A new paper published by the Astronomical Society of Australia titled:
Does a Spin–Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the Jovian Planets Govern the Solar Cycle?
contains a warning about earthly climate change not immediately obvious from the abstract:
Based on our claim that changes in the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate are synchronized with changes in the Sun’s orbital motion about the barycentre, we propose that the mean period for the Sun’s meridional flow is set by a Synodic resonance between the flow period (~22.3 yr), the overall 178.7-yr repetition period for the solar orbital motion, and the 19.86-yr synodic period of Jupiter and Saturn.
According to an interview with Andrew Bolt, of the Australian Newspaper, Herald Sun, Ian Wilson, one of the authors explained:
It supports the contention that the level of activity on the Sun will significantly diminish sometime in the next decade and remain low for about 20 – 30 years. On each occasion that the Sun has done this in the past the World’s mean temperature has dropped by ~ 1 – 2 C.
###
Hmmm, I’m not sold on this idea. This is a lot like what Dr. Theodor Landscheidt proposes. I have a little bit of trouble understanding how the “mass at a distance” gravitational effects of Jupiter and Saturn could have much effect on the solar dynamo.
I’m sure both my readers, and Dr. Leif Svalgaard, who regularly monitors this blog, will have something to add to provide additional insight. – Anthony
Leif,
Without the planets the sun would sit at the barycenter, let’s not mince words.
As for your example of feathers and lead, now make the feathers into a plasma and distribute them around the lead in space. The effects of gravity from the planets will not affect them the same, especially considering that the gravitational forces from the planets are ever changing.
… you need to calculate the difference in density between the center and surface since they are essentially two different bodies.
MarkW (05:47:01) :
“It seems to me that once the laws of physics are violated in a thought experiment, then any conclusion drawn from that thought experiment are useless.”
Thought experiments are good to discard high-order effects to demonstrate a point. Physicist use lots of tools in thought experiments like the massless ropes, inertia-less pulleys, and friction-free surfaces.
“I remember a thought experiment whereby it could be proved that 1 equals 2. The trick was, half way through, there was a hidden divide by zero.”
Mathematicians generally don’t need thought experiments, but in this case the correct term is “fallacy,” something that appears true but isn’t. As opposed to paradox, where one definition refers to something that appears false but is true, e.g. the birthday paradox.
Thanks for the explanation. The impression I had received from your earlier comments was that you were trying to give the impression that the sun was sufficiently well understood, and fitted the theory accurately enough, that any potential alternative mechanisms by which small influences might be magnified could be safely dismissed. Yes I agree we probably have a broad understanding of the overall conditions, but I didn’t think we understood either the physical mechanisms that brought them about, or the fine details that might provide exceptions well enough to be able to make such definitive statements. If this wasn’t your intention, my apologies.
I agree that it is hard to imagine any tidal force having an effect over the general roiling chaos (and the force itself would only be consistently applied for 6-9 days before being reversed, rather than years) but then I could sometimes say the same thing on Earth, where storm-driven wave heights are far larger than the 36 cm tide force that is sustained over a mere 6 hours. The chaos cancels out. On the whole, I’m not inclined to pay much attention to this theory pending proposal of a testable mechanism, but it seems unduly negative to spoil people’s fun by saying there’s no point in even thinking about it because even Newton knew it was impossible. By the way, I assume that ‘millimetres displacement’ is against the sun’s more intense surface gravity? What delta-v does that add up to if applied horizontally for 6 days?
I don’t understand how the differential rotation can result from the Coriolis effect acting on convection. This was my own initial thought on what ought to happen in a rotating convecting fluid, but the Coriolis force seems to point in the wrong direction. As fluid rises, it ought to be deflected in the counter-rotation direction, as it moves away from the rotation axis and angular momentum is conserved. As it moves North/South away from the equator, it ought to get deflected in the direction of the sun’s rotation, resulting in a faster spin as one approaches the poles. Precisely the opposite is observed. It is as if the ice skater spread out her arms to spin faster.
One thought I had to try to resolve this is that being less dense fluid convecting, that its buoyancy gives it an effective negative mass, like bubbles in a water bottle being accelerated. But if the average mass flow is upwards at the equator, angular momentum conservation should still deflect the general mass backwards relative to the rotation, even if there are bubbles of lighter plasma moving forwards through it. So I still don’t understand.
It’s not important to the argument, but now that I’ve thought of the question, it’ll bother me until I’ve got it resolved.
MikeC: The barycenter is not something physical, but exists only in our mind. I thought my pea-experiment made that clear. Every time we discover a new planet, that discovery moves the barycenter. It has been suggested that an apparent 26-million year cycle of cometary impacts is triggered by a solar companion [called “Nemesis”]. Should Nemesis ever be discovered, that discovery would move the solar system barycenter way out on the other side of Jupiter.
