 2012 at 5:33 am
    the Wolff-Patrone mechanism for the general curve

    The W&P effect [as I have said before] does not operate in a real star [read the comment].

    More argument by assertion.
    The comment by Gough is worthless because he didn’t read the full paper. Now, you claim that he can legitimately dismiss it from the first three pages, but you haven’t backed up the claim with any falsifiable argument.

  168. Geoff Sharp says:

    Ulric Lyons says:April 16, 2012 at 7:30 am

    What is in question here is tidal forces, it`s not the only possible mechanism.

    And yet the tidal position is the basis for your JEV theory on solar cycle length copied from Desmoulins and Hung. More snake oil I am thinking.

  169. tallbloke says:
    April 16, 2012 at 8:01 am
    “The W&P effect [as I have said before] does not operate in a real star [read the comment].
    More argument by assertion.
    The comment by Gough is worthless because he didn’t read the full paper. Now, you claim that he can legitimately dismiss it from the first three pages, but you haven’t backed up the claim with any falsifiable argument.
    Your argument is by the same token worthless as you didn’t bother to try to understand the whole comment. But I agree with Gough that the first few pages are enough, because all the rest hangs on the premises set up in the beginning [in particular equation (2)]. As these are false, the rest is not valid and doesn’t have to be rebutted in detail.

  170. highflight56433 says:

    “…planets do not cause solar cycles.” I not sure in all the reading that anyone has ever claimed the planets “cause” solar cycles, but that there could be some influence of planetary orbits and the center of total solar mass on how the solar cycles behave. The problem is the comparitable affect of distance mass relationships. Obviously, rocky objects moving about the sun are orbitally affected by other mass bodies, however it is different with orbiting gas and liquid bodies that are affected in both orbit and shape. The sun being at the center of the total solar system mass in logical terms is affected; to what degree is debatable. Mathmatically the total mass can be calculated, however, there are other functions that cannot be predicted through such calculations.

  171. tallbloke says:

    LazyTeenager says:
    April 16, 2012 at 7:23 am
    ffect”
    cuibono1969 on April 15, 2012 at 11:17 am said:
    Ah, yes, The Jupiter Effect, 1982. Yet another catastrophe that didn’t quite work out.
    ———–
    Never fell for the Jupiter Effect.

    The book “The Jupiter Effect” was a piece of tripe sold to the gullible to make the authors a fast buck. It has nothing to do with the ongoing research of orbital relationships and solar activity undertaken by astrophysics Phd’s and interested engineers, scholars and laymen.

    REPLY: but it does share one characteristic, lack of posited gravitational effects – Anthony

  172. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 16, 2012 at 8:10 am

    Still waiting for the formal rebuttal. Anything else is just pissing into the wind.

  173. vukcevic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 16, 2012 at 7:28 am

    We are not talking your common garden solar wind, we are talking close circuit ‘electro-magnetic tube’ known as magnetic cloud or magnetic rope, starting and closing at the sun.

    What occurs inside, at whatever velocity, is not dependent on the solar wind outside.
    Please every one notice: not few electrons bobbing around but let’s have it straight and to remember for the future reference:
    …AND CARRY A TOTAL AXIAL CURRENT (IT ) OF ABOUT A BILLION AMPS.
    http://www.ann-geophys.net/24/215/2006/angeo-24-215-2006.pdf page 239, column 2, row 14.

    tallbloke
    This is an ‘electric super-turkey’.

  174. anna v says:

    tallbloke says:

    April 16, 2012 at 6:59 am
    Exoplanets orbiting other stars are identified by the fact that the make the stars they are in orbit around wobble. It is the wobbling that is observed, not the planets. The existence, number, and mass, and approximate orbital distances are inferred from the wobble. .

    In order to study gravitational effects, you need your point of reference to have mass. If mass=0, the dynamic effect of that point is 0.

    The barycenter point has a meaning outside the solar system, where the total mass of the solar system can be assigned to the barycenter and the total solar system can interact with another system galactic or whatever. It is useless for studying internal dynamics because there is no meaning to assign to it the mass of the total solar system ( which is the only physically correct interpretation) and try to see what it does to the sun!!!

    I am talking about the planets taken altogether, then the center of mass of the planets goes around the sun like a satellite . That center of mass can be assigned the mass of all the planets to first order ( because the system has structure corrections may be necessary.), like the moon around the earth. There is dynamics there, but nothing to do with the total barycenter except a mathematical correlation.( As there is correlation with the epicycles in the geocentric system but the epicycles have no meaning as gravitational components).

    What is observed as wobble in a star , is the unbalanced system from which wobble the total center of mass can be estimated. If the planets were invisible, our sun would wobble against the stars and we would be able to find the barycenter of the solar system by the wobble. That is dynamics, the wobble against fixed stars, due to the masses of the planets . To assign dynamics to the barycenter is funny.

  175. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 16, 2012 at 8:10 am
    I agree with Gough that the first few pages are enough, because all the rest hangs on the premises set up in the beginning [in particular equation (2)].

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

    Come on Leif, you’ve been through the mill and know the drill.

  176. anna v says:

    Dr. Deanster says:
    April 16, 2012 at 7:53 am

    Further, as you noted, the Sun pulls the planets, but as anyone knows who has put a ball on a rope, any variation in the speed of the sun’s orbit will have an effect on the forces exerted.

    The gravitational force does not work like a ball on a rope. It works with F=M1*M2/r^2 .
    Furthermore, galilean relativity holds in classical mechanics. If one goes to the system where the sun is at rest, it will be at one of the foci of an elipse, and the CM, or if only one planet, Jupiter, will be making an elipse around the sun following a solution of the equations. What you call “the sun’s orbit” is relative to the rest frame you assume.

  177. vukcevic says:
    April 16, 2012 at 8:27 am
    Please every one notice: not few electrons bobbing around but let’s have it straight and to remember for the future reference: …AND CARRY A TOTAL AXIAL CURRENT (IT ) OF ABOUT A BILLION AMPS.
    Any twisted magnetic structure carries a current. And if you had been honest in your quote you should have noted that the ropes “have axial current densities of about 2µA/km2″ that is 0.000002 amp per square kilometer, an exceedingly weak current density and a very minute turkey. Something to keep in mind for future reference. But in any event [and that is the point]: any change in the magnetic structure and hence the current must take place at the Alfven speed and so cannot propagate upstream as the structure is moving away from the sun ten times faster.

  178. Ulric Lyons says:

    Geoff Sharp says:
    April 16, 2012 at 8:04 am
    “And yet the tidal position is the basis for your JEV theory on solar cycle length copied from Desmoulins and Hung. More snake oil I am thinking.”

    No, just more of your completely unnecessary snake venom as usual. Whether I copied it, or found it out for myself is totally irrelevent to the discussion at hand. And so what if it is the “tidal position”, I don`t think it has anything to do with tides IMO.

  179. Geoff Sharp says:

    tallbloke has posted several times since I asked the question 2 times.

    “Geoff wants to claim the glory to himself and in the memory of the late Carl Smith”

    In a science blog there should be consequences for not answering a question. This seems to be a recurrent problem that is not addressed by tallbloke.

  180. vukcevic says:

    REPLY: but it does share one characteristic, lack of posited gravitational effects – Anthony

    I envy your patience, not realised you read even some of it; in future I’ll be a bit less wasteful of your time.

  181. tallbloke says:

    anna v says:
    April 16, 2012 at 8:27 am
    tallbloke says:
    April 16, 2012 at 6:59 am
    Exoplanets orbiting other stars are identified by the fact that the make the stars they are in orbit around wobble. It is the wobbling that is observed, not the planets. The existence, number, and mass, and approximate orbital distances are inferred from the wobble.

    In order to study gravitational effects, you need your point of reference to have mass. If mass=0, the dynamic effect of that point is 0.

    Incorrect, you can choose any point you like. If you choose an inappropriate one, the calcs get more complicated, but are still transformable.

    It is useless for studying internal dynamics because there is no meaning to assign to it the mass of the total solar system ( which is the only physically correct interpretation) and try to see what it does to the sun!!!

    It doesn’t do anything to the Sun. It represents a sum of forces from the planets, which is a useful shorthand for some purposes. The planets are what do things to the Sun, not the barycentre. They force it to gyrate in a complex motion between the continuously redistributing masses that are the orbiting planets. And if you sum the forces, you find that the Sun gyrates around the centre of mass of the entire system.

    I am talking about the planets taken altogether, then the center of mass of the planets goes around the sun like a satellite . That center of mass can be assigned the mass of all the planets to first order ( because the system has structure corrections may be necessary.), like the moon around the earth. There is dynamics there, but nothing to do with the total barycenter except a mathematical correlation.( As there is correlation with the epicycles in the geocentric system but the epicycles have no meaning as gravitational components).

    No. Epicycles were heuristic approximations. The motion of the Sun relative to the centre of the mass of the entire system is real motion, and precisely calculable. Whether you want to calculate from the Sun as a fixed point or the barycentre is your choice. The same relative motion will be derived whichever way you do it. But the barycentre imparts no forces, the separate masses in motion impart the forces. The barycentre is just a convenient (and real as you see the solar system from outside) locus.

    What is observed as wobble in a star , is the unbalanced system from which wobble the total center of mass can be estimated. If the planets were invisible, our sun would wobble against the stars and we would be able to find the barycenter of the solar system by the wobble. That is dynamics, the wobble against fixed stars, due to the masses of the planets . To assign dynamics to the barycenter is funny.

    Straw man. We are assigning the dynamics to the planets and Sun, and the barycentre is a useful reference point which derives from the sum of the force vectors.

  182. tallbloke says:
    April 16, 2012 at 8:29 am
    We’ve been here before, and you didn’t specify what it was about equation (2) that you thought was wrong. So until you do, and show how that falsifies the paper, your assertion that the Wolff and Patrone mechanism isn’t viable is just that, a bare assertion. As such it contains no falsifiable content, and would quite rightly be rejected by a reviewer.
    Since you did not read the comment, I’ll summarize the situation here: The interchange considered by Wolff and Patrone leaves the fluid elements (apparently filling the spaces into which they have been displaced) yet moving with respect to them; therefore it is valid dynamically, for the purposes of energy computation, only for an interval of time of measure zero, which is insufficient to take the temporal derivatives required to determine subsequent evolution, essential, of course, for assessing stability. Therefore Wolff’s and Patrone’s static interchange is infinitely slow and does not operate in a real star. In a real star the gravitational potential energy difference is likely to be some 10^5 times greater in the (deep) convection zone than the term that Wolff and Patrone retain as being dominant. As Gough points out “W&P have fallen into the trap of many a naive modern physics student of misapplying an initially valid formula [equation (2)] to a situation in which it is not valid”. As simple as that. About appealing to authority: sometimes it is a good idea to consult with a recognized expert.

  183. Geoff Sharp says:

    Ulric Lyons says:
    April 16, 2012 at 8:45 am

    And so what if it is the “tidal position”, I don`t think it has anything to do with tides IMO.

    Ok…if it is nothing to do with tides…what is your mechanism?

  184. Crispin in Johannesburg says:

    @Peter Taylor
    >So, where tidal forces are apparently too weak, and stochastic resonances under-studied, I would suspect another mechanism as yet unknown that correlates with the forces of torque.

    Landscheidt said the effect was, he believed from the rates of acceleration, cause by a displacement of the central denser core of the sun relative to the outer less dense region. In other words, when the centre of mass of the sun is not in its geometric centre it is a ‘disturbance’ I guess you could say. As the solar system barycentre causes the sun to be tossed around (unlike a rigid planet) the heavier and denser core has a sort of sloshing atmosphere around it.

    The high tide in Earth’s oceans on the opposite side of from the moon is directly from the centripetal acceleration of the oceans flinging away from the EM barycentre, and that is with the EMB 1000 km below the surface. If it was some point between the Earth and Moon the effect would be even more pronounced on the far side. With the sun, the rate of change of the position is what is capable of driving solar processes.

    The quote from Landscheidt on the position of the barycentre at the surface of the sun for extended periods was excellent. The fact that the mechanism is still unclear is the hollowest of reasons for rejection a cause-effect relationship. As for the systematic manner in which, particularly, climate scientists dismissed him, I believe it was just part of a general plan to deny that the sun has anything to do with terrestrial climate cycles. If they admitted there was something worth checking out, it was tantamount to agreeing the sun might be important and that would put funds into the hands researchers looking at non-human causes of climate variability.

  185. anna v says:

    tallbloke :
    April 16, 2012 at 8:48 am

    It is futile arguing on this since you do not seem to understand the difference between dynamics and mathematical devices.

    The usefulness of the barycenter comes only when one studies the solar system from outside, not internally. Internally it is just a useful mathematical point correlated with the real dynamics. It certainly does not make the sun woble. If a barycenter had any effect the earth, whose barycenter with the moon races 800 km inside the mantle 24 hours a day would be continually beaten up, like an egg beater. Instead the dynamics of the moon earth system just give tides which are well understood dynamically. The equivalent tides on the sun are of the order of milimeters or so.

  186. vukcevic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    ……….
    If I wasn’t honest I wouldn’t give you exact reference, page, column and line no, just like big round numbers, personal view of the world, you like to quote piddly values; a psychological image of the opponent?
    Yep, but what is surface of Jupiter’s magnetosphere extending to 5AU?
    Estimated at 280*10^15 ( 280 quadrillions ?) sq. km (?)
    Or as you might put it gazillions.
    I’m off to tackle some more ‘urgent’ problems of the global warming.

  187. Geoff Sharp says:

    anna v says:
    April 16, 2012 at 9:14 am

    Internally it is just a useful mathematical point correlated with the real dynamics. It certainly does not make the sun woble.

    Time to go back to school anna.

  188. vukcevic says:
    April 16, 2012 at 9:15 am
    If I wasn’t honest I wouldn’t give you exact reference, page, column and line no, just like big round numbers, personal view of the world, you like to quote piddly values; a psychological image of the opponent?
    If you were honest you would have quoted the 0.0000002 A/km2 in the exact same reference, page, column and line number.

    Yep, but what is surface of Jupiter’s magnetosphere extending to 5AU?
    Estimated at 280*10^15 ( 280 quadrillions ?) sq. km (?)

    With a radius of 100 Jupiter radii [71500 km] the surface on which the solar wind impacts is pi*(100*71500)^2 = 1.6*10^15 square km. The surface of a sphere with a radius of 5.2 AU is 4pi*(5.2*149600000)^2 = 7.6*10^18 km2 or 47350 times larger. That is how tiny Jupiter’s magnetosphere is.

  189. Geoff Sharp says:

    Crispin in Johannesburg says:
    April 16, 2012 at 9:13 am

    The quote from Landscheidt on the position of the barycentre at the surface of the sun for extended periods was excellent.

    Can you elaborate on this quote? It can be taken out of context as tallbloke is about to appreciate.

  190. Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 16, 2012 at 9:27 am
    vukcevic says:
    April 16, 2012 at 9:15 am

    If you were honest you would have quoted the 0.000002 A/km2 in the exact same reference, page, column and immediately preceding the line number you gave.

  191. When it rains it pours [correcting the typo]: With a radius of 100 Jupiter radii [71500 km] the surface on which the solar wind impacts is pi*(100*71500)^2 = 1.6*10^14 square km.

  192. rgbatduke says:

    So strong orbital forcing by itself might be a straw man. It may well be that the forces involved are far too low for this to be a possiblility. But in the stillness of space uninterrupted by other forces for millions of years, who is to say that even very small periodic gravitational fluctuations from the planets might set in motion weakly forced periodic oscillation.

    An the third possibility of course is internally generated nonlinear oscillation such as in the classic Belousov-Zhabotinsky reactor, which requires no outside forcing.

    Well said, and argued.

    To clarify the argument — negative proofs in science are always tricky, because Nature (not the journal;-) does sometimes surprise the hell out of us. I agree with Anthony that tidal forces on the Sun are weak, but even on the Earth tidal forces are enormously weak. Yet they lift a fast quantity of water up the Bay of Fundy every day, not because of actual “lift” but because of amplification and focussing of a long period travelling wave that never quite dies away, a driven sloshing motion.

    With only two primary tidal drivers — the moon and the sun — the Earth’s tides are both complex and yet simple. We can understand them without necessarily being able to predict where and when they will occur a priori given a knowledge only of the orbits and masses and the shape and depth of the oceans and coastlines. If I looked at the magnitude of the tidal force — so small it can hardly be (directly) measured — and were asked “can this force lift water up ten or more meters every day” I would laugh hysterically — of course not. And yet it does — I’ve been there and ridden the bore and it is wild — whitewater rafting upstream in cocoa-colored ocean water surging ashore.

