Leif Svalgaard writes to inform me that Livingston and Penn have published their article recently in EOS, TRANSACTIONS, AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION.
As WUWT readers may recall, we had a preview of that EOS article here.
L&P write in the EOS article:
For hundreds of years, humans have observed that the Sun has displayed activity where the number of sunspots increases and then decreases at approximately 11- year intervals. Sunspots are dark regions on the solar disk with magnetic field strengths greater than 1500 gauss (see Figure 1), and the 11- year sunspot cycle is actually a 22- year cycle in the solar magnetic field, with sunspots showing the same hemispheric magnetic polarity on alternate 11- year cycles.
The last solar maximum occurred in 2001, and the magnetically active sunspots at that time produced powerful flares causing large geomagnetic disturbances and disrupting some space- based technology. But something is unusual about the current sunspot cycle. The current solar minimum has been unusually long, and with more than 670 days without sunspots through June 2009, the number of spotless days has not been equaled since 1933 (see http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html).
The solar wind is reported to be in a uniquely low energy state since space measurements began nearly 40 years ago [Fisk and Zhao, 2009].
The full article as a PDF is available here
Leif also provides his version of their Figure 3 (showing umbral intensity -vs- total magnetic field which I’m sure he’ll want to discuss here.
http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png
Sunspots do result in electromagnetic discharges, however, and are known to affect satellites and even electronics at the surface. There is also something of a correlation between sunspots and surface temperatures.
So they certainly *might* affect climate.
Leif Svalgaard (07:58:40) :
None of these ideas can account for the polarity reversals between solar cycles. This failure is also the main reason the planetary theory was abandoned in the early 20th
Not entirely correct, Sir.
My polar fields formula as shown here:
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PolarField1Cr.gif
has no problems with polarity reversals, as it is believed that polar fields are seeds of a new cycle, than SS polarity reversals will follow (conveyor belt circulation). It is true I do not valid mechanism, but meridional flow shows a promising start:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MPI.gif
in an excellent agreement with work emanating from
Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung, Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/full/2004/42/aa1024/aa1024.right.html
and
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF-NRWmv2.jpg
in agreement (with a appropriate phase adjustment) with research from:
Hulburt Center for Space Research, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1538-4357/577/1/L53/16614.text.html#tb1
Furthermore, I do have best correlation of any previous work, planetary, Babcock-Layton or any you whish to quote!
I am also well aware of your views on numerology, degrees of freedom etc, but non have succeeded to invalidated the formula.
Leif Svalgaard (07:58:40) :
As the Sun is in free fall [as are the planets] it does not feel any forces upon it by followed that path. But the main difficulty with the planetary theory is the lack of a credible mechanism. The current crop of supporters have different ideas. Some say it is angular momentum transfer, some say it is tides, some say it is magnetic fields from Jupiter, or electromagnetic effects [“Jupiter shining on the Sun”], and yet others. None of these ideas can account for the polarity reversals between solar cycles. This failure is also the main reason the planetary theory was abandoned in the early 20th Century [it was held credible in the 19th]. Charbonneau has a good historical overview: http://www.leif.org/research/Rise-and-Fall.pdf
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thank you, Leif for providing this link to Charbonneau’s excellent paper. It clearly shows, in my opinion, that these early researchers saw the strong correlations between sunspot cycles and planetary conjunctions. Conjunctions of the outer giant planets have the most influence on the Sun’s barycentric angular momentum, and resonant conjunctions of the planets Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Jupiter have the most significant solar tide influence, which is separate from freefall motion. Spin-orbit coupling is also a well established gravitational effect, known to account for small changes in Earth’s rotation rate caused by the orbit of the Moon. It is clearly a small non-freefall consequence of the largest changes seen in solar barycentric angular momentum, hard to quantify for the Sun because it is not a rigid body. Yet we are able to observe the differences in motion between sunspots and the also-variable rotation period of the Sun as a body.
True, those early scientists could not explain the periodic reversals of solar magnetic polarity, but we do know that the ~11 year sunspot cycle is very much linked to the magnetic reversal cycle of ~22 years. To this day, nobody has a complete theory to explain the magnetic polarity reversal, but at least there is clear observational evidence that grand sunspot minima are linked to observed cyclical planetary conjunctions. And don’t forget that many planets, including Mercury, have their own magnetic fields. I’m not suggesting that the solar system is a giant alternator, just that there is much to be discovered yet by studying the Sun and planets as an interactive system rather than as independent entities.
