From: SOHO sheds new light on solar flares
After detailed analysis of data from the SOHO and GOES spacecraft, a team of European scientists has been able to shed new light on the role of solar flares in the total output of radiation from our nearest star. Their surprising conclusion is that X-rays account for only about 1 per cent of the total energy emitted by these explosive events.
This SOHO/EIT image records two huge solar flares that were detected in October 2003. (Click here for the movie and further details.)
Credit: ESA/NASA
Flares are sudden energy releases in the Sun’s atmosphere that occur when the solar magnetic field is locally unstable. When the magnetic field lines break and reconnect, large amounts of energy are released, accelerating the surrounding particles to almost the speed of light. The temperature of the flares can soar to millions of degrees. At such sizzling temperatures, much of their radiation is emitted as X-rays.
Not surprisingly, most flares are imaged and studied at X-ray or extreme ultraviolet wavelengths, since they are more difficult to observe and analyse in visible light. Although more than 20 000 flares occurred in the last solar cycle (1996-2007), only four exceptionally large ones were identified as contributors to the total solar irradiance (TSI), i.e. the light received at all wavelengths on Earth.
In an effort to calculate how much energy is actually contributed to the TSI by flares, researchers from the Laboratoire de Physique et Chimie de l’Environnement et de l’Espace (LPC2E) in Orléans (France), collaborating with Swiss and Belgium teams, have been analysing 11 years of observations from space.
The team analysed the record of X-ray data acquired by the US GOES spacecraft during the entire solar cycle to detect the flares and record the times of their peak activity. The scientists eventually selected about 2000 flares which occurred near the centre of the solar disc. They then turned to the PMO and DIARAD radiometers of the VIRGO experiment on board the ESA/NASA SOHO spacecraft for information about the overall solar radiation heading toward Earth.
The next task was to identify any small peaks in TSI caused by the flares. This task was complicated by the random ‘noise’ generated by the Sun’s turbulent atmosphere. In order to recognise the contribution due to flares alone, the team used a statistical method to superimpose X-ray and TSI data taken at short time intervals around the period when a flare occurred. In this way, they were able to remove the random ‘noise’ from the data.
“The problem was to recognise the overall output from flares, radiated simultaneously at all wavelengths and in the visible domain, despite the natural fluctuations of the solar irradiance,” said Matthieu Kretzschmar, researcher at the LPC2E and first author of the study in Nature Physics. “It is like looking for 1-metre-high waves, caused by flares, within a rough sea where there are 70-metre-high waves caused by natural fluctuations.”
“To solve this problem, we amplified the ‘one-meter-high waves’ using the ‘superposed-epoch analysis’ method. The idea was to temporally superpose the total irradiance light curves for several flares. Natural random fluctuations in the solar irradiance cancel each other out, but the fluctuations caused by the flares are added and amplified.”
A significant peak was apparent in the total solar irradiance using the method of Kretzschmar et al. (Click on the image for a larger figure and further details.)
Credit: Image from Kretzschmar et al.,(2010).
The analysis led to a surprising result: there was a significant peak in the TSI when a flare occurred. Not only was the total radiative output of the Sun sensitive to both large and small flares, but the total energy radiated by flares was found to be over 100 times greater than the energy that they radiate in X-rays. It turns out that X-rays contribute only a tiny part of the overall output of radiation during solar flares.
These results, obtained within the framework of the European Community’s SOTERIA project, will help to improve current theoretical models of flares and understanding of the variability in the solar irradiance that reaches our planet. They could also help to shed light on the behaviour of more distant stars, some of which may also host planetary systems.
“Many stars are much more active than our Sun and emit extremely powerful flares,” said Bernhard Fleck, ESA’s SOHO Project Scientist. “This new estimate of the energy distribution of solar flares suggests that such flares may be extremely bright in visible light as well as X-rays, possibly with dramatic consequences for any nearby planets.”