    The Sun is not the Earth, of course. No oceans, no continents. But does this mean that tides are incapable of driving any sort of resonance or worse, modulating existing internal chaotic nonlinear oscillators so that there are quasi-periodicities between them but not true periodicities? I don’t think so. And the Sun does have structure (I suspect a lot of unknown structure at that), which means that even weak perturbations can be nonlinearly amplified in unexpected ways.

    Hence the article makes me uncomfortable, because it seems to be claiming too much. A much better claim would be that tidal forces are indeed much weaker than many secular forces that already exist in the Sun and hence do not directly affect solar state. That’s perfectly reasonable, and I can do precisely the same sort of estimate for the tidal forces acting on the Earth and arrive at precisely the same conclusion. They do not suffice to keep me from having tired feet during spring tides. But I would say that you cannot even strongly argue that they do not cause (or not important factors in) any part of the various solar cycles. In order to make that claim (strongly!) one would have to be able to explain those cycles in other ways, without needing planetary tides as an input and with equations of motion that were insensitive to small long-period perturbations.

    Has this been done? Note well that the time scales we are talking about are decadal on up — this has nothing whatsoever to do with the timescales of local motion in the sun. The effect of Jupiter on the Sun should be basically to create a very weak standing wave with the rough period of the solar day, a running bulge as it were, that lags the line between the solar center and Jupiter. Over time, this slight asymmetry exerts a gravitational on the sun, slowing its rotation and transferring some of its angular momentum out to Jupiter (and vice versa), just as the moon is very slowly slowing the Earth’s rotation due to the torque produced by its tidal bulge.

    Here there are a number of puzzles. The Sun’s surface rotates more rapidly at the equator than at the poles, where the tidal countertorque is maximum at the equator and minimum at the poles. This suggests that yes, the internal dynamics that maintains this state of affairs is much stronger than the tidal forces that would if anything twist the sun’s layers the other way. However, it also suggests that the actual torque exerted by planetary tides is being strongly coupled into other motions within the Sun. Since those couplings are the very forces that establish the patterns over long time scales, it might well be the case that small modulations in the planetary torque(s) suffice to trigger secular changes in those patterns.

    Before I am slapped down by Leif and Anthony acting like tag team wrestlers, this is far from a proof that it does. But note where the burden of proof lies. A paper has asserted that the tidal forces do not have any such effect because they are too weak, and it makes this assertion in full ignorance of the forces and nonlinear dynamics that are, in fact, responsible for clearly documented long term periodicities and quasiperiodicities. I would say they have proven no such thing. I’m not even sure that they’ve contributed to the argument. That the tidal forces are relatively weak has long been known, but weakness is not sufficient in a self-organized open nonlinear system, as such systems are notorious for amplifying selected noise, let alone weak periodic signals.

    rgb

  193. Bart says:

    Myrrh says:
    April 16, 2012 at 12:29 am

    “Nope. It uses Sagnac…”

    The Sagnac delay is a relativistic effect. In classical theory, the light pulse going in the direction of the rotation would be traveling at a speed c plus the velocity of the emitter, and vice versa for the opposing pulse. Both pulses would arrive at the detector at the same time. The theory of relativity, however, says both light pulses will travel at the same speed c. Thus, one has a longer path to travel, and one a shorter, at the same velocity, so there is a difference in time of arrival at the detector.

    Moreover, it is just on of several terms which must be corrected in GPS signals according to relativistic theory. These include first order corrections for the GPS satellite velocity and the Earth’s gravitational field, as well as the receiver velocity and height above the geoid.

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

    “The sun is pulling the planets and not the other way around. It is as if you said that the moon pulls the earth around it, where what it does at most is create the tides; and we know that the tides on the sun due to the planetary pull are just a few milimeters or so.”

    For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The Sun pulls on the planets, and the planets pull on the Sun. If you calculate the total angular momentum relative to the barycenter, it is constant.

    tallbloke says:
    April 16, 2012 at 6:59 am

    “Because the Sun is not a rigid body all the way through, there is both elastic and plastic deformation as it responds to the differential tidal forces it is subjected to, as it heaves around the SSB in a complex dance which looks like a clover leaf for around 50 years out of 180, and quite chaotically the rest of the time.”

    It does not “heave” about the SSB. I think the conceptual problem here is elucidated by the post below, so let’s jump there.

    Dr. Deanster says:
    April 16, 2012 at 7:53 am

    “Further, as you noted, the Sun pulls the planets, but as anyone knows who has put a ball on a rope, any variation in the speed of the sun’s orbit will have an effect on the forces exerted.”

    But, gravity is special. It is not like heavng a ball at the end of a rope. When you do that, the rope pulls at a specific point, and stresses are created in the material because they are not attached to to rope, but only to the rest of the ball. Gravity acts like a bundle of ropes attached to every single particle of the ball. Insomuch as the gravitational field is uniform, every particle experiences the same tug. So, there is no stress induced except to the extent that the gravitational field is not uniform, i.e., the tidal forces.

    Movement relative to the SSB from gravitational forces does not stress the Sun like a ball being twirled at the end of a rope – more like a ball being twirled encased in a finely woven net constraining every particle. Where there is no relative stress, there is no effect on the body.

  194. Bart says:

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

    “The sun is pulling the planets and not the other way around. It is as if you said that the moon pulls the earth around it, where what it does at most is create the tides; and we know that the tides on the sun due to the planetary pull are just a few milimeters or so.”

    Oh and, as to millimeters, see my post here. The tides for these compressible gases will be a very complicated solution of the Navier-Stokes equations. I do not think you can reasonably assert that they will only be millimeters based on equi-potential surfaces. The diurnal bulge of the Earth’s atmosphere certainly does not hew to an equipotential surface.

  195. rgbatduke says:
    April 16, 2012 at 9:34 am
    Since those couplings are the very forces that establish the patterns over long time scales, it might well be the case that small modulations in the planetary torque(s) suffice to trigger secular changes in those patterns.
    Over millions or more years that may happen. The issue is if it happens on time scales of centuries and shorter.

  196. Bart says:
    April 16, 2012 at 9:44 am
    The diurnal bulge of the Earth’s atmosphere certainly does not hew to an equipotential surface.
    Because it is not gravitationally induced, but is due to heating [by the Sun] and resulting expansion of the air.

  197. Geoff Sharp says: April 16, 2012 at 9:00 am
    “Ok…if it is nothing to do with tides…what is your mechanism?”

    The mechanism is linked to the tides as I already proved in my previous paper by showing that by considering their frequencies and phases + the dynamo cycle is is possible toreconstruct all known solar decadal, multidacadal, secular and millennial patterns.

    N. Scafetta, “Multi-scale harmonic model for solar and climate cyclical variation throughout the Holocene based on Jupiter-Saturn tidal frequencies plus the 11-year solar dynamo cycle.” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics in press (2012).

    http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Scafetta_JStides.pdf

    About the energetic calculations, they just need to be done correctly by taking into account the right physics. That is all.

    The argument that the influence of planetary attractions on the solar tachocline is small as claimed by Dirk K. Callebaut, Cornelis de Jager, Silvia Duhau, simply means that the proposed mechanism is not the right way to do the calculations.

    And similar arguments were already known since the 19th century. The tides from the planets are small: so what? It is well known! If they were big, there would be no debate!

    In science, when people try to understand a physical phenomenon in any field it is possible to do the calculations or the experiments in an infinity of wrong ways and do not find the right result!
    Where is the great news!

    Callebaut et al. can write 300,000 papers by using the same logic: possible titles are the following:

    paper #2: the tides are small at 2 Km above the tachocline;
    paper #3, the tides are small at 3 Km above the tachocline;
    paper #4: the tides are small at 4 Km above the tachocline;
    paper #5, the tides are small at 5 Km above the tachocline;
    ….
    ….
    …..
    paper #300,000, the tides are small at 300,000 Km above the tachocline, that is at the solar surface.

    Never mind that in my paper about the auroras I calculated the tides at the Earth’s orbit and they were several hundred of kilometers wide!

    In the 19th century people did not know about the physical mechanism (nuclear fusion) that was causing the sun to shine. People proposed the most extravagant theories that were found to be unsatisfactory. However, nobody concluded that because the luminosity mechanism was still unknown, the sun was not shining!

    The issue is what is the right way to do the calculations because the empirical findings are clear!
    Wait and see :)

  198. vukcevic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: April 16, 2012 at 9:27 am
    If you were honest you would have quoted the 0.0000002 A/km2 in the exact same reference, page, column and line number.

    Nop. You know you are wrong.
    The current density is meaningless since it is function of distance, so move one meter forward, it is no good any more, unless you suggesting:
    a) flux rope cross section is constant along its length, which is not correct or
    b) there is a miraculous rise in the current along the tube’s length which is not correct
    Therefore correct quote is
    …AND CARRY A TOTAL AXIAL CURRENT (IT ) OF ABOUT A BILLION AMPS. a proper way to describe the event. Tube expands, cross section increases and density falls, while total current remains more or less constant. until it hits a magnetosphere.
    If it makes you happy, you win, but go and have a rest, you have been at it for hours.

  199. Geoff Sharp says:

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

    I am still waiting for an answer for the question posed to tallbloke many hours ago and he has replied to other comments in the interim.

    Skimming papers and picking comments out of context is not a good look. Theodore makes it very clear in all his papers that the PTC event (what you think is a solar downturn) is a mechanism for changing phase. ie phase reversal. Show me in one of his papers where the PTC event is linked with grand minima. I find it lame we are even discussing this issue, you have no idea. Do you understand what the PTC event is?

    It seems as though tallbloke can wax on imposing his views, but when asked a solid question here he ignores, and if posed on his own website the question is “moderated” and does not appear.

    WUWT?

  200. TimH says:

    Ulric Lyons says:
    April 16, 2012 at 7:30 am

    “Given a very large quantity of high quality correlations of short term solar variability, including successful astronomically based based forecasts of the most practical kind, i.e. terrestrial weather predictions, there is no way planetary influences can be ruled out.”

    That is what I find fascinating. Perhaps the “missing mass” is the biggest contributor with planetary distribution loosely following that. I know that’s not science, but fun to imagine none-the-less.

  201. Geoff Sharp says:

    Nicola Scafetta says:
    April 16, 2012 at 9:53 am

    Geoff Sharp says: April 16, 2012 at 9:00 am
    “Ok…if it is nothing to do with tides…what is your mechanism?”

    The mechanism is linked to the tides as I already proved

    Nicola, I am posing the question to Ulric re JEV effects on the solar cycle length.

  202. vukcevic says:
    April 16, 2012 at 9:56 am
    The current density is meaningless since it is function of distance
    The full quote is “on average the WIND MCs are just under one day long, are 1/4 AU in diameter, have axial fluxes of 10^21 Mx, have axial current densities of about 2µA/km2, and carry a total axial current(IT) of about a billion amps”
    The magnetic flux is rooted in the sun so is the same everywhere in the rope. It is the flux that determines the current density and the total current. The billion amps is not concentrated in a thin wire but is the integrated current density over the cross section of the rope, which takes a day to pass the Earth, so the amps per second hitting the earth is only 10,000 on average.

    If it makes you happy, you win, but go and have a rest, you have been at it for hours.
    It is not about winning, but about your education and that does not seem to have improved. Dealing with the blog is done on the side and does not require much effort.

  203. Nicola Scafetta says:
    April 16, 2012 at 9:53 am
    The issue is what is the right way to do the calculations because the empirical findings are clear!
    Actually, they are not. A particularly example of bad science and empirical findings is your Auroral paper as we have discussed at length already [so no need to harp on its flaws again].

  204. rgbatduke says:

    Over millions or more years that may happen. The issue is if it happens on time scales of centuries and shorter.

    Fair enough, although I’m confused as to how you can eyeball this particular dynamical system and claim that there is no possible mesoscale dynamics capable of being affected when — wait for it — there is mesoscale dynamics that has pronounced periodicities that is precisely what we are addressing.

    Even in a coupled dynamo model, if the dynamo loops are themselves subject to being lifted up and dropped down by a tidal force creating a bulge, even a small change in the that force might produce large changes in the areas under the bulge. If there are resonances in the coupled loops, changing the shape of the loops changes the resonances. If the resonances are involved in energy transport, modulating them even in small ways can have all sorts of nonlinear feedback.

    How, exactly, are all of these possibilities excluded? Are you asserting that there is no tidal bulge/standing wave of the sun or that it does not change, or what? I ask in all ignorance, but just as one can play a theramin by waving one’s hands around “nearby” or alter modal patterns of a chaotic system with a proverbial flap of a butterfly’s wings (and at frequencies, note well, that look nothing like the wing beat of said butterfly) I’m not certain we know enough about solar dynamics to be able to conclude that this issue is in fact proven one way or another, especially by the paper in question. Perhaps you do, but if that is so I would expect you to be able to completely explain and predict the solar cycles we observe now in terms of a sufficient model.

    Is this not a fair question? If you know the dynamics well enough to be certain that small (but systematic and persistent) perturbations have no chance of being nonlinearly amplified and (perhaps) acting as a resonant switch between two or more chaotic modes that represent the locally stable but distinct states that’s fine, but lacking that knowledge I would again assert that all the study above (and otehr studies and data) have proven is: a) The tidal force is weak compared to internal forces that drive the dynamics; b) so far, looking for a pure fourier correspondence between orbital periods and solar cycles shows some coincidences — but nothing convincing in favor of the hypothesis that planetary orbits are a causal influence.

    a) isn’t really surprising, and isn’t a sufficient argument given that the Earth directly contradicts it by having weak tidal forces and yet large observable phenomena associated with them.

    b) is the much stronger argument. Those observable phenomena on the Earth have an absolutely clear fourier signal that positively cries out “caused by sun and moon working together” long before you even figure out gravity, let alone tidal pseudoforces and tidal bulges. But does b) apply to the Sun? Here the very weakness of the tidal forces is in their favor! If they were a direct influence (as they might be if Jupiter were where, say, Mercury is:-) there would very likely be some sort of fourier components signature as the otherwise chaotic Sun slaved to the strong driving signal. But if the Sun is actually chaotic, the argument inverts — in that case you’ve got a bunch of coupled oscillators driven into the nonlinear regime to where it is quasiperiodic or multimodal. The tidal bulge (however weak) is one of the modes coupling to everything else, but the period of the signal is a solar day (give or take), not 60 years! What happens over 60 years (or whatever) is the modulation of the amplitude of the signal that is beating with the many other natural cycles already present.

    Since we don’t know what they are, or how they work, it could be that this modulation is very important indeed — sometimes. Other times the phases and non-Markovian history could be such that it isn’t important at all. The Moon may have to be in the seventh house and Jupiter aligned with Mars before peace can guide the planets and love steer the stars, that sort of thing, where the modes being coupled to may not be periodic oscillations in the first place!

    Again, my only objection is that this is not proof or demonstration that planetary orbits are not a “cause” (a, not the) — a factor that is important, but only when other conditions are just right. It is just an observation that if they are important, we cannot establish that importance — so far.

    I don’t see why adding the qualification is a problem. When I teach Maxwell’s equations, I do try to teach my students that the “0” on the right side of Gauss’s Law for Magnetism (and the missing magnetic current in Faraday’s Law) don’t mean that there are no magnetic monopoles, only that we haven’t found any magnetic monopoles, looking rather hard — so far. That failure to discover them — so far — does not discourage people from looking for them, perhaps in exotic places like Lagrange points or at the center of gravity of asteroids, where gravity can bind them (as electromagnetic forces cannot).

    Stating that they do not exist is bad science, even in E&M. So is saying that tidal forces exerted by the planets do not cause any aspect of solar cycles. Indeed, it is even worse science, because the physics is far more complicated and is poorly understood and involves things like magnetohydrodynamics in a plasma surrounding an ongoing thermogravitonuclear explosion with enormous energy flow and clearly self-organized macroscopic dynamics on many length and time scales, the precise arena where even a very weak perturbation can have a large effect.

    So let’s agree to just say that no one has offered convincing evidence that they cause them in the form of either argument or evidence — so far.

    rgb

  205. vukcevic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: April 16, 2012 at 10:19 am
    ……………
    Nope.
    one ampere equals one coulomb per second
    One billon amperes equals one billion coulombs per second.
    Back to school.