We need to have your strong skepticism for hypotheses that do not yet meet the stringent tests of complete theories, but it is important to remember that the occasional genius like Galileo, Newton, and Einstein can turn a seemingly absurd hypothesis into a brilliantly complete theory. The acclaimed astronomer Simon Newcomb was mentioned in Charbonneau’s paper. Newcomb made some outstanding contributions in the field of celestial mechanics, but went off on an unfortunate tangent at one point, writing an article in which he claimed to prove it impossible for heavier-than-air craft to fly! What he really proved was that skepticism can be overdone, and that this can damage one’s reputation in the process.
-Gerry
Hank Hancock (10:51:28) :
“Thanks for your reply and link. The figures on page 15 and 17 were rather remarkable. Have you given any consideration to how the 10% decrease in magnetic flux might also affect the correlation you’re making? What is your degree of confidence that the correlation is direct as opposed to coincidental?”
On climate matters I am totally neutral. This was work I produced during last Christmas/ New Year festivities, after discovering that if you draw a line across MagNrthPole drift curve, one side temperature anomaly is positive on the other negative. I believe ‘tallbloke’ did some sampling as well but to geographic NP.
It is summarised elsewhere, that total field has declined, but from electrical currents point of view, of interest is only vertical component.
As you can see here:
http://geomag.usgs.gov/movies/movies/index.php?type=vertical&format=gif
Bz has an area above +60 and – 60 microTesla, but never falls below it. It is only the area that changes size.
Dr. Svalgaard rejected hypothesis, as usual, to be meaningless.
Whether they have any significant effect on our immediate environment [e.g. weather and climate] has not been established [although the claims are legion].
Not making any claims, but looking at the data might be interesting.
vukcevic (11:42:12) :
“None of these ideas can account for the polarity reversals between solar cycles. This failure is also the main reason the planetary theory was abandoned in the early 20th”
Not entirely correct, Sir.
My polar fields formula as shown here:
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PolarField1Cr.gif
has no problems with polarity reversals,
It does not explain why the polar fields change polarity so explains nothing. For that you need the Babcock mechanism or some other dynamo mechanism.
And you have no mechanism by which Jupiter shining on the Sun can change the meridional circulation.
The correlation is just pure coincidence, many other formulae can be constructed with the same or better fit. And btw, the correlation coefficient you quote is bogus because of the high autocorrelation of the data. To show your mastery of the statistics, calculate and tell us how many independent data points [degrees of freedom] the polar fields have.
It is summarised elsewhere, that total field has declined, but from electrical currents point of view, of interest is only vertical component.
As an engineer it should be easy for you to actually calculate that current and the heat we get from it. Do this and report back with a comparison to the heat we get from the Sun.
Dennis Wingo (12:54:58) :
Not making any claims, but looking at the data might be interesting.
Brian Tinsley has made a career out of that: http://www.utdallas.edu/nsm/physics/faculty/tinsley.html
Even trying to show the validity of a sun-weather effect I have long abandoned, but he is still bravely soldiering on.
Leif Svalgaard (13:00:01) :
“-It does not explain why the polar fields change polarity so explains nothing. For that you need the Babcock mechanism or some other dynamo mechanism.”
“-As an engineer it should be easy for you to actually calculate that current and the heat we get from it. Do this and report back with a comparison to the heat we get from the Sun.”
Actually it was not heat I was proposing. I have no interest or inclination of writing something, and than trying to disprove it.
If I can prove either of two of the above, not to mention both, I would be reserving my air ticket for Stockholm. However, you with your knowledge, experience and data manipulating skills, if you put your mind to it, you probably could do it in no time at all. Therefore, search goes on for an alternative extraordinary mind, that might be able to do it, and it ain’t me.
Regarding polarity reversal I rather like this explanation:
“”Meridional flows on the Sun’s surface carry magnetic fields from mid-latitude sunspots to the Sun’s poles,” explains Hathaway. “The poles end up flipping because these flows transport south-pointing magnetic flux to the north magnetic pole, and north-pointing flux to the south magnetic pole.” The dipole field steadily weakens as oppositely-directed flux accumulates at the Sun’s poles until, at the height of solar maximum, the magnetic poles change polarity and begin to grow in a new direction.”
Link: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast15feb_1.htm
If this is true there is no need to find an explanation for the polarity reversal among the planets – it is a quite separate phenomenon.
Svempa (13:33:13) :
If this is true there is no need to find an explanation for the polarity reversal among the planets – it is a quite separate phenomenon.
