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
RE: To Basil
Yes! The natural time step of these data is 1- 1.5 year. But we use an interpolation procedure to use an equdistan step of 1year. And so we investigate this series for cycles in range 2 to 500 years. The “Greenland” 10Be series is very well known (Bier et al, 1991(or 1990?),1999, Damon et al., 1997). It is 563 years long -from AD 1423 to 1985. There are many studies concerning the 11 and 22 yr cycles in this series (for example Damon et al., 1997; Usoskin et al.,1999 etc).
I forget also to note that 60-65 year cycke is well shown in many
dendrochronological series in the all world (better in Northern hemisphere) .
RE: To Basil
According especially the Maunder minimum: There is very well expressed 22 yr,
BUT ABSENT 11 year cycle! (Komitov et al., 2003; Komitov and Kaftan 2004). And this is caused mainly by the epoch 1670-1690/5. During this time the 11 yr cycle in 10Be (but obviously no in sunspots) data is deep destroyed. It could say that the 1680st are the “center” of Maunder minimum. Before AD 1670 and after AD 1690 a some relative weak quasi-11yr cyclic tendency is already shown.
[…] Comment on Astronomical Society of Australia publishes new paper …“Leif Svalgaard (16:45:56) :. “Carsten and others: I do not have to follow the laws of physics. I can put the pea where I want when I want. What I tried to show was the absurdity of the barycenter theory of sunspots. … […]
[snipped] I’m sorry but this is a science blog, I won’t allow astrology discussions and it’s “predictions” or world events on this forum.
Astrology is crap, period. – Anthony
“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.”
“Mass at a distance” is not the point. The alignment of the planets determines where the barycenter (center of mass) of the Solar system is, and how far it is from the center of the Sun (it can vary by millions of miles). The distance from the barycenter to the Sun center determines the gravitational tidal forces on the Sun, and those presumably are what couple with the solar dynamo.
Leif,
Thanks for the link. That one’s a lot better.
I’ll have to have a think about it before I decide whether I’m convinced, though. 🙂
Anthony,
I believe your concerns about this paper are valid. The primary author of this paper this Ian Wilson. When I looked at the following abstract things did not look quite on the up-and-up.
Does a Spin–Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the Jovian Planets Govern the Solar Cycle?
http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/AS06018.htm
[comments questioning credentials removed – See Dr. Wilson’s subsequent post clearing up the issue raised – Anthony]
I believe that too much time has been wasted on this paper.
Mike
Dear Michael Ronayne,
I have worked for the Queensland Government. The address that Ian Wilson used was more than likely determined by the department (Education Queensland).
Michael Ronayne (14:01:07) :
Your conspiratorial paranoia got the best of you. All of these individuals are well known in their field as is their employment status. Particularly Ian Wilson. I’ve been in email groups with him and he is upstanding. Regardless of how many google searches you do, there are still changes in staffing and employment that will not make it’s way to the internet.
Bob: The distance from the barycenter to the Sun center determines the gravitational tidal forces on the Sun, and those presumably are what couple with the solar dynamo
This is incorrect, the tidal effects are determined by the distance between the sun’s actual surface [or where the tides are supposed to occur] and the body causing the tides, plus the Sun’s radius. The largest tide raised by any planet is less than one thousandth of a yard [0.04 inches]. The barycenter idea is just junk, but has amazing appeal, it seems.
Stevo: I’ll have to have a think about it before I decide whether I’m convinced, though
many solar physicists have pondered this deeply and carefully… The matter is not completely understood [still some adjustments to be made for a better fit], but the outline is clear enough.
I had been corresponding with Ian Wilson for over a year before he published this paper. I am honoured to have lead mention in the acknowledgements on page 14. The paper has a lot of original insight that explains most attributes of solar cycle activity.
The title of the paper (I haven’t read it – it’s not available without purchase) asks whether spin-orbit coupling of the Sun’s spin and orbital angular momentum governs the solar cycle. The abstract states that spin-orbit coupling is empirically observed (“changes in the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate are synchronized with changes in the Sun’s orbital motion about the barycentre”), that the coupling is caused by resonance in the motion of the Jovian planets, and that it determines the Sun’s meridional flow period and the Hale (double sunspot) Cycle.
Dr. Mike wrote, “From the sun’s point of view, it can move from 0.1 solar radii from the CoM, out to 2 radii, in a mere 5 years or so (and other times it can spend decades at 0.7-1.3 or so). The sun’s orbital angular momentum is changing drastically during these times, but I said angular momentum is conserved. So what happens? The sun has to _transfer_ angular momentum from its orbit to its own internal rotation. Since it is a giant ball of fluid, this is likely a very complex problem indeed.”