  206. izen says:

    @- Pamela Gray says April 16, 2012 at 6:51 am
    “Izen, is your 20% including the water vapor connection or just the teeny, tiny rise in CO2 ppm itself? If you are including water vapor, this affect can be measured in terms of relative humidity. In CO2 theory, we should be seeing an increase in water vapor, thus relative humidity.”

    The 20% refers to the approximate proportion of the GHE that is attributable to the CO2 alone. Obviously this varies according to the humidity, and is much more than this at altitude when the lapse rate takes the temperature below freezing reducing the humidity to negligible levels.

    At lower altitudes humidity however is measurably increasing as a result of rising temperatures with a consequent increase in the GHE. –

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7163/abs/nature06207.html

    “We identify a significant global-scale increase in surface specific humidity that is attributable mainly to human influence. Specific humidity is found to have increased in response to rising temperatures, with relative humidity remaining approximately constant.”

  207. Leif Svalgaard says: April 16, 2012 at 10:23 am

    Leif, my paper about the aurora does not have any error. In that paper I have proved that by taking 200 years of mid-latitude aurora data, that record presents the same oscillations of the solar system.

    It is only your fantasy to find errors where they do not exist. You simply do not understand these issues that are evidently too complicated for you. If I were to publish the shameful comments that you wrote when you improperly reviewed my paper that little of respect that some people still have on you will vanish complitely.

    Of course there are open issues, and not everything is clearly understood yet. But you, essentially, do not understand that in frontier science it is normal to have open issues that are not yet fully explained. You think that everytime an issue is not fully understood, the entire topic needs to be dismissed despite that other findings support it.

    The empirical findings about the necessity of considering the planetary tidal forcing on the sun are evident, as proved in my papers, in particular the last one that you have not understood at all. And the teoretically findings are also evident to me, just wait.

    At the moment you can enjoy reading this comment

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/15/new-paper-in-the-journal-of-atmospheric-and-solar-terrestrial-physics-demonstrates-that-planets-do-not-cause-solar-cycles/#comment-957826

    which I found quite correct, and I say these same things in my paper.

    You are simply been petulant as a person that does not have any good idea to propose, but just speak and speak and speak, without never listening.

  208. Geoff Sharp says:
    April 16, 2012 at 10:00 am
    It seems as though tallbloke can wax on imposing his views, but when asked a solid question here he ignores
    He has a phrase for that: “Argumentum ad ignore’em?”

  209. Bart says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 16, 2012 at 9:51 am

    “Because it is not gravitationally induced, but is due to heating [by the Sun] and resulting expansion of the air.”

    True enough. So, that analogy fails. How would one calculate the gravitational deformation? Surely, this is a very complicated problem. Has anyone actually assayed a solution to it which is widely agreed upon?

  210. Nicola Scafetta says:
    April 16, 2012 at 11:01 am
    If I were to publish the shameful comments that you wrote when you improperly reviewed my paper that little of respect that some people still have on you will vanish complitely.
    I have already urged you to publish the complete review report from all reviewers, the responses from the editor and your complaints and the response from the head of the editorial board. Make it a complete and nice post and submit it to Anthony.

  211. Bart says:
    April 16, 2012 at 11:03 am
    How would one calculate the gravitational deformation? Surely, this is a very complicated problem. Has anyone actually assayed a solution to it which is widely agreed upon?
    the standard solution [not complicated] is shown on the last slide of http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202011%20SH34B-08.pdf

  212. populartechnology says:

    [snip . . please post with content . . thank you . . kbmod]

  213. vukcevic says:
    April 16, 2012 at 10:47 am
    One billon amperes equals one billion coulombs per second.
    The billion amperes is spread over a cross section that has a with of 1/4 AU. At the speed of the rope it takes a day for the Earth to cross that area, so the Earth never sees a billion amperes, but only 10,000 A during any given second. Put it differently: the total current in the part of the rope that the Earth crosses in one second is 10,000 A. Most of that current does not hit the Earth, but passes north and south of the Earth.

  214. Crispin in Johannesburg says:

    @Bart

    “Movement relative to the SSB from gravitational forces does not stress the Sun like a ball being twirled at the end of a rope – more like a ball being twirled encased in a finely woven net constraining every particle. Where there is no relative stress, there is no effect on “the body.”

    So that ‘even attraction by the equivalent of trillions of strings’ would explain why there is no high tide on the side of the Earth that is opposite the Moon. Oh, wait….

  215. peterhodges says:

    Bart says:
    April 16, 2012 at 9:39 am
    Myrrh says:
    April 16, 2012 at 12:29 am

    Bart, Myrrh is trying to tell you that you are confusing theory with reality.

    You guys are talking about real physical effects, which have nothing to do with Einstein’s theories of special and general relativity. REAL effects!

    No one uses Einstein’s equations for anything…except for cosmologists counting the angels on the head of the pin.

    Someone above doubted orbital resonance…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_resonance

    Numerous people have mentioned it…the Solar System is not a linear system, it is Chaotic.

    http://www.google.com/search?q=solar%20system%20chaos

  216. Leif Svalgaard says: April 16, 2012 at 11:42 am

    So, you are claiming that you know about mysterious and secret arguments against my paper that you cannot repeat in public! This is funny.

    There are only three possibilities:

    1) you have already made public your arguments many times on Anthony’s blog (for example, the planetary tides on the sun are small), but they are not really convincing and are quite naive indeed.

    2) you have not made public your arguments on this blog because they are so shameful that you are the first one who does not believe in them.

    3) some mixing between case #1 and #2.

    So, what is the secret argument, Leif? Why don’y you share it with us?

    About the tides on the Bay on Fundy, this is a video

    Note that in that location the equation would only imply tides of a few decimeters, while the observation gives several meters. In the sun, the things are even more interesting.

  217. vukcevic says:
    April 16, 2012 at 10:47 am
    One billon amperes equals one billion coulombs per second
    1 Coulomb is the charge of 6*10^18 electrons, so one billion Coulombs per seconds is 6*10^27 electrons per second. One electron has a mass of 9*10^(-31) kg, so 1 billion Coulombs has a mass of 6*10^26 * 9 * 10^(-31) = 54*10^(-5) kg or 0.00054 kg if carried by electrons and 1836 times larger is carried by protons = 1.0 kg. The Earth intercepts a VERY small fraction of that: the ratio of the cross section of the Earth or its magnetosphere to a circle with a diameter of 1/4 AU or 37 million km. The effects are infinitesimal compared to the rope.

  218. Ulric Lyons says:

    rgbatduke says:
    April 16, 2012 at 10:43 am
    “so far, looking for a pure fourier correspondence between orbital periods and solar cycles shows some coincidences — but nothing convincing in favor of the hypothesis that planetary orbits are a causal influence.”

    I disagree: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/15/new-paper-in-the-journal-of-atmospheric-and-solar-terrestrial-physics-demonstrates-that-planets-do-not-cause-solar-cycles/#comment-957589

  219. rgbatduke says:
    April 16, 2012 at 10:43 am
    Even in a coupled dynamo model, if the dynamo loops are themselves subject to being lifted up and dropped down by a tidal force creating a bulge, even a small change in the that force might produce large changes in the areas under the bulge. If there are resonances in the coupled loops, changing the shape of the loops changes the resonances. If the resonances are involved in energy transport, modulating them even in small ways can have all sorts of nonlinear feedback.
    As is explained in the paper under discussion the sun’s convection zone consists of millions of large [Texas-size] convection cells that randomly move up and down a thousand kilometer at speeds on 1 km/second with a life-time of a quarter of an hour. In addition there are tens of thousands horizontal flows with a life time of 20 hours and speeds of 0.5 km/sec. These movements completely wash out any millimeter-sized influence on the scale of days, month, or years and exclude resonances because of the random nature of the movements

  220. tallbloke says:

    anna v says:
    April 16, 2012 at 9:14 am

    tallbloke :
    April 16, 2012 at 8:48 am

    It is futile arguing on this since you do not seem to understand the difference between dynamics and mathematical devices.

    In his previous response Tallbloke said:
    “The planets are what do things to the Sun, not the barycentre. They force it to gyrate in a complex motion between the continuously redistributing masses that are the orbiting planets. And if you sum the forces, you find that the Sun gyrates around the centre of mass of the entire system.”
    And
    “Whether you want to calculate from the Sun as a fixed point or the barycentre is your choice. The same relative motion will be derived whichever way you do it. But the barycentre imparts no forces, the separate masses in motion impart the forces. The barycentre is just a convenient (and real as you see the solar system from outside) locus.”
    And
    “We are assigning the dynamics to the planets and Sun, and the barycentre is a useful reference point which derives from the sum of the force vectors.”

    I am forced to agree that discussing this with you is futile because no matter how many times I demonstrate to you the fact that we are well aware of where the forces originate and arrive, you still misinterpret what we say in order to make it look like we are trying to say the barycentre itself conveys the forces. It’s a straw man argument, and you are making yourself look silly by trying to stick it in our mouths.

    Internally it is just a useful mathematical point correlated with the real dynamics. It certainly does not make the sun wobble.

    We didn’t say it did. The planets make the Sun wobble, just like all the Sun’s with exoplanets we see out in space.

    The equivalent tides on the sun are of the order of milimeters or so.

    Agreed, but this doesn’t stop Jupiter and the other gas Giants causing the Sun to wobble by 2.2 solar diameters as it swings around the point in space which is the centre of mass of the Sun and moving planets.

  221. Bart says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 16, 2012 at 11:45 am

    “…the standard solution [not complicated] is shown on the last slide…”

    Again, this is based on equi-potential surfaces. However, with a compressible medium, I do not think it is a reasonable assumption.

    Crispin in Johannesburg says:
    April 16, 2012 at 12:09 pm

    “So that ‘even attraction by the equivalent of trillions of strings’ would explain why there is no high tide on the side of the Earth that is opposite the Moon. Oh, wait….”

    That is the tidal effect. As I said, the degree to which the gravitational field is non-uniform across the body is the only effect possible. So, talking about “heaving about the SSB” is a misplaced analogy. There is no similarity here with, e.g., the centrifugal “force” one feels on turning a tight curve. That “force” is actually the force of your car seat tugging against your back side, and the stress induced by the rest of your body trying to keep up with your back side is what you feel. If your entire body were being accelerated in precisely the same manner at every point, you wouldn’t feel a thing.

  222. Poptech says:

    [snip - Even though you are a skeptic, take your spiteful prose elsewhere, if you want to put your name to it while criticizing others who do, I'll publish it, otherwise kindly shutup - Anthony]

  223. tallbloke says:

    rgbatduke says:
    April 16, 2012 at 9:34 am

    Well said Robert. I’d just add that while the forces acting over a solar day cancel in 25 days, the forces acting as the planets move above and below the solar equator go on for much longer. ~6 years a side for Jupiter, ~30 for Saturn ~86 for Uranus ~165 for Neptune. Whatever the interior of the sun looks like, it has a gradient with discontinuity in it at around 0.7r, and so there will be a significant quadrupole moment built up over years by the ‘z’ axis motion of the planets relative to the Solar spin axis.

    I liked the rafting story too. Everything’s bigger in America. :-)

  224. Bart says:

    peterhodges says:
    April 16, 2012 at 12:20 pm

    “No one uses Einstein’s equations for anything…except for cosmologists counting the angels on the head of the pin.”

    You are wrong.

    Einstein’s theory has been through the ringer over a century of very bitter disputation. But, it passed every test with flying colors, and its competitors failed one after the other. If your idea for countering the AGW tide relies on debunking Einstein, you have zero hope of prevailing.

  225. Poptech says:

    Afraid to have anyone read the truth? I had no idea making factual statements was “spiteful”. I’ll never put my name to anything because I respect my privacy.

    REPLY: And as I said, I respect Dr. Svalgaard and Steve Mosher for having the courage to put their name to their words, even though I often disagree with them. If you want to slime them, step up, otherwise shove off. – Anthony

  226. tallbloke says:

    Bart says:
    April 16, 2012 at 9:39 am

    Movement relative to the SSB from gravitational forces does not stress the Sun like a ball being twirled at the end of a rope – more like a ball being twirled encased in a finely woven net constraining every particle. Where there is no relative stress, there is no effect on the body.

    Not due to gravity to be sure. Swinging through Leif’s ‘frozen in magnetic field’ might do something though.

  227. Nicola Scafetta says:
    April 16, 2012 at 12:26 pm
    So, you are claiming that you know about mysterious and secret arguments against my paper
    I have already urged you to publish the complete review report from all reviewers, the responses from the editor and your complaints and the response from the head of the editorial board. Make it a complete and nice post and submit it to Anthony.

    [REPLY: Yes, happy to publish it - Anthony]

    Bart says:
    April 16, 2012 at 1:01 pm
    “…the standard solution [not complicated] is shown on the last slide…”
    Again, this is based on equi-potential surfaces. However, with a compressible medium, I do not think it is a reasonable assumption.

    It is based on the assumption that the gas [fluid] is allowed to flow freely, i.e. as compressible as you can get.

    Poptech says:
    April 16, 2012 at 1:02 pm
    scientist who does not publish on climate science [Leif Svalgaard] for their opinion on climate science. This is obviously the most logical way to proceed.
    Thank you for seeing this so clearly. For your information, among the 24 most cited of my papers, four [with a total number of citations to them of 168] were advocating a possible influence on weather and climate of solar activity.

  228. Bart says: April 16, 2012 at 1:12 pm

    Putting Einstein agaist the AGW crowd would be intersting. How many people in the society will advocate AGW if by doing so they will need to reject Einstein?

    Leif vs. Einstein: who will win?

    Let us wait and see :)

  229. tallbloke says:
    April 16, 2012 at 1:23 pm
    Not due to gravity to be sure. Swinging through Leif’s ‘frozen in magnetic field’ might do something though.
    to the planets, not the other way around. And your ‘might do’ is so weak. The best riposte is Tweedledee’s: “if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn’t, it ain’t.”

  230. tallbloke says:

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

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

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

    Finally. Thanks Leif, I’ll pass that to Charles Wolff for comment,

    As simple as that. About appealing to authority: sometimes it is a good idea to consult with a recognized expert.

    Good to know you know that.

  231. Bart says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 16, 2012 at 1:23 pm

    Me: “Again, this is based on equi-potential surfaces. However, with a compressible medium, I do not think it is a reasonable assumption.”
    You:”It is based on the assumption that the gas [fluid] is allowed to flow freely, i.e. as compressible as you can get.”

    Perhaps I have not been clear. It is reasonable when the fluid in question is incompressible. Then, you cannot have mass build up in nonlinear fashion and everything has to end up evenly distributed. The change in pressure is proportional to the change in height, with the constant of proportionality dependent on the gravitational force.

    When, on the other hand, you have a compressible medium, the density depends on temperature and, if you have a (at least) linear lapse rate, the pressure becomes exponential, with the exponent dependent on the gravitational force. This is fairly standard. It is on page 38 of my undergrad fluid mechanics textbook.

    I do not have time to work through the equations right now, but with a nonlinear dependence on gravity, I do not see that it is straightforward, or even likely, that the ultimate distribution should conform to an equi-potential surface.

  232. Peter Taylor says:

    Thanks Leif for your answers….so I would think that an accreting stellar disc would gain spin momentum from the incoming dust and its frozen magnetics…?
    I did argue with some NASA solar expert about the possibility of an electron flow back to the Sun and he finally agreed there WAS a flow, though he didn’t think it actually went INTO the Sun. Was Alfven wrong about the back-current? I note that his theory of an electric-arc effect did not gain favour. I am still puzzled by what can accelerate the solar wind – still accelerating at earth’s orbit distance, and where the mass actually goes at the end of the system, even if it is not completely closed. But then, I am just seeking to understand these things – staying open to the potential of a mechanism we do not yet understand to explain the correlations. Thanks again for your time and persistence.

  233. [REPLY: Yes, happy to publish it - Anthony]

    Anthony, where is the argument against my findings? Why Leif cannot say it by himself?

    What happened with that journal was that the biased editor, after my complains about the evident editorial dishonesty, asked Leif to have a debate with me on the journal by making his comments and my rebuttal open, and Leif refused. Now he changed idea, apparently. He can write back to that journal and tell them that he wants to debate now.

    Why should I put those comments on your blog? There are just a long list of no-senses which are not different from the nosenses Leif has already said plus some other extremely shameful things.

    In science only the scientific arguments matter, everything else does not.

    So, Anthony, where is the scientific argument?

    Are there mathematical errors in my analysis? where?
    Are there physical errors? where?
    Are there philosophical errors? where?

    This is what matters.

    You are very naive in trusting Leif, Anthony.