Exactly….there is no need to throw the baby out with the bath water. Elements of the Babcock observations may still be viable and can work in tune with external forces.
Highlander (23:20:29) :
———-
Has there been anyone taking pictures of the Sun on an hourly basis, not unlike the NOAA sats which take pictures of the weather (visible, jet stream, temp, etc.)?
.
I’m curious as to whether there has been anyone doing such observations continually, and whether they’ve noted any peculiarities, irregularities, or other anomalies.
A careful examination of the EIT series from SOHO and Stereo Websites is in order.
I would suggest you start with EIT 171, 195 and 284 at 1996-05-15 and go forward using the daily SSN from SIDC
http://sidc.oma.be/sunspot-data/dailyssn.php
as your guide to find the quiet times in 1996/7 then keep going a year at a time to present.
You should see the changes that have taken place.
I won’t pre-color your own perception with what I see, so discover away.
Even trying to show the validity of a sun-weather effect I have long abandoned, but he is still bravely soldiering on.
As we all are fond of saying, the new extended solar minimum is providing a unique opportunity to test different theories regarding the solar-terrestrial interface.
vukcevic (13:28:32) :
I have no interest or inclination of writing something, and than trying to disprove it.
Nor ability to either prove or disprove it. I have elsewhere shown you that your mechanisms do not work energetically, so must be dismissed on those grounds.
Svempa (13:33:13) :
Of course, what Hathaway explains is the way we think it happens, which means that the basic mechanism is the Babcock-dynamo theory. So, solar activity is not generated by the planets as you observe, At most, the planets might be assumed to modulate ongoing activity, and then it comes down to comparing the energy in the planetary influence with that of the motions that go into the dynamo, and that has been shown by many people, e.g DeJager, to be woefully inadequate. It is for this reason that the planetary theory is regarded as a fringe theory or even pseudo-science.
Gerry (12:03:09) :
It clearly shows, in my opinion, that these early researchers saw the strong correlations between sunspot cycles and planetary conjunctions.
The paper also explains that when these early researchers set out to prove the correlations, they found that they didn’t hold up or in one case was even fraudulent [“not candid with the figures…”]
To this day, nobody has a complete theory to explain the magnetic polarity reversal
‘complete theory’ is a big word. We don’t have a ‘complete’ theory of anything. But we have pretty good theories of the polarity reversals.
the occasional genius like Galileo, Newton, and Einstein can turn a seemingly absurd hypothesis into a brilliantly complete theory.
It seems that several of the current practitioners consider themselves to be in that exalted company, but I respectfully submit that they are not.
Leif Svalgaard (18:53:13) :
The paper also explains that when these early researchers set out to prove the correlations, they found that they didn’t hold up or in one case was even fraudulent [“not candid with the figures…”]
But the story is very different today, what we know today is a world away from the early research. The correlations are remarkable AND understood, and will continue to be as the Landscheidt/Jose minimum rolls out.
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/jensm1.jpg
Buts it good to see you slightly leaving the door open.
Leif,
I don’t actually consider planetary gravitational perturbations to be hypothetical, except for how they might relate specifically to sunspots and solar activity. Those specific hypothetical effects only seem absurd to those who see them as a form of astrology, which they are not.
Likewise, I am hopeful that the problem of formulating a viable mathematical theory of planetary influences on solar activity, difficult as that may be to do, will not actually require a genius.
I am curious to know what you think of Scarletta’s phenomological solar model in http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/wkshp.nsf/vwpsw/84E74F1E59E2D3FE852574F100669688/$file/scafetta-epa-2009.pdf
He does not propose a theory, but do you think his model has any validity? If you believe it to be fraudulent, I’m sure you would want to expose it as such.
My fingers apparently typed “Scarletta” but the author of the Duke University presentation is Nicola Scafetta.
Geoff Sharp (21:14:03) :
The correlations are remarkable AND understood
They are neither. A remarkable correlation is one that is convincing and compelling. This means that everyone would agree that the correlation is significant. This is not the case. I, for one, do not think so and I do have some training in analyzing data and judging what is likely real and what is not.
Buts it good to see you slightly leaving the door open.
Nobody here is of a closed mind, with the possible exception of people ‘in the know’.
Gerry (21:27:10) :
I don’t actually consider planetary gravitational perturbations to be hypothetical
They are accurately calculated from physical laws so are not hypothetical at all. The only question is whether they have any coupling to solar activity that is energetically viable, and the answer is no with the mechanisms proposed so far.