Related publication:
M. Kretzschmar, T. Dudok de Wit, W. Schmudtz, S. Mekaoui, J.F. Hochedez, S. Dewitte, “The effect of flares on total solar irradiance”, Nature Physics, vol. 6, pp. 690–692, 2010. DOI: 10.1038/nphys1741
Contacts:
Matthieu Kretzschmar
LPC2E: Laboratoire de Physique et Chimie de l’Environnement et de l’Espace
CNRS / Université d’Orléans, France
Email: matthieu.kretzschmar
cnrs-orleans.fr
Phone:+33 2 38 25 50 39
Bernhard Fleck
ESA SOHO Project Scientist
Science Operations Department
Science and Robotic Exploration Directorate, ESA
Email: bfleckesa.nascom.nasa.gov
Phone: +1 301 286 4098
For further information please contact: SciTech.editorial@esa.int
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 15, 2010 at 10:53 pm
There is such an effect. I disagree with the magnitude, it looks closer to 0.1C than to 0.2C. We would expect such changes. If they are correct, then if we have a permanent minimum [e.g. a Maunder], then that would account for 0.1-0.2C, which I can also live with. There is no doubt that solar activity influences the climate, but there is also no doubt [at least in my mind] that such influence is minor and inconsequential.
I have not read your book [yet].
—————
Leif and Peter Taylor,
Peter, I appreciated you many references on the topic. Thank you. Also, I noted Leif’s h/t to your book. : )
Leif, appreciate your statement that the solar cycle creates delta TSI and delta energy spectrum of the TSI. And your observation that these have some effect on the Earth System but magnitudes of the deltas causes skepticism of them having significant capability of causing the Earth System changes we have observed in the industrial age (or before). I do not mean to put words in your mouth . . . . sorry if I got that in incorrectly.
LEIF – A REQUEST FOR COMMENT: If the ratio of delta Earth System Energy to delta Sun System Total Energy Received At Earth is my definition of sensitivity on the macro-scale, then the sensitivity of the earth appears to be near 1 except where time lag of earth response is involved. In the case of time lags the sensitivity can vary significantly about 1. What is your comment?
John
John Whitman says:
October 16, 2010 at 8:14 am
LEIF – A REQUEST FOR COMMENT: If the ratio of delta Earth System Energy to delta Sun System Total Energy Received At Earth is my definition of sensitivity on the macro-scale, then the sensitivity of the earth appears to be near 1 except where time lag of earth response is involved. In the case of time lags the sensitivity can vary significantly about 1. What is your comment?
Wouldn’t the sensitivity be measured at the time of the lag? It is unlikely that the lag [if any] would be absolutely constant, so one would expect the sensitivity with lags to always be less that that at no lag. But, I may not understand your question.
Ron Griffis says:
October 15, 2010 at 9:15 am
“Clarification: In my previous post, I am not considering the effect of a single solar flare, rather the cumulative affect all solar flares as the number and intensity fluctuates over time. Naturally, a single solar flare on its own is of little consequence.”
Cumulative affect heats and expands the heliosphere’s bubble, during the course of the solar cycle.
1. Leif Svalgaard says:
October 15, 2010 at 9:25 am
johnnythelowery says:
October 15, 2010 at 8:36 am
that has not been analyzed fully? Or is this the end of the line for any evidence to come forward that could show a more variable TSI than what we’ve (you’ve) found in the past?
Do data ts ever analyzed ‘fully’. With new knowledge and insight, even old data can yield surprises upon re-analysis.
That was my question..
I like this Johnny..
johnnythelowery says:
October 15, 2010 at 8:36 am
(Layman) Wow. Back to where we started on the TSI. What an incredible enigma this (now deadpan) sun is.
..….. Then it must be related to the T-ES-I incoming total extra-solar Irradiation(T-ES-I) …..modulated by the Sun? So, it’s about what the Sun’s TSI does to the Total, Incoming, Extra-Solar radiation?
T-ES-I ok.
Vuks who’s on equinox, looks like some magnetospheres absorbing, blocking and redirecting some of the inflow streams, two negs on the inward IMF. silly, I know. Ol Sol’s southern hemi doesn’t seem to mind abit.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 15, 2010 at 8:57 am
mojo says:
October 15, 2010 at 8:22 am
Gee, let’s see: we’ve got one magnetosphere sitting inside another, much larger magnetosphere and being bombarded bu charged particles at a good fraction of light-speed.
These magnetospheres actually protect us a bit from what is coming at us. And ‘bombarded’ is hardly the correct description of the trickle of particles trying to make their way though the various shields [including our thick atmosphere] that keep them out.
Mojo,
Heliosphere inside Galactosphere, magnetospheres inside heliosphere, which is inside a galactosphere.
Leif, at this time, inside this 24th, trickle is about all we do see these days.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 16, 2010 at 8:27 am
Wouldn’t the sensitivity be measured at the time of the lag? It is unlikely that the lag [if any] would be absolutely constant, so one would expect the sensitivity with lags to always be less that that at no lag. But, I may not understand your question.