Stevo: The tidal ‘wave’ is not a wave in the same sense as your ‘storm-driven waves’. The tide is a ‘bore’. The difference is that in a wave there is no net lateral movement [a cork thrown into the wave just bobs up and down]. The ‘tide’ and BTW a tsunami are ‘bores’ where the material actually moves laterally. Let that be as it is. Here is a good explanation of the differential rotation: lasp.colorado.edu/~reu/summer-2007/presentations/Solar_Dynamo_Rempel.ppt
Mike C (11:19:49) :
“Without the planets the sun would sit at the barycenter, let’s not mince words.”
One of the definitions from dictionary.com:
“As for your example of feathers and lead, now make the feathers into a plasma and distribute them around the lead in space. The effects of gravity from the planets will not affect them the same, especially considering that the gravitational forces from the planets are ever changing.”
As long as the plasma doesn’t expand into a huge object, I don’t see how the effects of gravity will change. The force is still (G x m1 x m2)/r^2 between each planet and either the plasma or lead. Sum each vector (the force between lead or plasma and each planet) and you’d have the same math as before.
Perhaps you can describe (with some math!) how you believe the effects of gravity will change.
Fascinating discussion! If but I were qualified to contribute….
IDIOT TAKE-AWAYS:
1) Don’t mess with Leif =)
2) Just because our Sun is variably wobbling about in the gravitational grasp of its planets… that does not mean that it is being in any meaningful (or understood) way affected that could impart periods higher or lower solar activity… (this one hurts my brain/pea… why not?… it seems its being demanded to change its position at the whims of its wayward children… in my household this activity has a very upsetting affect on my moods/flares… Ok, I’ll just go with it…)
3) Empirically, the model seems to fit and the predictions seem to be very accurate to-date, but we don’t reasonably know the mechanism that would make it causal… (just like Landscheidt states).
IDIOT NOTE: If this were a stock picking program that modeled all significant past market crashes and bubbles… AND made some pretty accurate short term future predictions I think I might continue the research and maybe invest more than just wedge of my discretionary cash.
4) So we must wait until the nadir of the next Gleissberg minimum at or about 2030 to really know if we’ve got a winner (actually a Maunder Minimum type loser). Unless some big thinker can theorize a reason why…
5) Immediately intern all peas that may be capable of physics-be-damned space flight (for future use in “seeding” solar activity and thwarting said predicted ice-ages).
FINAL IDIOT NOTE: Attempts at humor aside… thank you Anthony and all contributors for doing this here where we mere mortals can lurk and learn… truly fascinating! Now, back to lurking….
Mr Svalgaard, you state that “The barycenter [or center of mass] is a fictitious point calculated from masses and distances.”
If we accept this and further acknowledge that the sun does not actually move to the barycenter, is something effecting the sun at the next level up (Galaxy Level).
Would the end result of the planets moving further away or closer to the sun move our solar system’s barycenter further away or closer to the Milky Way’s Center?
If this occurs, since the solar system’s barycenter is in free fall with the Milky Way’s center, would the result be a speeding up or slowing down of our solar systems movement around the Milky Way? Mass of orbiting objects determine
distance and speed of orbital paths?
Since the sun rotates on it’s axis, the change in our solar system’s orbital
period would cause forces inside the sun opposite in direction depending
upon a move higher up or lower, resulting in a reversal of polarity of the sun spots.
This is a very interesting forum, because of the fact that there the Sun forcing over climate is discussed.
I am working in field of solar-terrestrial /including solar-climatical/ relationships since the beginning of 1980’s . (between 1981-1995 solar-climate relationships in Bulgaria, on the base of instrumental data for the last ~100 years; after 1995- large time scale solar activity variations /Schove’s series . 14C and later also 10Be, middle latitide auroras, giant sunspots data series etc + corresponding relations to the climate , including dendrochronology studies). I conclude about forcomming supercenturial Dalton-type solar minimum since 1996 on the base of predicted Gnevishev-Ohl’ s rule violation for the pair cycles No 22-23 /which is already a fact/.