I am curious to know what you think of Scarletta’s phenomological solar model
His data is cherry-picked and presented in misleading ways, e.g. in slide 32: “Where are we now: 1) Total solar irradiance likely rose between 1970s and 2000”
2000 was a solar maximum year and the ‘1970s’ spanned a solar minimum. This is like saying: “the temperature likely rose between the winter and the summer solstice”.
The TSI forcing used in slide 41 [read curves] is the obsolete Hoyt&Schatten TSI which nobody else considers valid. This may only be for illustrative purposes, but certainly gives the non-specialist reader the wrong impression. On the other hand in slide 55 the same obsolete TSI re-appears, and in slide 57 a TSI-reconstruction again is used that is based on a secular increase of TSI from 1900 to 1950. Such an increase is usually assumed to be due to a steady increase of TSI due to the Sun’s background magnetic field at solar minima. There has been no such increase. On slide 61 he acknowledges that several old, obsolete TSI-reconstructions exist and asks which one to use. Clearly if one choses one with a large change the solar contribution to the 20th century GW is maximized. On the whole, his conclusion from his model is too dependent on the assumed TSI. Assume that there was absolutely no long-term change in TSI, then clearly his model would predict no solar contribution to the GW, so it all comes down to: is there a long-term background increase in TSI [at minima – and here one could accept a slight random variation from minimum to minimum so his discussion about the PMOD-ACRIM difference is a red herring]. Various lines of evidence that I have discussed before in the blog and elsewhere point to no such secular increase and hence Scafetta’s model would predict no solar influence, beyond that which is related to the different sizes of the solar cycle variation of TSI, which with a long time constant can spill over the minima and give a very slight second order effect. So, his model might be OK, just his adoption of input data [and hence calibration of parameters of the model] is suspect.
In slide 72 he again uses an obsolete TSI proxy.
Gerry (22:17:44) :
My fingers apparently typed “Scarletta” but the author of the Duke University presentation is Nicola Scafetta.
No prob. I know Nicola. By chance we both made a poster presentation at the Fall 2007 meeting of the American Geophysical Union [AGU] and the posters were side by side. His promoting his model and mine advocating no long-term change of TSI http://www.leif.org/research/GC31B-0351-F2007.pdf
Leif Svalgaard (22:23:16) :
They are neither. A remarkable correlation is one that is convincing and compelling. This means that everyone would agree that the correlation is significant. This is not the case. I, for one, do not think so and I do have some training in analyzing data and judging what is likely real and what is not.
The problem is you have to have an understanding of the theory before you can easily see the correlations. You have still not shown that understanding. This unfortunately is the biggest barrier to promoting the science, but times are changing and better methods of conveying the information are in the pipeline.
I noticed in Scafetta’s presentation he agrees with me and shows how solar Angular Momentum/Solar distance to SSB is the driver of the modulation of the solar cycle.
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/scafetta.jpg
Leif Svalgaard (18:29:53) :
“I have elsewhere shown you that your mechanisms do not work energetically, so must be dismissed on those grounds.”
In the model currently proposed there is also just as strange mechanism. Polar fields, supposedly generated by sunspots, which split and stretch over million of miles to reach poles as uni-polar plasma, a contradiction in itself since they are supposedly locked up in magnetic ropes, even Parker dismisses uni-polar plasma as an unrealistic proposition. They eventually end up in polar fields currently with strength of about 2Gauss pole to pole. These are then about to enter a magic process of ‘amplification’ of anything up to 2000 (two thousand) times, in order to produce next crop of sunspots for SC4, of up to 4000Gauss. You may quote many papers ‘explaining’ this magic process of amplification by a nebulous dynamo (no agreement of what it is, where it is, is there one, or two, or many dynamos), I have red some of those articles, but they are all just fudge.
I could also claim that a ‘wink and a nudge’ by J-S magnetospheres on the heliospheric current is magnified 2000 or whatever is needed, and then does the required job.
It is just curios that numbers in my formula (2xJupiter period and JS synodic period), should produce what is required to accurately track measured polar fields.
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PolarField1.gif
You think it is just a coincidence, I claim it is too much of coincidence to be dismissed, if alternative mechanism is also suspect.
Dr Svalgaard, did you actually read the paper by Hung I referred to? I would not be discussing this subject if I did not find the new correlations observed and computed by him convincing and compelling.
I can understand that when researching a vast celestial object like our Sun there must be found a concrete mechanism for planetary influence before it is believed. The planets are puny and small in comparision. But on the other hand the magnetic field of the Sun in incredibly weak, I have seen 50 gauss as a normal figure – I have stronger magnets than that on my refrigerator door.