—————-
Leif,
Thanks for your quick response.
I can see that my original wording of what I meant is not clear. I was think on the fly . . . muddled thinking. I will rework it.
But the idea I was working on is the implications of my definition or macro –sensitivity of the Earth to the Sun. My macro-sensitivity definition being the ratio of delta Earth System Energy to delta Sun System Total Energy Received At Earth .
I was thinking by my definition, the sensitivity cannot effectively be a constant, except occasionally for short durations.
I am trying out a straw-man definition of macro-sensitivity. My thought is that once I can establish a reasonable marco-sensitivity view, only then it makes sense to start with subsystem sensitivities.
If by my definition, a sensitivity of ~1 means a quasi-equilibrium / steady state situation that is more a theoretical concept than an expected result of the Sun effect on Earth System.
PS – starting to get cold enough here in northern NY to start thinking about visiting the Bay Area again. : )
John
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 15, 2010 at 10:53 am
But nothing has come of it, except for the finding [!] that they need to keep their apparatus clean.
I’m afraid your news on the CLOUD experiment are not updated. Unambiguous observation of ion-induced nucleation was made in the CLOUD chamber.
You should have a look at this:
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1257940/files/SPSC-SR-061.pdf
………………………………………………………………………………
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 15, 2010 at 11:04 am
CERN has not spent any money, just lent some no-longer used facility to non-CERN researchers funded by their own institutions.
CERN supports CLOUD with important technical resources, and provided a particle beam from the CERN Proton Synchrotron. This research has received funding
from the EC’s Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement no. 215072 (Marie Curie Initial Training Network “CLOUD-ITN”), from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, from the Swiss National Science Foundation, and from the Academy of Finland Center of Excellence program.
I think this presentation on Cosmic Rays and Climate by Jasper Kirby (june 2009) is interesting:
http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=52576
Let me highlight the conclusions of Kirby’s presentation:
• Climate has continually varied in the past, and the causes are not well understood – especially on the 100 year timescale relevant for today’s climate change
• Strong evidence for solar-climate variability, but no established mechanism. A cosmic ray influence on clouds is a leading candidate
• CLOUD at CERN aims to study and quantify the cosmic raycloud mechanism in a controlled laboratory experiment
• The question of whether – and to what extent – the climate is influenced by solar/cosmic ray variability remains central to our understanding of anthropogenic climate change
Guillermo Gefaell says:
October 16, 2010 at 3:44 pm
Unambiguous observation of ion-induced nucleation was made in the CLOUD chamber.
As one would expect. The issue is if it is enough, and there is the rub. They are still fiddling with removing contamination and improve sensitivity. There is no end in sight. A final report was promised in August, but has not been issued.
This research has received funding from the EC’s Seventh Framework Programme etc…
As I said, not from CERN but from the outside researchers funding sources.
Guillermo Gefaell says:
October 16, 2010 at 3:59 pm
Let me highlight the conclusions of Kirby’s presentation
Sure, this is all standard boilerplate. A far cry from CLOUD having shown that the mechanism actually works, which was my point.
I love TSI threads here at WUWT. TSI is the most intriguing thing given my bias in believing the Sun is reason for climate change. As the thread is waning a bit, and some of the big hitters havn’t shown up, i’m going to inject a conjecture from Stephen Wilde (don’t know who he is) on his oceanic hot water bottle idea. I copied a portion of his posting(stole) from following a link posted here to weatheraction and going from there. But now can’t refind it. So….no link and no date….sorry.
————————————————————————————–
STEPHEN WILDE
‘…………….The significance of the TSI point is that it reintroduces solar influence as a factor and probably the main factor in the late 20th Century warming. AGW proponents have usually accepted the warming of the early 20th Century as solar induced so why not the warming of the late 20th Century? If anything the late 20th Century phase of enhanced solar activity was greater than that seen during the earlier 20th Century phase.
My Hot Water Bottle Effect shows how any apparently minor changes in solar activity can be supplemented or offset to match the observed changes in global temperature trend during the latter half of the 20th Century. Warming proponents often say there is no mechanism whereby small changes in solar activity can be scaled up to the apparently large changes in atmospheric temperature. I believe that my Hot Water Bottle Effect provides just such a mechanism.
The oceanic mechanism emphasising or offsetting solar variation firmly places the burden of proof back on to those who say that such warming as was observed was human induced to establish exactly how big or small any anthropogenic component was in relation to the undoubted (and previously ignored) combined solar and oceanic influence. Frankly, we do not have the techniques to do more than guess and who would believe them now anyway? The damage they may have done to the scientific establishment is incalculable…………………..’