(Komitov,1997; Komitov and Bonev 2001). After that the same result for Dalton-type minimum in 21st by using of two different types of time series analysis by Dr. Vladimir Kaftan and me (Komitov and Kaftan, 2003) over different indirect solar activity indexes. The full versions of these /and other/ papers or extended abstracts it could be found at http://www.astro.bas.bg/~komitov/abstract.htm
*****
The “official” climate changes theories are underestimating the Sun role mainly because they are taken into account only the TSI -variations. For a more correct estimations it need to add at least two additional solar or solar-modulated sources:
1. The galactic cosmic rays (GCR) variations -> more GCR flux during the solar minimums epochs in trophosphere , more aerosols and clouds, inccreasing of Earth albedo, more intensive cyclogenesis (Wilcox-effect),shifting in equatorial side of cyclon trajectories (Brown -effect), and as a final result- climate cooling(Friz-Christiensen 1997,Yu 2002,Tinsley 1998-2000)
2. The high energetic solar proton events /mainly by solar erruptions and coronal mass ejections(CME)/ . There is an evidience that there /most probably/ a strong ~60-65 year cycle on the Sun exist. , because in middle latitude auroras (MLA) data a strong cycle with the same duratiom exist, while the 11-yr cycle in this series is very weak (Komitov,2007,2008). The ~65yr cycle is relative weak in overall sunspot activity indexes such as Wolf’s number or Group sunspot number, but it is possible that the last one is typical for a separate type of active regions (a sources of powerful erruptive events, which are causing the MLA ‘s in Earth atmosphere). A precise analysis show that about 60% of the total temeperature change amplitude during last ~150 years are quasi-63 year cyclic oscilations with minimums at ~1911 and 1974/5 and maximums near to 1880, 1940/2 and 2005/7 (extrapolated) . On other hand the MLA-data maximums during 17th to 19th centuries correspond to the maximal negative deviations of relationship TSI-Nothern hemisphere temperature or Rh-Northern hemisphere temperature (Rh- Group Sunspot Number). The last ones are approximately the moments of 65yr cycle maximums in MLA-series. The MLA data series on the base of Krivsky(1988) studies is published in NGDC data base.
By this fact it could conclude that the effect of high energetic solar protons (E=>10MeV) penetration in Earth atmosphere is very similar to the same effect caused by GCR(see 1), however during epochs of high erruptive solar activity. This make the real total Sun-climate relationship more complicated as only on the base of TSI, but it could explain at least of 88% of total climate changes during the last~400 years as caused by the Sun (TSI+GCR modulation+solar erruptive activity) (Komitov,2008). The first nummerical models for solar proton erruptions effects over troposphere are given in USSR by E.Mustel at the beginning of 1970st (Vitinskii et al, 1976) as well as there is a study of Shourmans et al (1969) and I am not understanding why almost all “forget” for solar erruptive activity as an important climate forcing factor to the present day.
About the last ~30 years: The erruptive activity index is falling down from cycles No21 to 23 . and so the “global warming” after 1980 is a result by high TSI levels+ the lack of high energetic solar protons /compared to the period of 1940-1975) and
no additional source of warming is necessary there . The extrapolated minimum of ~65 yr MLA cycle is near to 2005/06, i.e by starting of cycle No24 it should to expext a cooling tenedency caused by the increasing of solar erruptive events. By my opinion we should to expect for cycles No 24 and 25 low sunspot activity and relative low level of TSI + strong proton erruptive activty, i.e. an situation like during the Halloween storms in 2003 (no so high sunspot activity Rz ~60-70, but concentrated in powerful groups and by this one intebsive erruptive activity) and climate cooling as result)
Thank you, Boris, for introducing some truly original research to our discussion. And for those of us who were suspect of the traditional analysis of TSI and its dominace in expert presentations of solar induced warming, especially welcome research, indeed.
With my french association we oberve since 1950 that solar events induce terrestrial weather. We continue the observations made by Albert Nodon near Bordeaux at the begining of the last century.
http://albert-nodon.e-monsite.com/rubrique,la-radioactivite,35185.html
http://albert-nodon.e-monsite.com/forum-lire-116257.html
http://protons.20six.fr/
we prepare an english paper to explain what we observed
Patricia Régnier for ARFA
If you want joint us you could come on the yahoo group
http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/Phebus/?yguid=261237251
Leif,
You said “Here is a good explanation of the differential rotation.” Are there some notes with the slides I can’t see? Because the only explanation I can find is one slide with an arrow pointing to some spirals representing convection rolls saying “global convection which drives the differential rotation.” I’m sure it’s a great slide when the lecturer is available to point things out and explain what it all means, but on it’s own it explains nothing.
I don’t particularly want to pursue this off-topic discussion too far and annoy people, but do you have one with an actual explanation? Thanks.
Leif Svalgaard (16:58:46) :
“MikeC: The barycenter is not something physical, but exists only in our mind.”
As Ric pointed out in a later post, it’s the center of gravity between two objects. I am sure you understand the point. Let’s cut the rhetoric.