    Above I showed a video about the tides on the Bay of Fundy. By using Leif’s equations and the equations used by Callebaut, de Jager and Duhau, what you see in the Bay of Fundy would be impossible: there is a 100 factor amplification from those equations.

    Tidal effects cannot be understood without studying amplification mechanisms, which in the sun are numerous and far more powerful than what you see on the Bay of Fundy.

    People do not even understand the amplification mechanisms of the ocean tides. What makes you believe that Leif understand solar dynamics?

    For example, did Leif propose a model to explain the observed solar patterns at multiple scales as I did in my latest paper? Where is it?

    REPLY: I’ve met both of you personally. It conduct here that differentiates. Not playing this game Nicola, put up of shut up time – Anthony

  234. Poptech says:

    And as I said, I respect Dr. Svalgaard and Steve Mosher for having the courage to put their name to their words, even though I often disagree with them. If you want to slime them, step up, otherwise shove off.

    Factually stating that Steven Mosher is not a scientist and Leif Svalgaard does not publish on climate science does not “slime” them. Come on!

    REPLY: Phrased that way, not a problem (except that Leif has proven you wrong) but your previous posts are still unacceptable – take a 24 hour time out. – Anthony

  235. tallbloke says:

    Geoff Sharp says:
    April 16, 2012 at 3:31 am
    Theodore makes it very clear in all his papers that the PTC event (what you think is a solar downturn) is a mechanism for changing phase. ie phase reversal.

    It’s not that I think the events were solar downturns. They were solar downturns.
    Theodore said they were in the first two sentences of the quote too.

    Your offer of a guest post is 2 years late, and considering your recent censorship performance I would not entertain the idea.

    Good. Saves me the hassle. Your site is still linked from mine though, and I wish you every success with your theory. Several methods come up with quite similar results for the solar slowdown, one or more will turn out to be directly related to the underlying causes. In our lifetimes hopefully.

    I am still wanting to know what this comment on your blog meant?
    “Geoff wants to claim the glory to himself and in the memory of the late Carl Smith”

    You were there when I said it , so you know. Here’s the full context so your audience can get the gory details if they wish.

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/04/11/some-thoughts-about-the-solar-system-barycentre/

    Specifically here’s the full quote around your clipped half sentence:
    Ian: It’s regrettable, but there it is. I always take care to mention the pioneers and current theorists when I write articles on this subject. Geoff wants to claim the glory to himself and in the memory of the late Carl Smith, and takes umbrage when I mention the other pioneer’s work in relation to his claims. Ray Tomes had a stand up argument with Landsche,,t at a conference about the Jose 179 year and the 171 year cycles years before Geoff came on the scene. Your own analysis is more thorough and informative, and much appreciated.

  236. Nicola Scafetta says:
    April 16, 2012 at 1:28 pm
    Leif vs. Einstein: who will win?
    What nonsense is that? You have gone off the rail here.

    tallbloke says:
    April 16, 2012 at 1:37 pm
    Finally. Thanks Leif, I’ll pass that to Charles Wolff for comment
    ‘Finally’ is nonsense. You had the Gough comment all along. Pass that onto Wolff too.

    “sometimes it is a good idea to consult with a recognized expert”
    Good to know you know that.

    You didn’t seem to know that.

    Bart says:
    April 16, 2012 at 1:48 pm
    When, on the other hand, you have a compressible medium, the density depends on temperature and, if you have a (at least) linear lapse rate, the pressure becomes exponential, with the exponent dependent on the gravitational force.
    Solar activity is generally believed to take place in a narrow layer near the tachocline, so the gravitational force [and pressure and temperature] is very nearly constant in the region of generation where the tidal force is supposed to work its magic. In addition the tidal displacements are small, so there are no significant variations of the solar variables.

    Peter Taylor says:
    April 16, 2012 at 1:55 pm
    Thanks Leif for your answers….so I would think that an accreting stellar disc would gain spin momentum from the incoming dust and its frozen magnetics…?
    When the star is first forming it acquires a large angular momentum that way and ends up rotating very fast causing it to shed mass which in combination with a strong stellar wind transfer that angular momentum to a circumstellar disk, which in turn brakes the star.

    I did argue with some NASA solar expert about the possibility of an electron flow back to the Sun and he finally agreed there WAS a flow, though he didn’t think it actually went INTO the Sun.
    In a magnetic flux rope there are electrons bouncing back and forth between mirror points high in the solar atmosphere [like in the Van Allen belts of the Earth].

    Was Alfven wrong about the back-current? I note that his theory of an electric-arc effect did not gain favour.
    Short answer is yes. One problem with his scheme is that the polar fields reverse every 11 years and hence also the current in the Heliospheric current sheet and any postulated ‘back-current’.

    I am still puzzled by what can accelerate the solar wind – still accelerating at earth’s orbit distance, and where the mass actually goes at the end of the system, even if it is not completely closed.
    We are all puzzled a bit by the mechanism. The problem is not that we don’t have any, it is that we have too many and can’t decide which is the right one. The mass flow at the end of the solar system simply merges into the interstellar medium, like smoke from a chimney merges into the air.

  237. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 16, 2012 at 2:44 pm
    tallbloke says:
    April 16, 2012 at 1:37 pm
    Finally. Thanks Leif, I’ll pass that to Charles Wolff for comment
    ‘Finally’ is nonsense. You had the Gough comment all along. Pass that onto Wolff too.

    Oh I will. When Wolff and Patrone have stopped laughing I expect they’ll tell me to tell you to get it past peer review if you can.

    “therefore it is valid dynamically, for the purposes of energy computation, only for an interval of time of measure zero, which is insufficient to take the temporal derivatives required to determine subsequent evolution,”

    Lol.

  238. tallbloke says:
    April 16, 2012 at 2:57 pm
    Oh I will. When Wolff and Patrone have stopped laughing I expect they’ll tell me to tell you to get it past peer review if you can.
    Your faith is strong. You’ll need that strength.

  239. vukcevic says:

    It looks as if I got off only with few minor scratches, [snip]

    REPLY: Take a 48 hour time out for that ugly label – Anthony

  240. vukcevic says:
    April 16, 2012 at 3:05 pm
    It looks as if I got off only with few minor scratches, [snip]
    But did you learn something?

  241. “REPLY: I’ve met both of you personally. It conduct here that differentiates. Not playing this game Nicola, put up of shut up time – Anthony”

    Anthony, science does not work as you want or wish. There are simple rules that need to be taken into account. To be humble in scientific research is a duty for every real scientist.

    I ask you again:

    Are there mathematical errors in my analysis? where?
    Are there physical errors? where?
    Are there philosophical errors? where?

    This is what matters.

    I note that you were not able to find errors in my papers.

    When my paper has been accepted it was peer reviewed by three persons expert in solar and space weather physics including the editor and all three were quite professional and detailed in their comments. Very different from the nosenses that Leif says.

    So, if you have valid arguments against my work, present them. If not, keep an open mind in things in which you clearly are not expert.

    These issues are important and will be the future for both solar physics and climate science.

    If you have a different working theory, present it. Or be humble.

  242. highflight56433 says:

    OK, I read all these posts and am not catching the connectionto what is the causation of the various solar cycles with respect to solar system total mass. As an example, what if a large body liken to Jupiter were to pass throught the solar system as does a comet. What would be the sun’s response? And, how does that response line up with solar cycles that are not exactly timed with current rotational velocities of the known planetary mass? How much of the sun ejection returns to the sun?

  243. highflight56433 says:
    April 16, 2012 at 3:22 pm
    what if a large body liken to Jupiter were to pass throught the solar system as does a comet. What would be the sun’s response?
    In my estimate, nothing significant. Should it actually plunge into the Sun it would increase the Sun’s mass and hence its luminosity which would mean an increase of temperature on the Earth. Another increase would come from a slight shrinking of the Earth’s orbit.
    How much of the sun ejection returns to the sun?
    As far as we know, none, after it has passed the so-called Alfven point some 10-15 solar radii from the Sun, where it reaches escape velocity. Close to the Sun, 90% or so falls straight back again.

  244. David Ball says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 16, 2012 at 3:09 pm
    “But did you learn something?”

    This is more interesting than any course I have ever been on. This back and forth makes for fascinating reading. Some heavy hitters posting, too. This is why cannot stop reading WUWT?

    I’m sure it is frustrating for Anthony. Hopefully the benefits out weigh the costs.

  245. highflight56433 says:

    So therefore, Leif, if a large gas bag like Jupiter does little to ditrube the sun, then orbital planets are even less significant and nothing outside of the sun is influencing the various solar cycles strength and duration.

  246. Sparks says:

    I admire Nicola Scafetta’s perseverance in defending his work, that’s a good quality, most scientific papers that are discussed here and criticized are never to be heard of again and usually the author/authors are either too lazy to show up for their own defense or believe that they a totally above such a task.

    Being able to take criticism of your work must greatly help the evolutionary path that it will take, Nicola Scafetta Believes he deserves the grade and is willing to become evolved in debate with even the toughest of critics and this has caught peoples attention. Work it out guys, work it out.

  247. Nicola Scafetta says:
    April 16, 2012 at 3:19 pm
    I note that you were not able to find errors in my papers.
    The reviews from all referees of which I was but one list several errors. As Anthony says “put up or shut up”. Publish those reviews and attendant email exchanges and threats and we can go from there. If you are not humble enough to do that, give me permission to publish them all.

  248. highflight56433 says:
    April 16, 2012 at 4:00 pm
    So therefore, Leif, if a large gas bag like Jupiter does little to ditrube the sun, then orbital planets are even less significant and nothing outside of the sun is influencing the various solar cycles strength and duration
    That is how I see it, yes. Other people may see it differently. You can always lower the bar enough to eventually accept anything.

  249. Pamela Gray says:

    Some have called on me to define how things work. I am assuming that challenge means the solar-global warming theory and I am not going to hijack a thread that is specific to solar theory. So if you mean solar dynamics only I find Leif’s position the more credible one and so I defer to his expertise readily and eagerly. Heck, I’m still at the coffee table solar book level.

    As to Earth’s temperature, in the short term, I am an ENSO coupled with a leaky atmosphere girl all the way. Over long time spans, continental movement does a number on oceanic currents and atmospheric patterns. Add to that Earth’s tilty, wonky path and you have the basics of intrinsic short and long term oscillations all over the globe.

  250. Bart says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 16, 2012 at 2:44 pm

    “Solar activity is generally believed to take place in a narrow layer near the tachocline, so the gravitational force [and pressure and temperature] is very nearly constant in the region of generation where the tidal force is supposed to work its magic.”

    This tells us little about the potential for redistribution of that region under tidal fluctuations. The entire convection zone may be influenced.

    “In addition the tidal displacements are small, so there are no significant variations of the solar variables.”

    Begging the question.

    I’m really not cheering for one side or the other here. I’d be perfectly happy to see the idea of solar-planetary coupling laid to rest. But, I do not yet see a knock out blow. And, the apparent phase correlations make me take the possibility seriously.

  251. Poptech says:

    Leif has proven you wrong

    No he hasn’t. What are you talking about?

  252. “If the tidal acceleration of Jupiter were important for the solar cycle then the tidal accelerations of Mercury, Venus and the Earth would be important too.”

    What hypothesis are the authors addressing? The hypothesis is not that the planetary influences are responsible for the length of the solar cycle, but for regularities in the variation of the solar cycle. Even during extended grand minima, we now know that the solar cycle continues, unextinguished. The hypothesis is not planetary influences cause the solar cycle, but rather resonate with it, perhaps imperfectly with phase collapses.

    What are the alternate theories for regularities in solar variation? What are the hypothesized forces in those theories? Or is the only competing theory to dispute the regularities?

    @Bart, “Movement relative to the SSB from gravitational forces does not stress the Sun like a ball being twirled at the end of a rope – more like a ball being twirled encased in a finely woven net constraining every particle. Where there is no relative stress, there is no effect on “the body.”

    Under general relativity, where gravity moves at the speed of light (or less), you would need to think of every particle of the sun connected to a different string at a different angle, because it is feeling the influence of a dynamically moving jupiter. The limbs of the sun are “feeling” the effect of jupiter from its position 2 seconds later than the near point of the sun or jupiters position 2 seconds earlier than that “felt” by the far side of the sun.

    There is no free fall for extended bodies in curved space for general relativity.

  253. David Ball says:

    Pamela Gray says:
    April 16, 2012 at 5:43 pm
    “Some have called on me” You cannot even deign to mention my name. I have my answer. It is as I suspected. Scary that you are in charge of some young minds, but it is no surprise as I had many teachers like you. Academia is such a narrow measure of intellect.

  254. Poptech says:

    Thank you for seeing this so clearly. For your information, among the 24 most cited of my papers, four [with a total number of citations to them of 168] were advocating a possible influence on weather and climate of solar activity.

    Name them. I found two peer-reviewed papers where the word “climate” appears in them one time and the paper is not discussing climate change.

  255. Ninderthana says:

    Anthony says:

    “Stephen, congratulations on being the first defender of the indefensible. I remain unimpressed with planetary Barycentrism and its variants. I remain even less impressed with the people who get their pretzels in a twist over it.”

    Anthony,

    You are about to eat the biggest piece of humble pie you have seen. I am not at liberty to discuss the peer-reviewed research which will prove once and for all that you and your supporters are completely wrong. However, I can say that the published work will be so emphatic it will convince ardent critics like yourself.

    Unfortunately, your arrogance on this issue will severely tarnish your outstanding record as champion of rational discussion on climate issues. This will not be good for the skeptics cause.

    REPLY:Oh goody, another threat from somebody to timid to use his/her name and actually show some science. Well if it is in fact “peer reviewed”, then it must be accepted for publication. So feel free to post it here so we can all see for ourselves how much humble pie I can eat. I do love pie. – Anthony

  256. @ africangenesis says: April 16, 2012 at 6:58 pm

    “The hypothesis is not that the planetary influences are responsible for the length of the solar cycle, but for regularities in the variation of the solar cycle. Even during extended grand minima, we now know that the solar cycle continues, unextinguished. The hypothesis is not planetary influences cause the solar cycle, but rather resonate with it, perhaps imperfectly with phase collapses.”

    Which is more or less what I explain in my paper:

    N. Scafetta, “Multi-scale harmonic model for solar and climate cyclical variation throughout the Holocene based on Jupiter-Saturn tidal frequencies plus the 11-year solar dynamo cycle.” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics in press (2012).

    http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Scafetta_JStides.pdf

    @ Leif Svalgaard says: April 16, 2012 at 4:55 pm

    Leif, argue a valid criticism or shut up. Your behavior (and also the behavior of that editor) has already been enough shameful.

    For example, according your way to do tidal calculations the lunar tides at the Bay of Fundy would be no more than about 10 cm high. According to Wikipedia

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Fundy

    the observed tides are between 17 and 22 meters, a nice 170-220 amplification factor.

    So, your math does not work for the ocean tides, why should your calculation properly describe solar dynamics?

    Your physics does not prove anything, Leif. Your arguments are only prejudices.

  257. Joseph Murphy says:

    I would pay for ring side seats like these. Thank you Anthony, mods, and commenters!

  258. Bart says:
    April 16, 2012 at 6:32 pm
    “Solar activity is generally believed to take place in a narrow layer near the tachocline, so the gravitational force [and pressure and temperature] is very nearly constant in the region of generation where the tidal force is supposed to work its magic.”
    This tells us little about the potential for redistribution of that region under tidal fluctuations. The entire convection zone may be influenced.

    But that has little influence on the generation region, which actually is believed to sit just under the convection zone in the stratification-stable radiative core. The reason for this is that magnetic fields are buoyant in the convection zone and will rise in about a month to the surface, not giving the dynamo enough time to work.

    africangenesis says:
    April 16, 2012 at 6:58 pm
    What are the alternate theories for regularities in solar variation? What are the hypothesized forces in those theories? Or is the only competing theory to dispute the regularities?

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/Choudhuri-Karak-2009.pdf

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/SunMagneticCycle.pdf

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/1112-6218v1Solar-Cycle-Variations-Dynamo.pdf

    There is no free fall for extended bodies in curved space for general relativity.
    The deviation are too minute to even discuss. Are you claiming that climate change is aGeneral Relativity effect?

    Poptech says:
    April 16, 2012 at 7:05 pm
    Name them
    1: Science 13 April 1973: Vol. 180 no. 4082 pp. 185-186
    Solar Magnetic Sector Structure: Relation to Circulation of the Earth’s Atmosphere
    cited by e.g. Solar variability as a contributing factor to Holocene climatic change
    Progress in Physical Geography 1 December 1980: 487-530.