—————————————————————————————
Okay. Found Stephen Wilde’s ‘Hot Water Bottle Effect’ link. Here’s the link:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1487
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 15, 2010 at 9:25 am
johnnythelowery says:
October 15, 2010 at 8:36 am
TSI is the total. That is perhaps the problem, as the distribution within that total could be important. But I don’t think any ‘extra’ variation is needed as a complex system [as climate] has natural random fluctuations built in. It has proven very difficult to establish any external causes [no shortage of conflicting claims, of course].
————————————————————————————-
Leif: …Random? I thought the minimums, defined by lack of sunspots, pre-saged drops in climate and there is increasing evidence of a correlation of planetary modulation of the sunspots. Was not this current (___________ Minimum) drop in activity predicted back in 1996 by yourself no-less (I won’t dredge up that New Scientist article as we’ve discussed prior). Does not the depth of the sunspot absence
dictate how deep the ice-age is going to be?
TSI variation affect is like the effect of a push on a marble sitting on the edge of one side of irusabio dish(spelling?). One tiny push and the marble shoots off, takes a massive journey across the dish, scales the other side, and comes back again almost to the same height (- friction and drag). The ocean heat sink is the dish.
johnnythelowery says:
October 16, 2010 at 5:54 pm
I thought the minimums, defined by lack of sunspots, pre-saged drops in climate and there is increasing evidence of a correlation of planetary modulation of the sunspots.
There is no established connections between these things IMHO.
Was not this current drop in activity predicted back in 1996 by yourself no-less (I won’t dredge up that New Scientist article as we’ve discussed prior). Does not the depth of the sunspot absence dictate how deep the ice-age is going to be?
The low activity was indeed predicted by myself and others, but that does not mean that temperatures will be any lower. They have been rather on the high side lately, in spite of low solar activity.
TSI variation affect is like the effect of a push on a marble sitting on the edge of one side of irusabio dish
I don’t think so as the climate system seems pretty robust, doing its own thing regardless.
Thanks v. much. I’m completely lost in all this.
johnnythelowery says:
October 16, 2010 at 5:37 pm
It’s worse than he thinks. The ocean is currently a cold water bottle (average temperate = 4C) where the only significant variance is in the thin surface layer where light can penetrate.
We are at the mercy of factors that cause the warm surface and cold deeps to mix. If mixing slows the atmosphere warms and if mixing speeds up the atmosphere cools. The average ocean temperature of 4C I believe is an accurate measure of global average temperature in the last million years or so. The greatest potential is for cooling not warming since the atmosphere is so much warmer than the global ocean.
In previous threads I’ve written that the most important single effect the atmosphere has on the earth’s climate is it producing 14.7psi surface pressure which raises the boiling point of water high enough so we can have a surface layer of liquid water in the first place.
Thank you Mr. Springer. Are you saying the Seas exist in it’s current form, ie, liquid H2O water, because of the PSI of 14.7 PSI? How is this PSI affecting water again…? And what does this phenom do to the Sea’s heat sink capability?
I thought about this overnight what Leif wrote, and thought, maybe, the equilibrium can be unsettled by lensing effects or concentrated energy input in a small area, tripping the equilibrium. So, although TSI remains the same mostly, bit like a magnifying glass effect, where there is the same light but if it’s concentrated, in the case of the earth, high cirrus clouds….or layers of vapour ‘lensing’ incoming TSI into a concentrated format. That could inturn spoil the equilibrium. Maybe a hemispherical imbalance. A kind of TSI variation amplifier.
Evidence of a ‘lensing’ of energy: None that I can think of…but here’s a wild one: I read an article where a guy’s house, somewhere in eastern europe, keeps getting hit by meteoroites. So much so that he has sold them and paid off his house and hopes they keep coming. Has to be false me thinks, and a local university is checking it out. But the idea, althought one would think is a joke, raises a question: WHat the effect is not dictated by whats above, but, by whats below: the strata under his house or in his area ‘lensing’ energy in the earth with ambient energy above ground. I know, ridiculous……but…
Strong signature of the active Sun in 100 years of terrestrial insolation data
Werner Weber, Institut fur Physik, TU Dortmund, Otto-Hahn-Straße 4, 44221 Dortmund, Germany
Abstract: Terrestrial solar irradiance data of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory from 1905 to 1954 and of Mauna Loa Observatory from 1958 to 2008 are analyzed. The analysis shows that, with changing solar activity, the atmosphere modifies the solar irradiance on the percentage level, in all likelihood via cosmic ray intensity variations produced by the active sun. The analysis strongly suggests that cosmic rays cause a large part of the atmospheric aerosols. These aerosols show specific absorption and scattering properties due to an inner structure of hydrated ionic centers, most probably of O− and O+ produced by the cosmic rays.