Ric Werme then wrote, “No – angular momentum within the solar system has to be conserved, and most of it is held in Jupiter’s orbit around the Sun. I haven’t worked though the math, but I bet that when the Sun moves from or to the barycenter the distance between the barycenter and Jupiter/Saturn/Venus changes in the appropriate amounts to keep the solar system angular momentum constant. … For the Sun to speed up its rotational period it needs some torque, and the only source of that is from tides, and those are so weak that internal thermal processes must overwhelm it.”
Dr. Mike then wrote, “Yes, the sun moves relative to the barycenter, yes it has to transfer angular momentum, does it automatically transfer to the other planets?” and answered his own question later saying, “Now that I’ve had time to think about it, and crunch out a few back of the envelope calculations, I will agree that the angular momentum changes between the sun and the barycenter are made up for by angular momentum changes between the other planets and the barycenter. … So no, the sun does not need some massive angular momentum transfer between its internal and orbital momentums.”
So the question becomes, is there or is there not spin-orbit coupling? The Australian authors believe so. If there is it seems a very plausible explanation for the Hale Cycle.
Landsheidt (“New Little Ice Age instead of global warming”, section 7) states, “The dynamics of the sun’s motion about the centre of mass can be defined quantitatively by the change in its orbital angular momentum L. The time rate of change in L is measured by its first derivative dL/dt. It defines the rotary force, the torque T driving the sun’s motion about the CM. Variations in the rotary force defined by the derivative dT/dt are a key quantity in this connection as they make it possible to forecast Gleissberg extrema for hundreds of years and even millennia. A cycle of 166 years and its second harmonic of 83 years emerge when the time rate of change in the torque dT/dt is subjected to frequency analysis” His paper contains a graph (figure 9) showing the time rate of change of the torque and it’s correlation with the Gleissberg Cycle.
Another paper on spin-orbit coupling: http://www.springerlink.com/content/w7430w883702j675/?p=73487ad4a6f0410686e4cc1b06912f23&pi=12
A pdf copy of Ian Wilson’s talk to the Lavoisier Group AGM (11th July 2008)
in Melbourne, Australia, is posted at:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/IanwilsonForum2008.pdf
This talk proposes an alternative model for natural climate change
Michael Ronayne,
You have accused me and Ian Waite of trying to hide our academic afiliatiations.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Ian Waite has been an associate member of staff at the University Of Southern Queensland for many years and he is currently doing Ph.D. in Astronomy at that University. Being an assocaite member of staff does not disqualify you from doing academic research at a University as far as I know.
When I wrote and submitted my paper, I was an employee of the Education
Queensland. This was the name of the state organization that ran the State School system here in Queensland. If you had cared to look more carefuly you would have found Education Queensland became the Department of Education, Training and the Arts at around about the time my paper was published. I simply did not have time to update this information prior to publication.
If you had bothered to request a bio from me (you have appeared to have
happliy plastered my home and work emails on the web without my permission – which I regard as an invasion of privacy) you could have got the following.
Dr. Ian Wilson
Ian Wilson was born in Ipswich, QLD, in 1955. He graduated in physics from the UNE in 1977 and obtained his PhD in astronomy in 1982 from the ANU, having worked at the Mt. Stromlo & Siding Spring Observatories.
He was subsequently a Junior Research Fellow at the Royal Greenwich Observatory, a Research Fellow at Harvard, Ass. Professor at the Universities of Toledo and Oklahoma, and Operations Astronomer at the Hubble Space Institute in Baltimore MD.
Since 1995 he has taught science and mathematics in Queensland and is now teaching in Toowoomba.
I am simply amazed at how nasty people can be sometimes.
Reply: I’m going to embargo Michael Ronayne’s post until Anthony sees both sides~charles the moderator.
Can anyone figure out why he might be publishing his paper in Russian?
That is what it says in his Lavosier presentation.
Dear Dr. Wilson,
First, thank you for responding here and for clearing up the issues mentioned.
What you witnessed was the problem of doing analysis at a distance. Mr. Ronayne’s skeptical nature has produced some interesting finds in the past, and he was following his normal MO on that.
My view was that I had trouble reconciling the science presented in the paper, but not the authorship. You are more than welcome to expound on some of those issues.
Since you have cleared up the matter, there is no reason for the content questioning your credentials in post to remain, and you have my apology for the manner in which the questions were presented. That could have been done differently.
Because I believe in giving a fair shake, if you wish, I’ll offer you a guest post on the front page to highlight your paper and the science behind it. As I wrote initially, I’m “still on the fence” with it, but I and the thousands of readers this blog represent would surely be interested in hearing your views.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best regards,
Anthony Watts
Dear Anthony Watts,
I appreciate your prompt actions on this issue.