Ric Werme (17:16:26) :
“As long as the plasma doesn’t expand into a huge object, I don’t see how the effects of gravity will change. ”
Ric, it’s so simple, I can’t believe we are having this discussion. There are two different objects at different distances from the planets. One object (the sun’s surface) is a plasma, the other (the suns center) acts like a solid heavy object. The plasma at the equator of the sun is also likely to be thicker than at its poles due to centrifical force. The gravity of the planets pulls at the equator of the suns surface, slowly dragging it faster than the suns surface at the poles due to distance and density. (follow so far? Now take your equasion and apply the differece in distance of the suns surface and poles from the planet but first you have to change the flaw in your equasion because it assumes the surface is a solid mass, you need to change ito a fluid and apply the proper formula). There is a difference in the rate of spin between the suns center and surface. The 11 year sunspot cycles are caused by that difference. Because the planets do not have equal orbits around the sun, the gravitational pull by the planets on the sun will change. However, since the planets individual orbits are at different speeds, they will allign to simillar gravitational pull from time to time. That is what causes the changes in strength of the solar cycle on longer time scales such as in hundreds of years.
Stevo: Well, these things are complicated and no simple handwaving explanation can be given. Here is my next try: http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2005-1&page=articlesu23.html see especially section 6.3.
I’m going to make a correction here, it’s not the difference in rotation between the surface and center of the sun that causes the solar cycles, it is the difference between the rotation of the suns surface at the equator and poles that cause the solar cycles.
Leif, that’s a good read but the internal dynamics of the sun do not negate the gravitational forces of the planets on the sun’s surface. The planets have a strong gravitational pull on the sun as is evidenced by how far they pull it from the center mass of the solar system.
Doc Leif:
So, in a nutshell, it’s the variation of the gravitational pull of planets on the sun’s non-solid surface as they come into and out of alignment that affects the rate of solar equatorial spin and creates the variation in intensity of solar cycles.
That makes perfect sense to me.
Gary,
I will mark there some additional aspects, concerning the 60-65 yr cycle
1. It seems that it was detected first by D.Schove still in middle of 20th century on the base of visual /morphological/ analysis of aurora data (Schove,1955)
2. There is also an amplitude and frequency evolution in the range of subcenturial solar oscilations (most probably modulated by the 2200-2400 yrs Halstadtzeit cycle) and correponding to changes of oscilation regime in convective zone of the Sun.
3.Before the Maunder minimum (MM) there was a single cycle by duration of ~ 77-78 years (in Schove’s series. At the beginning of 18th century (the end of MM) the last one has been splited on two components by durations of 90-100 and 60-65 yrs respectively. There was also a well expressed 60-65 yr cycle before AD 700.
I.e. the present /aurora activity modulated/ 60-65 year cycle is relatively new, only from ~ 300 years as well as the present quasi-centurial solar cycle.
4. A strong ~65 year cycle exist also in 10Be Greenland series (Komitov et al., 2003)
Directly saying it was the start point for me to search for cycle with the same duration
in other solar- geophysic data series. It exist also in 10Be Antarctc series, but essentially weaker.
5. .There is also a relative weak , but stable during the last~2000 years 52-55 year cycle in Schove;s series and 10 Be (Greenland) series (NOTE: Ocasionally or not but it is very close to the “sacral” Mayan solar cycle)
It is is very interesting that the meteorologists are commenting the 60-65 yr cycle in climate as a result of self-modulated oscilations (auto-oscilations)(Schleissinger, 1994)(?!!!). This is totally incorrect. This cycle is caused by the Sun.
MikeC: Indeed the planets do have a strong gravitational pull on the Sun.
Boris Komitov,
In your work with the 10Be data, is this data of sufficient resolution that we can determine the presence of 11 or 22 year variations in cosmic ray flux during the Maunder Minimum?
Basil
REPLY: Great question! – Anthony
We had cloudless rain again here in Pendleton in NE Oregon. There has been a lot of dust in the air from wind. Could it be that we have water vapor that is being acted upon by an abundance of a steady stream of cosmic rays to the point that the water vapor becomes droplets aided by dust in the air? Whatever it was, the drops were quite large and lasted for about an hour. There were misty-like white translucent clouds low in the air but you could see blue sky through the clouds. Cooled us right down too.
Also, after three days of hotter than last year temps, we are back to being 11 degrees cooler than last year, following the consistent cooler pattern seen in June.
I notice in the cooler parts of the world, that people are more skeptical about AGW or would not be sorry to see it get warmer.
Maybe as our population ages and gets more cold blooded we will care less too.
Also, as we lose weight from the financial crisis caused by the banksters, perhaps we won’t worry so much either since we will have less blubber to insulate us.
Just taking a gander at sea ice from seasonal minimums to maximums. The Southern Hemisphere continues to move upwards in terms of minimum amounts as well as maximum amounts but nothing that makes you go “woooheee, now that’s a comeback”. The Northern Hemisphere appears to have roared back big time in terms of a one season comeback. From the last minimum to maximum, it recovered 11 million sq km. Going back to 1978, NH sea ice recovered by no more than 10 million sq km. Now that calls for a “whhhoooheee”!
In other words, it was cold enough to cause (if that was the cause) a 10% increase in ice recovery compared to previous seasons going back to 1978.