Introduction: In recent years, it has become clear from satellite data [1] that the total solar irradiance (TSI) varies only in the range of 0.1 % with solar activity. At the top of the atmosphere (TOA), the average TSI is ≈ 1360 Watt per m2 of normal incidence, and the solar variations are of order 1–2 Watt/m2 or 0.25–0.5 W per m2 of earth’s surface. For comparison, the anthropogenic warming due to CO2 increase is assessed to ≈ 2 W/m2 . Thus, the IPCC estimates the solar contribution to climate change to at most 1/3 of the total [2].
On the other hand, there are observations of pre-industrial climate change. For example the ‘little ice age’ of the 17th century correlates well with times of specific solar inactivity known as the Maunder minimum [3] from 1640 to 1710 where none of the usual 11 year sunspot cycles have been observed. Other climate variations also appear to parallel the solar activity changes. A survey of such features and others is given by Kirkby [4].
The active sun reduces the cosmic ray intensities by 20 % and more at the height of a sunspot cycle [5]. Most affected are cosmic rays of 1–10 GeV energy which is the dominant part of the spectrum. These cosmic rays deposit most of their energy at altitudes between 8 and 15 km (upper troposphere, lower stratosphere). Balloon measurements have shown that approximately 30 to 50 ions are produced per cm3 and sec, depending on latitude and solar activity [6]. These numbers are consistent with results from cosmic ray simulation programs [7]. Further, from mass spectroscopy it is known that at these altitudes ≈ 6000 ‘small ions’ per cm3 exist, with masses of up to 400 unit masses [6]. In contrast, in the continental boundary layer, there exist ≈ 2000 ‘small ions’, mainly produced by natural radioactivity. Svensmark [8], in his much debated papers, has postulated that the ‘small ions’ strongly influence water droplet nucleation, and thus significantly modulate the cloud formation and thereby influence the albedo. By analyzing satellite data of cloud coverage during solar cycle 22, as measured by the ISCCP satellite program [9], he has suggested that lower troposphere clouds (3–5 km altitudes) are most affected by the variation of cosmic ray intensities, and thus by solar activity (see also [4]). Further arguments for the link between cosmic ray flux and climate variability have been given by Shaviv and Veizer in a study on paleo-temperatures [10].
Conclusion: In summary, the terrestrial insolation data of SAO and of Mauna Loa observatory appear to vary strongly with solar activity. Evidence was presented that this modulation is caused by the cosmic rays, which pro- duce ‘small ions’, most probably consisting of O+ and O− ion centers surrounded by two shells of water
molecules. After coalescence, the very stable hydrated centers persist in the atmosphere as neutral nanometer size droplets and should constitute a large part of the atmospheric aerosols. Due to their strong light absorption, and due to their inner structure, these droplets show their own diurnal dynamics and appear to last for years, if not decades, especially over the oceans. They also exhibit strong Rayleigh scattering, which in solar active times results in a significant blue shift of the insolation, much bigger than that of the active sun itself.
Thus it appears that the SAO and Mauna Loa data represent a key for a more detailed understanding of atmospheric processes. The contribution of the active sun, indirectly via cosmic rays, to global warming appears to be much stronger than the presently accepted upper limit of 1/3. However, to really confirm this view, it is necessary to study the properties of atmospheric small ions and droplets in great detail, along paths which e. g. have been laid by C.T.R. Wilson. F.E. Fowle of the SAO group had been aware of Wilson’s work and had suggested explanations of SAO results along those paths. However, modern research has not taken up these ideas, and the SAO data have fallen into oblivion. In this paper it was shown that this is not justified. Instead, the SAO data, the works of Langley, Abbot, Fowle, Aldrich and others represent a great American scientific heritage.
My comment is regarding the two sentences, “Flares are sudden energy releases in the Sun’s atmosphere that occur when the solar magnetic field is locally unstable. …. At such sizzling temperatures, much of their radiation is emitted as X-rays”.