    2: Influence of Solar Magnetic Sector Structure on Terrestrial Atmospheric Vorticity.
    Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, vol. 31, Issue 2, pp.581-588, 1974
    cited by e.g. Are solar spectral variations a drive for climatic change?
    Nature, Volume 282, Issue 5739, pp. 600-603 (1979).

    3: On the reality of a sun-weather effect (solar magnetic structure effect on vorticity)
    Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences. Vol. 33, pp. 1113-1116. June 1976
    cited by e.g. Climate and paleoclimate: What we can learn about solar luminosity variations
    Solar Physics, Volume 74, Issue 2, pp.435-471 (1981).

    4: Seasonal variation and magnitude of the solar sector structure–atmospheric vorticity effect
    Nature 255, 539 – 540 (12 June 1975)
    cited by e.g. Solar-terrestrial influences on weather and climate
    Nature, Volume 276, Issue 5686, pp. 348-352 (1978).

    5: Interplanetary Magnetic Field Polarity and the Size of Low-Pressure Troughs Near 180°W Longitude
    Science 6 April 1979 Vol. 204 no. 4388 pp. 60-62
    cited by e.g. Solar variability, weather and climate: An update
    Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, vol. 109, issue 459, pp. 23-55, 1983

    6: Intensity of tropospheric circulation associated with solar magnetic sector boundary transits
    Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics. Volume 41, Issue 6, June 1979, Pages 657–659

    Back then there was no ‘climate science’ as such. It was understood that influences on the weather would be reflected eventually in the climate [being average weather].

  259. Geoff Sharp says:

    tallbloke says:
    April 16, 2012 at 2:35 pm

    Geoff Sharp says:
    April 16, 2012 at 3:31 am
    Theodor makes it very clear in all his papers that the PTC event (what you think is a solar downturn) is a mechanism for changing phase. ie phase reversal.
    ——————————————————-
    It’s not that I think the events were solar downturns. They were solar downturns.
    Theodore said they were in the first two sentences of the quote too.

    This is the crucial point that has to be understood. Theodor does not associate solar slowdowns with the PTC event which is a perturbation of the torque cycle on a cycle of 35.8 years. The last paragraph of this section sums it up.

    “In case of major instability events that affect the Sun’s surface and the
    incidence of features of solar activity displaying in this thin, sensitive layer,
    the instability seems to spread out in the planetary system and seize all events
    in time series
    that are connected with the Sun’s activity.”

    Here Theodor is taking about solar instability events (nothing to do with sunspots) that permeate thru the solar system and influence the rise and fall of animal populations, economic turning points, stock prices, interest rates, global periods of general instability and even human creativity. Landsche..t in later papers moves away from these less than scientific statements but at no point associates these events with reduced solar output. This is where he loses the plot and delves into the esoteric and he repeats this in many of his papers, BUT he also uses the PTC event at his whim (not every 35.8 years) throughout most of his papers to invoke phase reversals so his correlations line up, without the PTC event he would have no correlations. This whole section of his work is highly questionable and is very similar to the Ed Fix model where it needs to be reset or otherwise lose the correlation. If we use the AMP event there is no need to phase reverse or reset…it is pure.

    When it comes to predicting grand minima Theodor uses negative extrema of torque pulses not PTC events. Clearly understanding this point is necessary and I suggest you go and read all his papers slowly. If Theodor did use the PTC event to forecast solar slowdown I would have no discovery as the PTC event basically IS the AMP event although at a higher resolution (PTC curves are more amplified). He had the data but failed to see the importance…that is his loss and my opportunity. So what I am claiming thru Carl’s graph is a new discovery and I resent your allegations of claiming glory in the memory of Carl. Carl saw it as a new discovery (after I pointed it out) and he offered his blog to me just before passing away. It is a pity you ignore the discovery that this great man made available. I was lucky to be the first to see the importance of the AMP event (angular momentum perturbation), the rest will be history.

    As the owner of a blog that is predominately focusing on planetary theory you have an obligation to get the facts right. I sincerely hope you see the light eventually and help advance this section of solar science that I think will eventually become mainstream.

  260. Nicola Scafetta says:
    April 16, 2012 at 8:50 pm
    Leif, argue a valid criticism or shut up.
    You had two papers rejected by solar physics. Rejected by six reviewers.
    The reviews from all reviewers of which I was but one list several errors and comments on the low quality of the papers. As Anthony says “put up or shut up”. Publish those reviews and attendant email exchanges and threats and we can go from there. If you are not humble enough to do that, give me permission to publish them all.
    If you do not explicitly forbid me to publish them in your next comment, I’ll take that as permission to publish them as I please.

    For example, according your way to do tidal calculations the lunar tides at the Bay of Fundy would be no more than about 10 cm high.
    Apart from the calculated tide being a several times higher than 10 cm, the actual tide depends on factors such as coastlines and converging fjords [where the water is pushed higher and higher]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:M2_tidal_constituent.jpg
    Your ignorance of this is saddening.

  261. Joseph Murphy says:
    April 16, 2012 at 8:53 pm
    I would pay for ring side seats like these. Thank you Anthony, mods, and commenters!
    And especially Scafetta for providing such entertainment, with Vuk, tallbloke, and others bringing up the rear.

  262. Ninderthana says:
    April 16, 2012 at 8:46 pm
    I am not at liberty to discuss the peer-reviewed research which will prove once and for all that you and your supporters are completely wrong
    I thought that Scafetta thinks he already proved this once and for all [just wait, he says], are telling us that he is wrong and there are others out there with a better patent on the truth?

  263. Leif,

    Thanks for the papers. They are still in search of a memory effect that can explain longer term regularities.

    “Are you claiming that climate change is a General Relativity effect?”

    Major climate change is an orbital and precession effect. Minor climate change such as that detected within ice ages and interglacials might be due to variation in solar activity, and Jupiter might be the “butterfly” perturbing the nonlinear system. GR provides torque effects which make the hypothesis more plausible. A significant part of the recent warming was probably anthropogenic, due to GHGs, black carbon and aerosols, I wouldn’t be surprised if more than 30% could be attributed to these anthropogenic forcings. The uncertainty in aerosols is such that aerosols and internal climate modes such as the PDO could explain all the recent warming without increased CO2 or solar forcing. We know neither CO2 or solar variation can explain the mid century cooling and the late century warming gradient without substantial help from aerosols.

  264. africangenesis says:
    April 16, 2012 at 10:20 pm
    Thanks for the papers. They are still in search of a memory effect that can explain longer term regularities.
    I don’t think any memory is needed. A random walk also has longer term variations. For the Sun, those ‘regularities’ are not all that regular.

    GR provides torque effects which make the hypothesis more plausible.
    The general consensus is that these effects are much too small to be detectable in the solar system, that is for bodies that are small compared to their separations, e.g. http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0543 :
    “The conclusions of this paper may be viewed as providing a justification for the gravitational Detweiler-Whiting axiom [9] that a “point mass” moves on a geodesic in an effective metric produced by subtracting a certain “S-field” from the physical metric (if “point mass” is replaced by “mass with small but finite size”). The validity of this type of statement has also been extended considerably.”

  265. Poptech says:

    Back then there was no ‘climate science’ as such. It was understood that influences on the weather would be reflected eventually in the climate [being average weather].

    Ah yes, the Wilcox papers,

    Wilcox et al. (1973), Wilcox et al. (1974), Wilcox et al. (1975), Wilcox et al. (1976), Wilcox et al. (1979), Wilcox et al. (1979),

    I stand corrected,

    Leif Svalgaard has not published any papers relating to climate change that are not spurious.

    REPLY:
    and you haven’t published any papers at all, give it a rest – Anthony

  266. Ninderthana says:

    I am sad that Anthony’s reputation will be harmed by this. I believe that he is a genuine seeker of scientific truth [note that I did not say "The Truth"] who has just backed the wrong horse.

    You will be judged by history Leif, so anything I say (about you) pales in comparison.

    REPLY: My “reputation” being harmed, for publishing a peer reviewed paper review? For the record, your complaint is idiotic – Anthony

  267. tallbloke says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  268. Ninderthana says:

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

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

  269. Crispin in Johannesburg says:

    @Bart

    “If your entire body were being accelerated in precisely the same manner at every point, you wouldn’t feel a thing.”

    I see three positions being staked in believable territory on this topic: that the planetary gravity is not strong enough to directly cause tidal effects which is reasonable. It is however not the claim that has been made so it is a bit of a misdirection into territory that has been well explored.

    The second position is that as the sun swings around the Barycentre in space, that it will be uniformly attracted to the gravitational pull of all the planets working together (hence the relationship between the sun and the collective barycentre). This is not really how things work as the planets are always moving and the sun, having to respond to the change in where the barycentre is, moves erratically as demonstrated on the position plot posted way up this page.

    The third position is that the sun acts as it if was either a rigid ball or a uniformly dense gas ball, or a gas ball with a uniformly changing density (increasing towards the centre).

    The simple arguments against the barycentre and anything solar and cyclical caused by planets focus on Position 1 and 3 because they are straw men and miss the point. They are well argued above, but that are not what is taking place on the sun.

    The reality of solar displacement from a constantly changing combined gravitational pull is that the sun is disturbed in a cyclical fashion and that there is at least some evidence of the inner planets having an effect on the position of sunspots, though I do not have anything to present about a mechanism for the latter. It seems there are others who have read widely on this subject and sifted the material for valuable observations. Most people are not correct on everything, sometimes only one thing, and it takes time to find a reasonable theory that fits most facts.

    The correlation between solar activity (therefore weather) and planetary position is so obvious that people who thought the Earth was flat, who thought malaria was caused by bad air, and who thought that bleeding cured diseases, who knew very little about science as we understand it today, knew how to use the planetary positions and sunspots to understand how that was going to affect crops. Yes, this is a weak argument and it is easy to take cute pot shots at anything involving people in the past and yes, no one who hasn’t published a peer reviewed paper can’t make an informed comment (it’s good job I have or I wouldn’t know anything!)

    But the alternative to something as obvious as this is unacceptable: that solar activity drives the position of the planets; that the cycles that occur repeatedly on the Sun are in fact pushing the planets to be conveniently in the same relative position with the same total sum and position of gravitational influence and thereby to ‘create’ the solar system’s planetary patterns through some non-gravitational, non-electrical force that emanates from the Sun.

  270. tallbloke says:

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

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

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

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

    Cheers

    TB.

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

    It (barycentrism et al) looked interesting at first, but not anymore. I went in with an open mind months (now years) ago, now I’ve emerged with a healthy skepticism on the claims made. I gave Scafetta a platform, now he can’t even bring himself to allow his peer reviews to be scrutinized, which I find telling.

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

  271. pkatt says:

    “David Ball says:
    April 15, 2012 at 1:25 pm

    One of the reasons I was first attracted to WUWT? was all the interesting perspectives that were presented. One of the reasons I hated reading realclimate was the dogmatic insecurity presented. It is creeping into this blog even though Anthony definitely tries to be reasonable. ”

    I agree. I almost hate reading anything about the sun here on WUWT because it turns into a “settled science” lesson from Leif. Well I am glad to see there isnt a consensus yet. /sarc off

  272. Ninderthana says:

    Tallbloke,

    Thanks for your spirited and well thought out responses to Anthony remarks. Unfortunately, he sometimes uses emotion and gut-feeling to filter his view(s) of the world.
    When he does this, reason and logic often goes out the window.

    He has lumped all those who promote the planetary hypothesis into the one basket and tarred each of us with essentially the same brush. All that this proves is that he is human. A failing that we all share.

    If Anthony bothered to visit my site, he would know that:

    a. I have long concluded that the Sun is in free-fall about the Barycentre – ruling out the
    possibility that the Sun’s motion about the barycentre could produce internal motions
    within the Sun.
    b. In my 2008 paper, I presented tentative evidence that the equatorial rotation rate of the Sun
    was correlated with the rate of rotation of the Sun about the Barycentre. I recognized that
    this empirically derived correlation did not necessarily mean that Sun’s rotation rate and
    Sun’s Barycentric motion were causally connected, however, I proposed that it might suggest a
    spin-orbit coupling mechanism was involved.
    c. I proposed a second model in which periodic alignments of Venus and the Earth produce
    a tidal bulge in the out-layers of the Sun, and that the rotation rate of the outer layers of the
    Sun was affected by the gravitational force of Jupiter tugging on this tidal bulge. The main
    reason for proposing this tidal-torquing model was the fact many of its timing cycles
    matched those that were observed in changes in the level of solar activity. I have openly
    admitted that the forces associated with particular mechanism fall orders of magnitude short
    of those needed to make this a viable mechanism.
    d. I have openly admitted that there is known physical mechanism that explains why there
    are distinct peridocities in the planetary motion that closely match those found in the levels
    of long term solar activity (e.g. 2300 year Hallstatt cycle, 208 year de Vries cycle, 90 year
    Gleisberg cycle, 22 year Hale cycle and 11 Schwabe cycle). I also acknowledge the fact these
    periodicities are so similar, does not prove a causal link. However, I believe that these
    correlations are worthy of further study as they strongly suggestive an underlying physical
    mechanism may be present.

    All through my studies, I believe that I have used the scientific method, along with reason and logic
    to guide my investigations.

    [Note: I cannot mention the additional peer-reviewed evidence that (I believe) proves the
    general hypothesis that the level of solar activity cycle in the Sun is externally
    influenced by planetary configuration(s), as it is still in press.]

    REPLY: “If Anthony bothered to visit my site, he would know that:” Well when a) you post with a made up name, and b) don’t include a website, it is rather hard to even know of its existence. For all I know you are just another blathering kid living in his mom’s basement. If you want respect and recognition, stand up and be counted, otherwise don’t blame me for not figuring out your writings due to your own lack of transparency. – Anthony

  273. Ninderthana says:

    Correction:

    d. I have openly admitted that there is NO known physical mechanism that explains why there are distinct peridocities in the planetary motion that closely match those found in the levels of long term solar activity (e.g. 2300 year Hallstatt cycle, 208 year de Vries cycle, 90 year Gleisberg cycle, 22 year Hale cycle and 11 Schwabe cycle).

  274. Leif,

    “The general consensus is that these effects are much too small to be detectable in the solar system, that is for bodies that are small compared to their separations, e.g. http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0543

    The paper makes the point that given those conditions the world line of a test particle is a good enough approximation to the motion of the centers of masses of extended bodies. However, even their approximation considers the higher multipole moments of the extended bodies, but none of this is relevant to the issue of the torques of the planets on the Sun. The approximations in the paper hold for all the planets and the Sun except Mercury, which is why GR was needed to explain the motions of Mercury and newtonian gravitation was adequate for the motions of the planets and Sun.

    The approximation described by the paper is also reasonably good for any internal particle in the extended bodies. The gravitational influence of other particles in the system on a particular internal particle is approximated by the world line for that particle given its mass and momentum. However, the GR difference still applies, the world lines of adjacent particles are not parallel, they interfere with each other, constrained both by the presence of each other and the extended bodies gravity. They have been given different accelerations and they collide or whatever. We know the convection zone of the Sun rotates at different rates and has mass currents. So even though the paper makes the point that the center of mass of the Sun takes the path approximated by the worldline of a test particle of the same mass, angular momementum and lower order multipole moments, it is still the case that the torques on the extended body from space curvature due to a body in motion like Jupiter and the self fields from internal mass currents still exist.

  275. Henry Galt says:

    There is a music of the spheres. Augmented and diminished by mutual position. Cause: unknown (as yet). Result: Weather/Climate on our sphere. The ancients spotted it and assigned the planets various attributes – wet/cold/windy etc.

    I did not realize (h/t Leif above) that Hannes Alfven had a solar effect named after him – all the fighting against piss-poor-pal-review paid off for him in the end, as it will for our contemporaries.

    Ninderthana – keep up the publishing. I wish Ulric would just get his stuff “out there” and then polish it at his leisure. I cannot persuade him, though I still try on occasion.
    Having been shown the structure and verified the forecast accuracy, then witnessed the vitriol poured on for not revealing his methodology (as in gsharp above) I am part stunned at the simplicity and elegance, befuddled by the belligerence and impatient beyond words for the reveal.

    I foresee (read guarantee) many hats eaten in our collective future. Skeptics will lunch with the entrenched, as always.

  276. phlogiston says:

    rgbatduke says:
    April 16, 2012 at 10:43 am

    Thanks for your very interesting and informative discussions concerning resonance issues and nonlinear forcing in the context of what we know (and dont) about what goes on in the sun. I’m sure this is the direction where research on this question should be directed.