I would just like to say that I bear no malice towards
Michael Ronayne as believe that he was just trying to confirm that I was a bona-fide researcher in this field. I would just ask that he be more careful about what he posts about individuals on the blog in future.
I must admit that I am was not aware of this blog posting until late July. I realize to that I am essentially an unknown in this field, so it natural to expect that people would be suspicious of my credentials. Michael Ronayne would make a good investigative scientist if he is not already one.
Thank you for your kind offer to highlight the science behind this important issue. I would be willing to pass on a full copy of may paper to you if you could forward an email contact. The publishing journal PASA has strict restrictions on who I can send pre-print copies but I think I can justify sending a copy to you.
I am currently working on two related areas. One dealing with the nature of the spin-orbit coupling mechanism that could be responsible for moderating the solar dynamo, the other deals with an alternative theory for climate change here on the Earth. I would be willing to present something on either topic, as I believe the topics are related.
One (easy) way to kick off the debate could be to
highlight the talk that I gave the Lavoisier Group AGM (11th July 2008)
in Melbourne, Australia, by linking to:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/IanwilsonForum2008
I am not asking you or your fellow bloggers to beleive
every word I post, all I ask is for good-hearted debate from people with a skeptical eye. There appears to be no shortage of people like that here on your blog.
Is this the link you meant to post Dr. Wilson?
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/IanwilsonForum2008.pdf
Dr. Wilson,
While the mainstream climate science and solar physics communities don’t seem to give much credence to spin-orbit coupling theories, I commend you for having the courage to take a fresh look at this. Correlation does not imply causality, but the correlation of planetary orbits, solar cycles and climate change seems too significant to be merely a coincidence. Since many solar physicists seem to be downplaying the influence of solar irradiance on earth’s climate, the inertial mechanism that you are proposing is very interesting. The idea that sun spots (solar climate?) and earth’s climate are both manifestations of spin-orbit coupling is unlike anything I’ve read to-date. I hope your paper will be made widely available so it will receive the widest possible discussion. I look forward to the debate and I hope you will keep us informed as to its progress.
Best Regards.
Daryl M,
Thanks for the positive words Daryl – it would be good if we could open this topic up to vigorous debate.
Director of the Space and Science Center just sent a dire warning of impending colder climate to all the leaders of the US. See it at. http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html
Um, maybe I’m being a little simplistic here, but I remember this experiment done in high school physics class…
We stood (one student at a time) on a platform on bearings. We were spun with arms outstretched, then let go. When we put our arms closer to the center of rotation our rotation rate went up due to conservation of momentum. When we dropped only one arm the asymmetrical forces felt very odd and we would wobble.
So…
Why would this not work the same with the sun? Barycenter outside sun, rotation slower, barycenter “moves” inside sun, rotation faster as more mass nearer the center of rotation. Further, as the barycenter moves from outside toward more central would not the differential forces on parts of the sun cause some turbulence? I would expect some significant torque forces out of this that ought to stir things up in a fluid ball…
Or am I attempting to over generalize a too simple high school demonstration?
E.M.Smith
There is a big misconception about Barycenters. Objects don’t notice them at all. They do not apply any kind of force on an object. Because of the way physics is taught, it is hard for us to let go of gravity tugging on the sun like a force. The sun (and every other object) does not actually “feel” gravity. It is not a force like electromagnetism, strong or weak nuclear. The only way that an object notices another gravitationally is by the tidal effect. If a massive object were close to the sun (as the moon to earth), then one hemisphere of the sun would “feel” a stronger “tug” than the opposite side of the sun.
But, I think you might be onto something in an indirect way. When a fluid ball is rotating in free fall, it naturally bulges from spherical into a pancake (the centrifugal force, if you will). Mass accumulates at the equator, which bulges. The earth does this to a much lesser extent. However, when mass starts accumulating at the equator, this increases the angular inertia of the sun, which would then slow its rotation (conservation of momentum). When the sun slows its rotation, then mass would no longer be able to pile up at the equator and would flow back to a more spherical shape. This would then decrease the angular inertia of the sun, which would then increase the rotation rate. We have an oscillating system. This phenomenon diminishes over time with objects that are only semi-fluid like the Earth, as the effect gets dissipated as heat. However, I would guess the sun is nearly superfluid. I wonder if a cycle of rotation speeds is noticeable, or has been documented? Also, there is a lot of convection and turbulence complicating the sun.
Now, I wonder what the oscillating frequency of the sun is? 11 years? 30 years? 5 days? I should ask Leif. He probably has already researched this phenomenon.