I do not find it possible that any planetary influence (gravitational, by tides or magnetic) could create any processes in the Sun. But even a very small influence can sometimes govern great things – this is true not only in physics but in politics as well :-).
One more comment on Sun-planet interaction. I have come across a recent paper studying a remote star that has a gas giant orbiting it in close proximity. The planet is many times the mass of Jupiter and it orbits the star much closer than Mercury orbits the sun. So there are BIG differences to our solar system. But an interesting fact is that this star is the first, except for the Sun, to show magnetic field reversals. In this case with only a 2 year periodicity.
An excerpt from their conclusion: “The presence of the HJ at small orbital
distance may be responsible for the accelerated cycle of Boo, by synchronizing the outer convective envelope of the star (due to tidal interactions) and enhancing the shear at the tachocline. Such a scenario should however be studied in details.”
So critical gravitational or/and magnetic interaction between star and planet may be possible at short distances, if proved then it remains to discuss if a similar interaction between the Sun and the gas giants of the Solar system is possible considering the much vaster distances involved.
Link to the paper: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0906/0906.4515v1.pdf .
Svempa (02:12:57) :
“I do not find it possible that any planetary influence (gravitational, by tides or magnetic) could create any processes in the Sun. But even a very small influence can sometimes govern great things – this is true not only in physics but in politics as well :-).”
You are correct. My 2003 article (pub. Jan 2004) has a title:
“Evidence of a multi-resonant system within solar periodic activity”
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf
This should give a clue to the energetic processes. Any system which possesses large amount of internal energy (and the Sun has plenty of it) which may be susceptible to oscillations can be induced or synchronised to oscillate by a minute external excitation. Repeatable injections of small amounts of energy may control internal oscillation, with energies greater by many orders of magnitude. This is a regular occurrence (and frequently a nuisance) in electric, electronic and magnetic circuits. However, it has its uses as any broadcasting system engineer will tell you.
Meridional flow (according to Dr, Svalgaard ) would need to be driven by huge energies inputed from the planetary system. This is wrong! Meridional flow is a part of a solar conveyor belt, its energy is supplied by the solar thermal energy.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/images/stormwarning/conveyorbelt.jpg
There is one in each hemisphere and they run more or less independently. Thermal energy is a driver of meridional flows, but circulating of highly ionised plasma is especially sensitive to any electric or magnetic input, could be synchronised by it through resonance.
Dr. Svalgaard argues that external forces are negligible to count. Well let’s consider this: Jupiter is roughly same distance to Sun as to Saturn, and still two planets are in synchronism (5J=59.31 2S=59.314) within 0.01%, this synchronisation would be perfect if their orbits were circular rather than elliptic. Dr. S. this is achieved by RESONANCE!
Geoff Sharp (00:06:29) :
I noticed in Scafetta’s presentation he agrees with me and shows how solar Angular Momentum/Solar distance to SSB is the driver of the modulation of the solar cycle.
He does not agree with you at all. He refers to Jose. There is no mention of your notion of Neptune/Uranus running the show. Scafetta muses about a 60-year cycle, no 172-year cycle. He draws attention [and mars his presentation] to a 60-yr quasi-period in CMSS and possibly in the LOD. No Grand Minimum.
vukcevic (02:09:48) :
They eventually end up in polar fields currently with strength of about 2Gauss pole to pole. These are then about to enter a magic process of ‘amplification’ of anything up to 2000 (two thousand) times, in order to produce next crop of sunspots for SC4, of up to 4000Gauss.
There are no 2G fields. Your ignorance is deep. The 2G is not the magnetic field strength. The solar magnetographs do not measure field strength. And there is no magic involved. The conversion of the poloidal field to the toroidal fields of sunspots is a natural consequence of the motions and the governing equations [the Induction equation] and is not a mystery, even though the details are still under debate.
Svempa (02:12:57) :
Dr Svalgaard, did you actually read the paper by Hung I referred to?
Of course, I’m well versed in all the literature on these subjects. Hung’s analysis may be compelling to you, but it is not generally accepted by solar researchers [for a variety of reasons]
But on the other hand the magnetic field of the Sun is incredibly weak, I have seen 50 gauss as a normal figure
The important quantity is not the field strength, but the magnetic moment, which is the pole strength multiplied by the distance between the poles, and that distance is enormous.
But even a very small influence can sometimes govern great things
Provided there is a coupling and a mechanism to mediate the influence, and that is the problem here.