    Your argument that only a weak tidal force could entrain larger scale solar dynamic effect is elegantly supported by the posting by Paul Westhaver:

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

    Look here:

    A nonlinear oscillating system which is subject to multiple external forcings can sometimes jump from one forcing to another – perhaps symptomatic of the weak nature of the forcing. A good example of this is the timing of interglacials over the last 3 million years – about a million years ago it flipped from being driven by the 41 kYr obliquity oscillation to the 100 kYr eccentricity oscillation – i.e. from one weak orbital driver to another. Another example is the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (AMO) which – according to a presentation by P Chylek:

    flips between 20 year and 60 year wavelength. Perhaps this flipping between alternative forcing frequencies is in some way diagnostic of a weakly driven nonlinear oscillator.

    I am convinced that deep scientific problems about complex systems such as solar and earth climate will require analysis from the standpoint of nonlinear oscillatory systems, and nonlinear-chaotic dynamics in general.

  277. phlogiston says:

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

    What is clear is that neither Anthony or Leif Svalgaard, nor the authors of the above paper, have addressed the points set out by RGBatDuke concerning the nonlinear chaotic dynamics of the sun which CHANGE EVERYTHING in terms of the question of oscillations and forcings. As explained in my first post, the “correlation is not causation” argument applies only to one type of nonlinear oscillation, the strongly forced type. The weakness of planetary gravity effects compared to the scale of the sun and solar dynamics may rule out strongly forced oscillations, but they do not rule out weakly forced oscillations where the forced frequency can be complex, unstable and not directly related to the forcing frequency.

    This debate is symptomatic of a wider problem in scientific research, the blinkered approach to focus only on linear dynamics that are the staple of one’s undergraduate training and ignore completely nonlinear dynamics.

    JUST HOW WEAK is the gravitational effect of Jupiter on the sun? Is it really “several orders of magnitude too weak” to cause anything?

    The mass of Jupiter is about 10^27 kg
    The mass of the sun is about 10^30 kg
    So Jupiter is about 1000 times lighter than the sun

    The mass of Earth is about 10^25 kg
    The mass of the Moon is about 10^23 kg
    So the moon is about 100 times lighter than the earth.

    So the difference between the mass ratios of Jupiter and the sun, and the earth and moon, is ONE order of magnitude only. Not several.

    The moon’s tidal effect on earth – as argued by rgbatduke – is enough to cause up to 10m or more of vertical movement of sea level in places like the Bay of Fundy and the Bristol Channel.

    So the tidal effect of Jupiter on the sun can be approximated as one tenth of the tidal effect of the moon on earth. Imagine the tidal ebb and flow on earth beaches but divided by ten. Small, OK, but still noticeable.

    And EASILY large enough to induce weakly forced nonlinear oscillations in a huge energetic system with (as Leif nicely explained) internal oscillations on multiple scales – almost “crying out” to be forced by some external periodic driver.

  278. tallbloke says:

    Plus the authors say in their conclusion that “Hence, planetary influences should be ruled out as a possible cause of solar variability. ”

    Well that’s just sloppy unscientific thinking and the reviewers have been remiss in allowing such a wide ranging conclusion to be drawn from such a limited study solely investigating planetary tides.

    It reeks of prejudice on the part of the authors and partisan behaviour on the part of the reviewers and publishers. It reminds me strongly of the many paleo studies all using the same bad proxies published to sandbag the Mannian dogma. As Nicola Scafetta pointed out earlier, it’s not difficult for Callebaut and De Jager to continue trotting this kind of stuff out ad infinitum.

    Poor show.

  279. barry says:

    pkatt,

    Wow. Leif is a genuine qualified expert on the sun. Most of the people posting here are not. As far as I can tell, he gives short shrift to much wrong-headedness, and when there is something interesting or uncertain, he gives it more consideration.

    Having read the information and this thread, it makes the most sense to me that the powerful internal dynamics responsible for the turbulence and periodicities of the sun far exceed the weak gravitational forces of the other planets, and that if any perturbation from these weak forces is at play, it must be minimal and over long periods. WRT the focus of this blog, the gravitational impact of the planets on our sun will have nothing to do with multidecadal climate change on Earth.

    I am quite sure that if you asked Leif for science on the sun that is not settled he would have something to say. You curious? I am.

  280. barry says:
    April 17, 2012 at 4:35 am
    I am quite sure that if you asked Leif for science on the sun that is not settled he would have something to say. You curious? I am.
    A sample:
    1) heating of the corona [the precise mechanism]
    2) is the dynamo deep or shallow? [most people think it is deep]
    3) how deep is a sunspot rooted?
    4) how does the polar fields maintain their polarity for years?
    5) if the Livingston&Penn effect is real [I think it is] what is the cause? http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png
    6) what is the rotation rate of the deep core [the innermost 10%]?
    7) why do magnetic activity seem to prefer certain longitudes on the Sun? [or does it?] http://www.leif.org/research/Solar%20Sector%20Structure.pdf
    8) is there a relic magnetic field in the core?
    …many others.
    all that said, we have have made great strides in our knowledge of the sun. Our models of the interior have been spectacularly confirmed by helioseismology and by observations of neutrinos. To claim, as many here do, that our knowledge is still in its infancy is dead wrong. There is a solid foundation.

  281. beng says:

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

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

    In fact, just the opposite. What’s sad here is the unmitigated junk I see being posted as support for “barycentrism”.
    Do you understand what a true skeptic is? It’s NOT falling for unsupported hair-brained hypotheses. Kudos to Anthony.

  282. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 17, 2012 at 5:04 am

    barry says:
    April 17, 2012 at 4:35 am
    I am quite sure that if you asked Leif for science on the sun that is not settled he would have something to say. You curious? I am.
    A sample:
    1) heating of the corona [the precise mechanism]
    2) is the dynamo deep or shallow? [most people think it is deep]

    8) 8) is there a relic magnetic field in the core?

    9) The cause of the longer observed periodicities in activity levels
    10) The cause of differential rotation
    11) Variation in rotation rates at different latitudes
    12) Asymmetry of sunspot production in the hemispheres
    13) Variation of sunspot production asymmetry in the hemispheres
    14) What causes sunspot pair leading -trailing polarities?
    15) Why the axis tilts wrt the plane of invariance
    16) What its precession rate is if any
    17) More questions arise whenever new instrumentation comes online

    Maybe there are answers to some of these. I hope Leif will let me know if so. For some of them, there are many conflicting answers and incomplete hypotheses.

  283. tallbloke says:
    April 17, 2012 at 6:14 am
    9) The cause of the longer observed periodicities in activity levels
    Not so mysterious. All complex systems have variations. The observed periods are not well established anyway.
    10) The cause of differential rotation
    We have a good explanation for that http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2005-1/fulltext.html
    11) Variation in rotation rates at different latitudes
    is really that same as 10.
    12) Asymmetry of sunspot production in the hemispheres
    Again, a random system will have that. It would be REALLY interesting if there were no asymmetry
    13) Variation of sunspot production asymmetry in the hemispheres
    same as 12
    14) What causes sunspot pair leading -trailing polarities?
    The Hale polarity law is not mysterious.
    15) Why the axis tilts wrt the plane of invariance
    In most rotating systems the axis is tilted. The Earth has a 23 degree tilt. Uranus a 98 degree tilt. In systems with strong mutual interaction between the bodies [e.g. tidal] there is no tilt, so a tilt is an indication of the weak influence of the planets
    16) What its precession rate is if any
    Unknown, but not interesting other than just a property of the sun
    17) More questions arise whenever new instrumentation comes online
    To ask more questions requires that we already have a lot of knowledge. The more we know, the more questions we can ask.

  284. rgbatduke says:

    As is explained in the paper under discussion the sun’s convection zone consists of millions of large [Texas-size] convection cells that randomly move up and down a thousand kilometer at speeds on 1 km/second with a life-time of a quarter of an hour. In addition there are tens of thousands horizontal flows with a life time of 20 hours and speeds of 0.5 km/sec. These movements completely wash out any millimeter-sized influence on the scale of days, month, or years and exclude resonances because of the random nature of the movements

    Well, I admit I don’t know a lot about solar dynamics, but aren’t these movements superimposed on large bands of fluid matter that are actually rotating with different angular velocities at different latitudes with some sort of non-laminar flow boundary condition connecting them to a more or less static interior “ball” that rotates at a single angular velocity? And aren’t the convection cells and so on “random” in the sense that they nucleate and grow, but highly non-random in that they are far more likely to nucleate and grow in some places more than others? These motions have very long lifetimes, do they not.

    The point being that in an object the size of the Sun, the existence of small scale fast structures (all the way down to the microstructure of the plasma) goes without saying, but that in no way precludes large scale slowly varying structure as well. I don’t know too much about the detailed structure of the Sun — although I am gradually learning as I have time — but I reiterate the notion that a lot of that structure and its dynamics are hidden from us.

    As a single example — the solar core is (from what I understand) is a ball some 1/5 to 1/4 the solar radius in size. It is where fusion happens that powers the sun. The (remarkably low) power per cubic meter released varies with radius, which means that it effectively varies with pressure and temperature as the pressure and temperature peak in the center.

    Again I must appeal to knowledge gleaned from the Earth, where the “rigid” crust rises and falls some 25 cm with the solunar tides as the entire planet develops a standing mode in its plastic interior. Again, this is not the tidal forces directly lifting all this matter, it is a driven spherical resonance that builds up over very long times but is also modulated over long times by the variations in the tidal forces that produce it. The atmosphere of the Earth has very small solunar tides as you note. The oceans (in spite of having all sorts of “random” small scale motion of its surface waters of the same or greater order as well as long range long lifetime persistent currents driven by all sorts of complex processes involving salinity/density, temperature, latitude, depth, note well) exhibit persistent very consistent tidal bulges that are sustained by self organized waves that actually require vast distances and volumes to emerge — the tides on the great lakes are barely measurable, the tides on a farm pond or glass of water are not measurable, but the tides given an ocean large enough to sustain a wave resonance with a 12ish hour period are substantial (and at the same time mere “noise” compared to the mean depth of the ocean. And the motion of the Earth’s crust itself — well, I would say the energy associated with lifting not just me but the entire crust under my feet up and down by a meter every two days is substantial, even as it is in some sense a tiny fraction of the energy delivered by e.g. insolation. I conveniently enough have a mass of roughly 100 kg, so every two days the Sun and the Moon are involved in an energy exchange of (order of) a kilojoule of energy mediated by my person. And of course, I’m just one person, and it isn’t just me, it is the entire crust under my feet that goes up and down the same way, not to mention the deformation of the entire plastic interior of the Earth below. With the entire sphere to play with as a plastic deformable medium capable of sustaining a volumetric rotating wave, the wave grows until energy input balances energy dissipation.

    Such a wave on the Earth’s interior is a source of heat. Even though the rate of heat production per unit volume is small, all of the heat produced has to make its way out through the surface and so the very long time scale gravitationally mediated angular “inelastic collision” being played out between the moon and the Earth that will eventually cause them to become gravitationally locked at a common angular velocity is releasing the lost kinetic energy of that collision over geological time at a rate that keeps the Earth’s interior substantially warm (but still represents a trivial contribution to surface heating as it works its way outward).

    In the Sun it’s direct contribution to heat production is likely very small, but there is an important possible feedback. Even a small modulation of the core pressure, a small (but systematic) travelling wave deformation of the core itself, can shift the probabilities of fusion events and hence the rate of energy production. This shift may be very small in absolute terms, but it is volumetric over a very substantial volume and because of the size of the core itself even a “small” travelling wave might produce a substantial uplift and downdrop of the isobars. Here one is modulating the real energy production mechanism of the Sun at the source, and it seems as though there is a distinct possibility for resonant feedback.

    Then things get very complicated — energy produced in the core takes a very, very long time to diffuse to the exterior. The actual “diurnal” fluctuation in heat production (whatever its magnitude) would almost certainly thermalize quickly and so be smoothed, but — there are magnificent opportunities for the isobaric fluctuation to be propagated as a low frequency sound wave, and again one then has to think about the modes supported by the particular structure of the Sun and whether any of them might be resonant or near resonant. If there is a band of such frequencies (as one might reasonably expect) then again small modulation of the standing wave as might result for orbital resonances could shift the “ringing” of the sun by the low frequency noise generated by the furnace in its interior, which can in turn nonlinearly alter the ways that the patterns on its surface form.

    The video so kindly provided above is a demonstration of exactly that sort of thing. Even on a very small scale, vibrating the plastic colloid creates “structure” that is at once quite random and yet isn’t random at all, it is patterned. Altering the driving frequency in certain (chaotic) regimes by even a small amount can very likely produce relatively large shifts from one pattern to another. The same sort of thing is visible in boiling liquids or in vertical convection patterns, which are absolutely apropos to what’s going on in the Sun. Simply stirring the liquid can shift one from one general pattern to another that may be quite different. The patterns themselves may be drawn out of a probability distribution (in some sense) of patterns that are consistent with the interior driving, the boundary conditions and geometry, and the (non-Markovian) past history of the system, but that’s the rub — what’s going on on the surface of the Sun now is at least partly a consequence of modulation of the core that happened in the past, and not just the past at a single time, but the past over a decomposition of time scales (presuming acoustical mode dispersion in the very long period modes in question).

    I therefore reiterate that I do not find the unsurprising observation that a lot of the stuff that happens on the surface of the Sun to be high frequency, small scale phenomena to be even relevant to the question of whether planetary tides are in some way responsible for solar cycles that are decadal and longer in their time scale. That’s like saying that thermal motion of molecules makes low frequency sound waves or the wind itself impossible, a mistake that is so great, and so obvious, that one wonders how it can even be made.

    It is a simple matter of observational fact that the Sun possesses structured interior dynamics with a time scale around a decade. It is a simple matter of observational fact that although this behavior is sort-of periodic (with considerable noise) it is strongly amplitude modulated, and that the amplitude modulations themselves appear to have structure with much longer time scales. These are direct evidence that there are nonlinear modes in solar dynamics with these time scales, and the lack of compelling pure Fourier regularity in them suggests further that they are very likely either highly multimodal or outright chaotic. In both of these latter cases, it is well-known that tiny changes in modulators can result in large changes in macroscopic behavior — sometimes, and possibly differently every time, and over widely varying timescales of persistence. All bets are off.

    Please understand that I am not asserting that any of this is what happens inside of the Sun. I’m asserting that it seems to me that we do not know enough about the Sun to exclude this sort of possibility, that this general kind of possibility involves tweaking knobs like “modulating the solar furnace by 0.001% over a multiyear time scale (note well the irrelevance of the short time scales of fifteen minute surface phenomena that in the end are a consequence of the heat generated inside trying to self-organize for escape) plus (perhaps) “modulating the dispersion of long wavelength, long period solar modes that are manifest in the observational history of the Sun”. Nor am I asserting that any of the work that purports to show correspondence between planetary tidal beats and solar or climate state are correct — I’m simply not familiar enough with the data and conclusions and arguments to either endorse them or reject them.

    My single conclusion is that analyzing the magnitude of tidal forces in the Sun and comparing them to short period secular activity on the surface of the Sun is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not they modulate the decadal behavior of the Sun. This is the noise against which a much longer time scale signal must be resolved. The long time scale signal is clearly connected to completely different dynamics, probably occurring in a completely different place, and may have been modulated tens of thousands of years in the past an only be just now arriving at the solar surface. This means that the title of this thread oversteps.

    Surely this isn’t such a radical observation. To quote from the Abstract itself above:

    We do not exclude the possibility that the long term combined action of the planets may induce small internal motions in the sun, which may have indirectly an effect on the solar dynamo after a long time.

    Translated: The forces are too weak to produce a direct signal resolvable from the chaotic turbulent surface noise. No surprise, there is no particularly good reason to think that there would be. But the entire paper is almost completely irrelevant to the real question of whether or not there is long time scale macroscopic influence, and hence it is irrelevant to the question of whether or not e.g. Scafetta’s correlations are or are not physical. At most it shows that they aren’t enough to produce it by directly modulating surface dynamics (although even that is arguable, signal to noise once again).

    This is, or so I had thought, a hard problem. Feynman (my spirit guide in the wilderness of ego and egregious claims in all directions that is modern scientific research) would have us carefully limit our own arguments and freely admit their weaknesses as well as their strengths. The paper outlined in the top article is fairly honest about this, and its conclusions are fair enough, but we should all avoid blowing them up into egregious statements such as “planets to do not cause solar cycles”. Not even the authors make this claim. They simply assert that the forces are too small to be more than a small modulation on the direct surface dynamics of the solar cycle, but most of those dynamics are themselves irrelevant to the cause of the solar cycle — they are the effect of something else, not the cause, and the modulators of the real cause are not well understood (yet, as far as I know, although yes there are ever improving models out there and perhaps one of them is correct and complete, I don’t know).