The following paper describes that solar flare consisting of charged particles, gamma rays, X-rays, and EUV arise from radioisotopes produced by Uranium fission. Gamma-, X-, and beta radiations cause UV dominant optical emission from within excited atoms of radioisotopes suggesting the possibility for solar gamma-, X-, and ß radiations causing EUV by the atomic phenomenon described in the paper. Radioisotopes produced in the Sun emit a new class of “Room Temperature Atomic Spectra of Solids” (solid radioisotopes or XRF sources). Previously, various researchers reported that the solar EUV lines are from stable isotopes at high temperature, but the current study suggests that solar EUV lines are actually due to radioisotopes produced by Uranium fission taking place in Sun. Since Uranium fission fragments (radioisotopes) left over on the Sun constitute Dark Matter, the dark matter can be detected through gamma rays, X-rays or beta particles. The excited atoms in fission fragments temporarily remain in atomic state and can cause atomic spectra even at room temperature. Radioisotope or X-ray source emit two more successive radiations following gamma, X-ray or beta: (1) Bharat radiation (predicted) with energy higher than that of UV at eV level, and (2) UV dominant optical emission. The paper also explains how a previously unknown atomic phenomenon causes Bharat radiation, which in turn causes UV dominant optical emission from within an excited atom of these sources. Dark Radiation emitted by dark matter in the Sun has been attributed to Bharat radiation. In the case of nuclear fission, radioisotopes may get highly ionized and will be left with singly filled orbit like Tritium. Such highly ionized radioisotopes emit only the Bharat radiation but not UV dominant optical emission. X-rays observed from Sun can be from radioisotopes that emit predominantly characteristic X-rays. In nut shell, solar flare not only consists of neutrons, protons, gamma, X-ray, beta, EUV, UV, visible, and infra red radiations but also Bharat radiation,.
M.A. Padmanabha Rao,
UV dominant optical emission newly detected from radioisotopes and XRF sources,
Brazilian Journal of Physics, Vol.40, no.1, March 2010.
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0103-97332010000100007&script=sci_arttext
THE SEARCH FOR TSI AMPLIFIER MECHANISM
CANDIDATE No. 1 of _______ : (Copied from Tallbloke)
‘………………………. Ian Wilson: Forthcoming paper 2011
tallbloke | October 20, 2010 at 8:44 am | Categories: solar system dynamics | URL: http://wp.me/pi4G5-ia
Ninderthana says:
October 14, 2010 at 7:05 am (Edit)
What Dr. Scarfetta is missing is the causal link between the planetary orbital periods, solar activity and the Earth’s Climate. This does not dismiss the possibility that such a link could exist, it just says that the mechanism is (currently) unknown.
The answer to his dilemma is the Moon. The Lunar tides of the Moon do have a discernible influence upon long term climate here on Earth.
The Moon has been moving away from the Earth ever since its formation billions of years ago. As it has moved away its orbital period has continuosly changed. This means that the properties of the Lunar Orbit have been shaped and moulded by combined tidal and gravitational effects of Venus and Jupiter, particularly at times when the orbital periods of these planets have been a sub-multiple of the orbital period of the Moon.
I will be showing in a paper to be published in 2011 that long term changes in the Lunar orbit are synchronized with long term changes in Barycentric motion of the Sun.
I cannot discuss these links in this forum as yet until I can get my paper published.
It might be eventually shown that the level of solar activity on the Sun is determined
by the barycentric motion it undergoes due to the gravitational influences of the Jovian planets. It might also be reasonable to argue that changes in the level of solar activity have an effect on the Earth’s climate. All I am saying is that what ever effects changes in solar activity have upon the Earth’s climate are being greatly reinforced by synchronized changes in the long-term variations in strength of lunar tides
experienced here on Earth.
I believe that the Lunar tidal effects will be identified as the (dominant) mysterious “amplification mechanism” that strengthens the apparent link between solar activity and the Earth’s climate………………………………………………………………’
—————————————————————————————
Som[e] uncertainties about the sun from a soon to be published book called ‘Sun’ by Simon & Schuster as reported by the Telegraph 10-2010
‘…….Yet despite all this, questions remain. How does the sun generate its magnetic field? Why, since it is not on fire, do flames burst from it? What creates the corona, and how is it heated to such enormous temperatures? What switches the solar magnetic poles? Where is the solar wind produced, and how far does it blow? Why do sunspots exist? Solar physicists are forecasting a new golden age for learning about the sun – so watch this space. ………..’