    So perhaps we can modulate the discussion to remain within Feynman bounds. That way we can learn from what the paper really says, and not translate it into a sound bite that turns out to be horribly incorrect in ten years when we learn more, or worse, puts off for twenty years the time required to get it right by becoming part of the scientific dogm- — I mean “lore” — in the meantime and used as an excuse for dismissing certain counterassertions out of hand.

    rgb

  285. tallbloke says:
    April 17, 2012 at 6:14 am
    16) What its precession rate is if any
    More on this: the real question here is ‘what is the shape of the sun?’ of interior surfaces such as the tachocline. Deviations from sphericity might induce precession due to gravitational effects of the planets. The shape of the sun is an active research area. So far, the observed oblateness [corrected for the effects of magnetic activity] is just what would be expected from the observed rotation rate and the standard solar model. It is possible [perhaps likely] that the tachocline is not a perfect sphere, but the evidence is not conclusive. If non-spherical, the planets could result in Torque-induced precession the same way as the Moon does it to the non-spherical Earth. A difference with the Moon is that the planetary torques would be exceedingly weak and hard to detect, but would be fertile ground for planetary-influence enthusiasts.

  286. pochas says:

    Personally, I would be surprised if a system of 10 large masses interacting over a period of 4+ billion years in an interaction that includes energy dissipation (tides, other?) did not self-organize in some fashion tending to maximize entropy, and I would expect effects related to such self-organization to be observable.

  287. Paul Westhaver says:

    beng says:
    April 17, 2012 at 6:12 am

    In fact, just the opposite. What’s sad here is the unmitigated junk I see being posted as support for “barycentrism”.
    Do you understand what a true skeptic is? It’s NOT falling for unsupported hair-brained hypotheses. Kudos to Anthony.

    I say:

    Skeptic or not, that is hardly the criteria from which to assign legitimate scientific inquiry. I refer to Roger Bacon, the first western scientist and the “inventor” of the scientific method: his famous quote…

    Four obstacles to truth:

    the example of weak and unreliable authority; continuance of custom, regard to the opinion of the unlearned, and concealing one’s own ignorance, together with the exhibition of apparent wisdom.

    In this case, though I like Anthony, he is not an authority on the subject of barycentricism and he would likely say so. Leif appears to be learned, so the question is if he is concealing his ultimate ignorance on the the subject through and ostentatious display of knowledge or if he actual knows. I doubt he knows. Nobody knows…yet. I think Leif is working it through.

    When Bacon was inventing the field of optics he did not have scientific terms to describe, “transparency” or “translucence” or “opacity”. All he had was the language of his ecclesiastical training. He was a monk. His language did not inhibit his disciplined inquiry or his intuition.

    His models for optics turned out to be pretty good nevertheless.

    The skeptics in his midst figured him a malcontent and a crazy man.

    The lesson here is in the absence of an adequate model, particularly from the the “authorities” Leif claims to be one, we cannot rely on custom of the so-called authorities for an answer. The next step is to open one’s mind to alternative hypothesis. It is poor science to not keep options open particularly when your existing models are fruitless.

  288. tallbloke says: April 17, 2012 at 4:20 am
    Anthony says: “Plus the authors say in their conclusion that “Hence, planetary influences should be ruled out as a possible cause of solar variability. ”

    tallbloke renponded : “Well that’s just sloppy unscientific thinking and the reviewers have been remiss in allowing such a wide ranging conclusion to be drawn from such a limited study solely investigating planetary tides.”

    Sorry Anthony, tallbroke is right. What the authors of that paper have proven is that they do not know what is the right way to do the calculations. That is all. Moreover, their paper is just a copy of their 2005 paper.

    That paper is filled with prejudices and sloppy research. For example, they say:
    “As an example we mention a paper by Scafetta (2010), who found that climate variations of 0.1–0.25 K with periods of 20–60 years seem to be correlated with orbital motions of Jupiter and Saturn. This was, however, not confirmed in another paper on a similar topic (Humkin et al., 2011).”

    1) They ignore all literature (at least 30 papers) I have referenced that confirm those cycles, 2) Humkin et al, do not say what they claim, the right opposite; 3) phlogiston says: April 17, 2012 at 4:04 am has presented the last work by P. Chylek studing almost 3500 years of ice core data and he found bouth the 20 and the 60 year cycles as you can see above.

    Keep an open mind and be humble. Take into account that Leif is not the creator of the universe and God might have made the universe differently from what he thinks.

  289. Paul Westhaver says:
    April 17, 2012 at 7:27 am
    The next step is to open one’s mind to alternative hypothesis.
    Not necessarily. A valid step is to intensity research building on existing knowledge using the laws of physics.
    It is poor science to not keep options open particularly when your existing models are fruitless.
    Our existing models are not ‘fruitless’. They work quite well. Some examples: our models of the sun said that the neutrino flux should be a certain amount. When we got around to measure the flux and the properties of neutrinos, the models were correct. The dynamo model of the Sun predicts a low cycle 24, which we are having. When confronted with alternative hypotheses that claim prediction on a monthly basis of solar activity thousands of year in advance, I, for one, discount those as flights of fancy. And, BTW, scientists do keep options open [contrary to popular belief, perhaps]. There is nothing a scientist would love more than to overthrow existing paradigms. The fact is, though, that this is very hard to do, because said paradigm accords with a large body of data and knowledge and the work of thousands of people. But it does happen from time to time and thus progress is made.

  290. Nicola Scafetta says:
    April 17, 2012 at 7:54 am

    Me: You had two papers rejected by solar physics. Rejected by six reviewers.
    The reviews from all reviewers of which I was but one list several errors and comment on the low quality of the papers. As Anthony says “put up or shut up”. Publish those reviews and attendant email exchanges and threats and we can go from there. If you are not humble enough to do that, give me permission to publish them all. If you do not explicitly forbid me to publish them in your next comment, I’ll take that as permission to publish them as I please.

    Since you did not forbid to publish, I now take it as permission for me to publish what I want.

  291. Dan says:

    rgbatduke says:
    April 17, 2012 at 6:53 am

    You put my thoughts a little more succinctly than when they were bouncing around my head ;)

    I think its pretty obvious the “effects of the planets,” EM or grav, are not first…or second…order processes here. But to try and shut out the possibility that when statistical outlier type weak or strong systemic resonances take place there wont be any effect is simply too much to state with any certainty.

    Couldn’t be more entertained with a fist full of cash, fellas. Keep bangin at it!

  292. Nicola Scafetta says:
    April 17, 2012 at 7:54 am
    Chylek studing almost 3500 years of ice core data and he found bouth the 20 and the 60 year cycles
    Here is what they found “The longer multidecadal variability of 45–85 years is not well defined and none of the time scales in this band is statistically significant”

  293. Nicola Scafetta says:
    April 17, 2012 at 7:54 am
    Chylek studing almost 3500 years of ice core data and he found both the 20 and the 60 year cycles
    Here is what they found “The longer multidecadal variability of 45–85 years is not well defined and none of the time scales in this band is statistically significant”
    Perhaps their Figure would make this clear: http://www.leif.org/research/Chylek-2011.png

  294. Dan says:
    April 17, 2012 at 8:08 am
    But to try and shut out the possibility that when statistical outlier type weak or strong systemic resonances take place there wont be any effect is simply too much to state with any certainty.
    The claim is not there there is no effect whatsoever, but that any effect is bound to be very small and therefore will be submerged in the noise. Possibly one can eventually dig it out of the noise by sophisticated analysis on enough data, but that does not provide any predictive value.

  295. Bart says:

    africangenesis says:
    April 16, 2012 at 6:58 pm

    “Under general relativity, where gravity moves at the speed of light (or less), you would need to think of every particle of the sun connected to a different string at a different angle, because it is feeling the influence of a dynamically moving jupiter. The limbs of the sun are “feeling” the effect of jupiter from its position 2 seconds later than the near point of the sun or jupiters position 2 seconds earlier than that “felt” by the far side of the sun.”

    Again, a tidal effect, i.e., a local effect in the differential flow of spacetime. See next comment.

    Crispin in Johannesburg says:
    April 17, 2012 at 1:03 am

    I think perhaps you are misinterpreting me. I am not saying there is no effect from the planets. I am admonishing those arguing for the proposition the following: the only effects are tidal (difference in gravity and, as we are reminded above, time, from one point on the Sun to another), and you should not go off on tangents about the SSB. In particular, there is no valid analogy between the ball-on-a-rope and the Sun about the SSB. I sense that some people are thinking about the SSB as though the Sun were swinging variably around it, and they make an analogy with those amusement park rides where one swings around in epicylces, and imagine the forces they would feel. I am merely trying to make the point that, that analogy is not applicable.

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 16, 2012 at 8:59 pm

    “But that has little influence on the generation region, which actually is believed to sit just under the convection zone in the stratification-stable radiative core.”

    It’s all tied together, in ways that we still do not entirely understand. The question is how radiative flux in the direction of the Earth might be altered. Lots of links in that chain.

    phlogiston says:
    April 17, 2012 at 4:15 am

    “So the tidal effect of Jupiter on the sun can be approximated as one tenth of the tidal effect of the moon on earth. Imagine the tidal ebb and flow on earth beaches but divided by ten. Small, OK, but still noticeable.”

    Not 1/10th, because of the distances involved, more like 1/3,000. Still, imagine that the ocean is many orders of magnitude less dense and less viscous, too.

  296. Paul Westhaver says:

    Leif says:
    Paul Westhaver says:
    April 17, 2012 at 7:27 am
    The next step is to open one’s mind to alternative hypothesis.
    Not necessarily. A valid step is to intensity research building on existing knowledge using the laws of physics.

    Where in anything that I have written did suggest a departure from laws of physics? That is a leap you just made and attributed to me.

    It is poor science to not keep options open particularly when your existing models are fruitless.
    Our existing models are not ‘fruitless’.

    If the models advanced were any good then NASA et al would not be updating their predictions with serious fractions of error on a monthly basis. Since the models fail to predict, I think it is fair to say that they are fruitless.

    Time for fresh eyes on the problem.

  297. Leif Svalgaard says: April 17, 2012 at 8:34 am
    “Here is what they found “The longer multidecadal variability of 45–85 years ”

    Leif, if you try to read my paper with an open mind, you will find that I am not talking about a perfect 60 year cycle, nor I am talking about a unique cycle. I am also talking about other cycles such as those at about 45 and 85 year there are other planetary cycles. What is observed in the ice core is a mixing of cycles that beat with each other.

    @ Paul Westhaver says: April 17, 2012 at 7:27 am
    “I refer to Roger Bacon, the first western scientist and the “inventor” of the scientific method: his famous quote…Four obstacles to truth: the example of weak and unreliable authority; continuance of custom, regard to the opinion of the unlearned, and concealing one’s own ignorance, together with the exhibition of apparent wisdom.
    In this case, though I like Anthony, he is not an authority on the subject of barycentricism and he would likely say so. Leif appears to be learned, so the question is if he is concealing his ultimate ignorance on the the subject through and ostentatious display of knowledge or if he actual knows. I doubt he knows. Nobody knows…yet. I think Leif is working it through.”

    Very good, that is the major problem with Leif. He talks as if he knows everything and presents himself as the ultimate authority in solar science and in science in general. And I need to say that Leif is very good in selling his image to people such as Anthony.

    However, the truth is quite different. Leif is just an average scientist.

    For example, according Web of Science, in his about 40 years of scientific research Leif published 47 works that can be considered peer reviewed (journal articles, note and letters to the journal, etc, which the exclusion of conference abstract and proceedings). By comparison, by using the same metrics in my about 10 years of research, I published more or less the same number of works, but in a time interval 4 time shorter. If we consider the works published since 2001, when I started, Leif published 17 works, far less than half (almost a third) than what I published. One index that measures how important the research of a person is considered by the scientific community is the h-index. Since 2001 my h-index was 15 while Leif’s h-index is 9 (with a 30 years of scientific backgroud, while I just started in 2001).

    Of course, the above numbers may say nothing; one can publish just one paper and get the Nobel price. However, claiming that Leif is the ultimate authority on anything as he presents himself, does not seem to be very objective. His scientific career does not seem to be so higher than other average scientists. Leif needs to be more humble, what he says is filled with mathematical and physical errors, prejudices and superficial thinking. Roger Bacon would have more than once invited him to be more modest and invited him to do penance!

    It is intersting. The “scientific method” was invented by a humble monk of the most humble of the religious orders: the order of San Fransis of Assisi. And of course Bacon was persecuted by those who claimed to know everything.

  298. About Roger Bacon, Order of Friars Minor (OFM)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Bacon

  299. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Nicola Scafetta: Professor Leonid B. Klyashtorin of the Federal Institute for Fisheries and Oceanography, Moscow, Russian Federation (e-mail: Klyashtorin@mtu-net.ru)
    in a paper prepared for the UN´s FAO finds:
    Thin solid line – dT (global temperature anomaly), 1861-1998,
    dashed line – its model (harmonic oscillation with period T = 55 years + AR(2)-process)
    thick solid line with standard deviation errors bars – its forecast for 1999-2099.

    See graph at page 50
    ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/

  300. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Nicola: Be careful some dominican monks may be waiting for you, to make you suddenly as famous as Galileo… :-)

  301. Anthony Watts says:

    Nicola, Bacon has nothing to do with anything, its just a distraction. I second Leif’s observations – time to look at your paper reviews. If there’s no problem with the work, you have nothing to fear, and you shouldn’t fear open science inquiry. You keep telling everyone they need an open mind. I think what we need here is open science. Defend your work.

  302. Paul Westhaver says:
    April 17, 2012 at 9:24 am
    If the models advanced were any good then NASA et al would not be updating their predictions with serious fractions of error on a monthly basis. Since the models fail to predict, I think it is fair to say that they are fruitless.
    NASA is not predicting anything. The graph you see at Hathaway’s website is his own private one and is not a prediction [even if labeled as such] but an empirical fit of an average curve to the cycle as observed so far.

    Nicola Scafetta says:
    April 17, 2012 at 10:14 am
    Leif, if you try to read my paper with an open mind, you will find that I am not talking about a perfect 60 year cycle
    That is not my point. You were claiming Chylek found a 60-yr cycle which he did not: http://www.leif.org/research/Chylek-2011.png

    His scientific career does not seem to be so higher than other average scientists.
    But you rank way above the average? Has it come down to that? A measure of one’s standing is how often one is invited to give talks at scientific conferences. How do we stand there? I count some 25 invited talks since 2001.

    Now about publication quality:
    You had two papers recently rejected by solar physics. Rejected by six reviewers.
    The reviews from all reviewers of which I was but one list several errors and comment on the low quality of the papers. As Anthony says “put up or shut up”. Publish those reviews and attendant email exchanges and threats and we can go from there. If you are not humble enough to do that, give me permission to publish them all. If you do not explicitly forbid me to publish them in your next comment, I’ll take that as permission to publish them as I please. Since you did not forbid to publish, I now take it as permission for me to publish what I want. So, please acknowledge this here.

  303. Dan says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 17, 2012 at 9:08 am
    The claim is not there there is no effect whatsoever, but that any effect is bound to be very small and therefore will be submerged in the noise. Possibly one can eventually dig it out of the noise by sophisticated analysis on enough data, but that does not provide any predictive value.

    ————————-
    Yessir! That’s along the lines of what I was trying to say and it seems this point is being overlooked by some here. Modeling will necessarily have to well capture first and second order processes before they will be able to successfully predict lower order processes such as this topic.

    fwiw, I’m not interpreting your shootdowns as you claiming to know everything like some other people are, I just wanted to interject the “process order” into the discussion – as I see it you’ve been saying “here’s why they are not a primary, secondary order process.”

  304. Anthony, that is not a distraction. People needs to be humble and apply the scientific method correctly.

    My paper is already published and it is very open science.

    I already asked you:

    So, Anthony, where is the scientific argument?

    Are there mathematical errors in my analysis? where?
    Are there physical errors? where?
    Are there philosophical errors? where?

    Presents your personal doubts, ask a clear question and be precise and polite, and I will try to respond.
    But if you do not present any argument that can be discussed, what do you want?

    REPLY:
    What do I want? I want to see what the reviewers said. Who better than they to make arguments using the scientific method. – Anthony

  305. Volker Doormann says:

    Peter Taylor says:
    April 16, 2012 at 5:14 am
    In astrophysics there is an understanding that in the early evolution of stars angular momentum is transferred to the stellar disc via the magnetic field. Can anyone explain to me how the magnetic field transfers angular momentum?

    There is a general timeless relation:

    So, where tidal forces are apparently too weak, and stochastic resonances under-studied, I would suspect another mechanism as yet unknown that correlates with the forces of torque.

    Taking some few solar tidal functions you can see that there is a connection with the HMF published by Leif:

    I did make the graph two years ago.

    V.

  306. Nicola Scafetta says:
    April 17, 2012 at 11:04 am
    But if you do not present any argument that can be discussed, what do you want?
    REPLY: What do I want? I want to see what the reviewers said. Who better than they to make arguments using the scientific method. – Anthony

    And of the two Solar Physics papers that were rejected by six reviewers, of which I was but one, but you persist in the claim that I alone prevented publication. So, put the six reviews in a file with a link or publish them here. As I have begun to do [including, and especially, rejected papers]:
    From my website:
    1300 Semiannual-Comment.pdf (The Semiannual Variation is not Overestimated, Accepted GRL 2011) Review History
    1200 Waldmeier.pdf (Calibration of Sunspot Number, submitted GRL, rejected, 2010) Review History
    1080 Heliospheric Magnetic Field 1835-2009.pdf (JGR, 2010) Review history
    775 McCracken Comment.pdf (Comment on McCracken HMF 1428-2005, JGR (rejected) 2008) Report-Reply
    140 No Doubling of Open Flux.pdf (Rejected by Nature, 2003)

    This is not complete, because I only recently saw the clear benefit of doing this. I am now of the opinion [not shared by many] that ALL reviews should be published; by the journal if accepted and by the author if rejected [provided he has the balls to do it].

  307. Steve P says:

    According to NASA:

    It turns out that roughly 70% of the Universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 25%. The rest – everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter – adds up to less than 5% of the Universe. Come to think of it, maybe it shouldn’t be called “normal” matter at all, since it is such a small fraction of the Universe.

    http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/

    I wonder if all this cosmic fudge,and the awesome power of the magical mystery force might have a wee effect on our sun every so often?

    Food for thought.

  308. tallbloke says:

    Leif says:

    I watched the 30 minute presentation Chylek gave at a conference today. Very interesting. Various Greenland locations give different results. One of them has a strong 60 year component along wit a 20 year component. The other areas were different, although the 20 year component is clear in all. 19.93 years is te Jupiter Saturn synodic period.

    45 years also figures intermittently in Chylek’s wavelet analysis. This is a strong inner solar system repetition, with many different planets involved in various combinations.
    Ian wilson recently gave a nice set of results on the Talkshop of these.

    The beach ridges in eustatically lifting quiet northern shores around Hudson bay and nothern Siberia exhibit a regular sequence of 45 year ridges going back thousands of years, with extra high ridges at 1/3 and 1.2 millenium scale.

    The regularity of the signal seen in real beach ridges in the real world means Chylek’s intermittent signal should be treated with caution. Wavelet analysis is useful, but not infallible, just like all our mathematical signal processing techniques.

    75 years is a Lunar component. Harald Yndestad published a paper a couple of years ago showing the effect in Northern Atlantic waters

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2009/11/30/the-moon-is-linked-to-long-term-atlantic-changes/

    Clearly, the interaction of all these cycles is a complex system to try to unravel. There are no simple one to one relationships in non-linear systems. Simple minded rebuttals on the basis of linear thinking are of no use to anyone trying to understand te complexity and the underlying resonances and harmonics involved.

    The Halstatt cycle being coincident with a repetition of the Jovian polanetary positions is strong evidence however:

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

  309. Steve P says:
    April 17, 2012 at 11:52 am
    It turns out that roughly 70% of the Universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 25%.
    There are people looking into what effect Dark Matter would have if present in our solar system. Dark Energy has no effect: the Universe is not expanding on the length-scale of galaxies or shorter.

  310. Myrrh says:

    Really liked rgbatduke’s input, which I found easier to follow than the majority of the posts here as most of the technicalities being argued unfamiliar, and helped with my question about what causes the Earth’s wobbles.

    Here’s two looks at it:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090806141512.htm

    http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2000/chandlerwobble.html

    The first says: “ScienceDaily (Aug. 6, 2009) — Researchers have largely put to rest a long debate on the underlying mechanism that has caused periodic ice ages on Earth for the past 2.5 million years – they are ultimately linked to slight shifts in solar radiation caused by predictable changes in Earth’s rotation and axis.
    ..
    To make their analysis, the researchers used an analysis of 6,000 dates and locations of ice sheets to define, with a high level of accuracy, when they started to melt. In doing this, they confirmed a theory that was first developed more than 50 years ago that pointed to small but definable changes in Earth’s rotation as the trigger for ice ages.

    “We can calculate changes in the Earth’s axis and rotation that go back 50 million years,” Clark said. “These are caused primarily by the gravitational influences of the larger planets, such as Jupiter and Saturn, which pull and tug on the Earth in slightly different ways over periods of thousands of years.”

    That, in turn, can change the Earth’s axis – the way it tilts towards the sun – about two degrees over long periods of time, which changes the way sunlight strikes the planet. And those small shifts in solar radiation were all it took to cause multiple ice ages during about the past 2.5 million years on Earth, which reach their extremes every 100,000 years or so.”

    The second article, July 18, 2000, says:

    A MYSTERY OF EARTH’S WOBBLE SOLVED: IT’S THE OCEAN

    The century-old mystery of Earth’s “Chandler wobble” has been solved by a scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. The Chandler wobble, named for its 1891 discoverer, Seth Carlo Chandler, Jr., an American businessman turned astronomer, is one of several wobbling motions exhibited by Earth as it rotates on its axis, much as a top wobbles as it spins.

    Scientists have been particularly intrigued by the Chandler wobble, since its cause has remained a mystery even though it has been under observation for over a century. Its period is only around 433 days, or just 1.2 years, meaning that it takes that amount of time to complete one wobble. The wobble amounts to about 20 feet at the North Pole. It has been calculated that the Chandler wobble would be damped down, or reduced to zero, in just 68 years, unless some force were constantly acting to reinvigorate it.

    But what is that force, or excitation mechanism? Over the years, various hypotheses have been put forward, such as atmospheric phenomena, continental water storage (changes in snow cover, river runoff, lake levels, or reservoir capacities), interaction at the boundary of Earth’s core and its surrounding mantle, and earthquakes.

    Writing in the August 1 issue of Geophysical Research Letters, Richard Gross, a JPL geophysicist, reports that the principal cause of the Chandler wobble is fluctuating pressure on the bottom of the ocean, caused by temperature and salinity changes and wind-driven changes in the circulation of the oceans. He determined this by applying numerical models of the oceans, which have only recently become available through the work of other researchers, to data on the Chandler wobble obtained during the years 1985-1995. Gross calculated that two-thirds of the Chandler wobble is caused by ocean-bottom pressure changes and the remaining one-third by fluctuations in atmospheric pressure. He says that the effect of atmospheric winds and ocean currents on the wobble was minor.”

    If it’s this clear that it’s the gravity pull from the larger planets which accounts for the periodic returns in and out of the Ice Age, which are dramatic changes, then these planets must be having some effect on the Sun, surely?

  311. tallbloke says:
    April 17, 2012 at 11:52 am
    Wavelet analysis is useful, but not infallible, just like all our mathematical signal processing techniques.
    And is certainly inferior to strong faith in cyclomania :-)
    My humble mention of Chylek was solely to point out that Scafetta made an invalid claim of what Chylek found.

  312. “REPLY: What do I want? I want to see what the reviewers said. Who better than they to make arguments using the scientific method. – Anthony”

    Anthony, I am sorry. You need to think with your brain, not with the brain of anonymous people.

    Leif was one of the anonymous referee and he has already presented his arguments many times. For example, he claimed that the tidal elongation of the planets according his calculations are small, just a millimeter. I already responded that it is not the right way to do the calculations because Leif’s equation would not be able to reproduce the ocean tides that we know. Internal resonance already amplifies ocean tides up to a 200 factor here on the Earth in many places. So, until the amplification factors inside the sun are fully understood and the right internal physics is clarified Leif’s criticism is irrelevant and it is only an argumentum ad ignorantiam.

    In science that kind of argument cannot be used to rebut a paper focusing on empirical findings such as mine. However, Leif used such an argument to reject my paper and by doing that he abused his position as a referee.

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

    Leif twisted the scientific method by arguing as if a scientific theory begins with a full understanding of underlying mechanisms. Bacon would be very displeased with him.

    About the other referee, what he said was even worst (and the biased editor was forced to reject him and substitute him with Leif), but before answering other people, they need to come out, reveal their name and then we can discuss their arguments.

    If they do not come out, their criticism is void. What do you want? that I answer people who do not have the courage to put their name on what they say?

    REPLY: “Anthony, I am sorry. You need to think with your brain, not with the brain of anonymous people. ”

    OK that’s it for me. Nicola, your currency of trust here is now bankrupt. – Anthony

  313. tallbloke says:

    REPLY: “If Anthony bothered to visit my site, he would know that:” Well when a) you post with a made up name, and b) don’t include a website, it is rather hard to even know of its existence. For all I know you are just another blathering kid living in his mom’s basement. If you want respect and recognition, stand up and be counted, otherwise don’t blame me for not figuring out your writings due to your own lack of transparency. – Anthony

    Hi Anthony,
    That would be Ian Wilson Phd (Astrophysics).

    http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au

  314. izen says:

    Given the paucity of good data for the various ‘oscillations’, AMO, PDO and long solar cycles, of more than a few putative iterations of the cycle, I am surprised that people will still assert that there is a definitive oscillation. And even try and attribute a cause.
    Invariably on examination the cyclic behavior turns out to vary in period, amplitude and phase by a significant percentage from its ‘average’ or nominal value. And is rarely sinusoidal in its evolution.

    If any electronic circuit, or mechanical pendulum arrangement exhibited the sort of variation seen in so many of these ‘cycles’ it would be classed as a source of chaotic (not random!) noise rather than as an oscillator.
    Perhaps it is helpful to compare and consider the ENSO ‘cycle’. We do have sufficient data on that variation to know it is quasi-periodic. there is an envelope of values it may adopt which are most probable. But predicting it much more than 6 months ahead has proved … extremely difficult. Averaged over many periods the ENSO changes roughly balance out. The probable path of ENSO variations where the observation time is a large multiple of the ‘average’ period indicates the range of possible behaviour appears to be constrained, possibly by thermodynamic considerations.
    But the actual direction it may take over the next few years seems to be chaotically unpredictable.

    That might be a paradigm for many other claimed ‘cyclic’ processes in the planetary climate systems. The problem is that a quasi-periodic process that flips between 2,4 or 8 meta-stable states can appear to be a simple regular oscillation with sparse data. Or can be ‘Fourier transformed’ into the beat and interference of several simple frequencies with a little mathturbation. It is probably an error to conclude that just because it is possible to derive a underlying regular frequency from the data that the process is a simple oscillation, or resonating with a harmonic source. Chaotic noise sources, like ENSO, are not prone to entrainment by fixed frequency inputs. cycle capture is usually short-lived, and the CHAOTIC source may show some regularity, then phase- shift or period double/half unpredictably…. hmmmm. -grin-

    Chaotic systems and processes do synchronise with similar chaotic sources however. Not so that they are working in lock-step, but so there is a clear correlation between two apparently independent, and weakly linked chaotic systems in how their envelope behavior changes. While that can add extra complexity to the whole system, the range of behaviour is still constrained by the thermodynamics.

    There is one clear and unambiguous solar cycle. the 11/22 year sunspot cycle. Although as seen recently even that is not stable in magnitude and period. I have seen no credible argument to locate this cycle in an external driver. As far as I understand the present view, the length of the sunspot cycle is attributed to the internal dynamics of the Sun. No planetary, astronomical or external influence determines the cycle period, internal dynamics dominate. It seems unlikely that any significant other dynamic solar cycle would be entrained by planetary influence when it is so notably absent from the main variation.

  315. Myrrh says:
    April 17, 2012 at 11:59 am
    The first says: “ScienceDaily (Aug. 6, 2009) — Researchers have largely put to rest a long debate on the underlying mechanism that has caused periodic ice ages on Earth for the past 2.5 million years – they are ultimately linked to slight shifts in solar radiation caused by predictable changes in Earth’s rotation and axis.
    More importantly in the shape of the Earth’s orbit, which is mainly controlled by Jupiter, so, yes, the planets are controlling the climate in the long run, but through controlling the Earth rather than the Sun.
    The Chandler Wobble is driven by the climate, and is not of interest in what drives the climate.

  316. @ Leif Svalgaard says: April 17, 2012 at 11:37 am

    the referees of my rejected work were chosen by the same biased editor. That the editor was biased was clear by his own dishonest behavior. Some of those referees were so stupid that even the arrogant editor could not but reject their opinion. What you say is irrelevant, Einstein had 100 scientists writing a booklet against him: Einstein is still here and nobody knows who those 100 scientists are any more.

    Anthony say: “OK that’s it for me. Nicola, your currency of trust here is now bankrupt. – Anthony”
    Sorry Anthony, what are the arguments against my paper?

    There are a lot of people above that do not agree with your narrow way of thinking. But a day you will wake up from Leif’s spell on you. :)

    REPLY: Witchcraft claims now? Sheesh. – Anthony

  317. John Whitman says:

    Paul Westhaver says:
    April 15, 2012 at 4:37 pm

    rgbatduke says:
    April 17, 2012 at 6:53 am

    phlogiston says:
    April 17, 2012 at 4:04 am

    – – – – – –

    Paul Westhaver/ rgbatduke/ phlogiston,

    I congratulate you on providing what is, for me, the most intellectually fruitful sub-thread on this very stimulating WUWT post. (Anthony-thanks for bringing the post to WUWT)

    I look for forward to the continuation of your gentlemanly conduct. And look forward to the possibility of you opening up the constrained discussion to other possibilities/unknowns that exist within the science of the solar system. The dialog has benefited from your input.

    John

  318. Steve P says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 17, 2012 at 11:56 am

    There are people looking into what effect Dark Matter would have if present in our solar system. Dark Energy has no effect: the Universe is not expanding on the length-scale of galaxies or shorter.

    We are part of the cosmos, expanding with it, and – one would assume – not immune to whatever magical mystery force is driving the theorized expansion.

    As we can see only 5% of the theorized universe, I’d say our ignorance is massive. Better to keep an open mind.

  319. tallbloke says:

    REPLY: “Anthony, I am sorry. You need to think with your brain, not with the brain of anonymous people. ”
    OK that’s it for me. Nicola, your currency of trust here is now bankrupt. – Anthony

    Anthony, Nicola is not trying to insult you, he is saying that anonymous reviewers are able to say things they wouldn’t if they knew their names would be revealed. He’s asking you to see the oppotunity that affords them by putting yourself in their shoes.

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 17, 2012 at 11:56 am

    Steve P says:
    April 17, 2012 at 11:52 am
    It turns out that roughly 70% of the Universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 25%.
    There are people looking into what effect Dark Matter would have if present in our solar system. Dark Energy has no effect: the Universe is not expanding on the length-scale of galaxies or shorter.

    Heh, so now the universe only expands in the places where it wouldn’t cause inconvenience.
    Give it up Leif, Hubble, a good empirical scientist did.

    “The model is closed and very small—a large fraction can be observed with existing telescopes—and is packed with matter to the very threshold of perception—. The rate of expansion has been slowing down so that the past time scale is remarkably limited. In short, the necessary adjustments and compensations suggest that the model may be a forced interpretation of the data.” In plainer language, this meant that Astronomer Hubble is now willing to abandon the expanding universe to mathematical cosmologists and philosophers, pending a further development of theory, or the erection in 1940 of Caltech’s 200-inch super telescope, which may finally settle the question.

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/04/17/time-calls-time-on-big-bang-theory-in-1936/

  320. Steve P says:
    April 17, 2012 at 12:59 pm
    We are part of the cosmos, expanding with it
    Apart from my waistline, we do not.
    As we can see only 5% of the theorized universe, I’d say our ignorance is massive. Better to keep an open mind.
    That we with confidence can make the statement that we only see 5%, I’d say that our knowledge is massive.

  321. Anthony Watts says:

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

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

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

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

Comments are closed.