By Dr. Roy Spencer, PhD (reprinted from his blog with permission)
UPDATE (12:35 p.m. CDT 19 May 2011): revised corrections of CERES data for El Nino/La Nina effects.
While I have been skeptical of Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory up until now, it looks like the evidence is becoming too strong for me to ignore. The following results will surely be controversial, and the reader should remember that what follows is not peer reviewed, and is only a preliminary estimate.
I’ve made calculations based upon satellite observations of how the global radiative energy balance has varied over the last 10 years (between Solar Max and Solar Min) as a result of variations in cosmic ray activity. The results suggest that the total (direct + indirect) solar forcing is at least 3.5 times stronger than that due to changing solar irradiance alone.
If this is anywhere close to being correct, it supports the claim that the sun has a much larger potential role (and therefore humans a smaller role) in climate change than what the “scientific consensus” states.
BACKGROUND
The single most frequently asked question I get after I give my talks is, “Why didn’t you mention the sun?” I usually answer that I’m skeptical of the “cosmic ray gun” theory of cloud changes controlling climate. But I point out that Svensmark’s theory of natural cloud variations causing climate change is actually pretty close to what I preach — only the mechanism causing the cloud change is different.
Then, I found last year’s paper by Laken et al. which was especially interesting since it showed satellite-observed cloud changes following changes in cosmic ray activity. Even though the ISCCP satellite data they used are not exactly state of the art, the study was limited to the mid-latitudes, and the time scales involved were days rather than years, the results gave compelling quantitative evidence of a cosmic ray effect on cloud cover.
With the rapid-fire stream of publications and reports now coming out on the subject, I decided to go back and spend some time analyzing ground-based galactic cosmic ray (GCR) data to see whether there is a connection between GCR variations and variations in the global radiative energy balance between absorbed sunlight and emitted infrared energy, taken from the NASA CERES radiative budget instruments on the Terra satellite, available since March 2000.
After all, that is ultimately what we are interested in: How do various forcings affect the radiative energy budget of the Earth? The results, I must admit, are enough for me to now place at least one foot solidly in the cosmic ray theory camp.
THE DATA
The nice thing about using CERES Earth radiative budget data is that we can get a quantitative estimate in Watts per sq. meter for the radiative forcing due to cosmic ray changes. This is the language the climate modelers speak, since these radiative forcings (externally imposed global energy imbalances) can be used to help calculate global temperature changes in the ocean & atmosphere based upon simple energy conservation. They can then also be compared to the estimates of forcing from increasing carbon dioxide, currently the most fashionable cause of climate change.
From the global radiative budget measurements we also get to see if there is a change in high clouds (inferred from the outgoing infrared measurements) as well as low clouds (inferred from reflected shortwave [visible sunlight] measurements) associated with cosmic ray activity.
I will use only the ground-based cosmic ray data from Moscow, since it is the first station I found which includes a complete monthly archive for the same period we have global radiative energy budget data from CERES (March 2000 through June 2010). I’m sure there are other stations, too…all of this is preliminary anyway. Me sifting through the myriad solar-terrestrial datasets is just as confusing to me as most of you sifting through the various climate datasets that I’m reasonably comfortable with.
THE RESULTS
The following plot (black curve) shows the monthly GCR data from Moscow for this period, as well as a detrended version with 1-2-1 averaging (red curve) to match the smoothing I will use in the CERES measurements to reduce noise.
Detrending the data isolates the month-to-month and year-to-year variability as the signal to match, since trends (or a lack of trends) in the global radiative budget data can be caused by a combination of many things. (Linear trends are worthless for statistically inferring cause-and-effect; but getting a match between wiggles in two datasets is much less likely to be due to random chance.)
The monthly cosmic ray data at Moscow will be compared to global monthly anomalies the NASA Terra satellite CERES (SSF 2.5 dataset) radiative flux data,
which shows the variations in global average reflected sunlight (SW), emitted infrared (LW), and Net (which is the estimated imbalances in total absorbed energy by the climate system, after adjustment for variations in total solar irradiance, TSI). Note I have plotted the variations in the negative of Net, which is approximately equal to variations in (LW+SW)
Then, since the primary source of variability in the CERES data is associated with El Nino and La Nina (ENSO) activity, I subtracted out an estimate of the average ENSO influence using running regressions between running 5-month averages of the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) and the CERES fluxes. I used the MEI index along with those regression coefficients in each month to correct the CERES fluxes 4 months later, since that time lag had the strongest correlation.
Finally, I performed regressions at various leads and lags between the GCR time series and the LW, SW, and -Net radiative flux time series, the results of which are shown next.
The yearly average relationships noted in the previous plot come from this relationship in the reflected solar (SW) data,
while the -Net flux (Net is absorbed solar minus emitted infrared, corrected for the change in solar irradiance during the period) results look like this:
It is that last plot that gives us the final estimate of how a change in cosmic ray flux at Moscow is related to changes in Earth’s radiative energy balance.
SUMMARY
What the above three plots show is that for a 1,000 count increase in GCR activity as measured at Moscow (which is somewhat less than the increase between Solar Max and Solar Min), there appears to be:
(1) an increase in reflected sunlight (SW) of 0.64 Watts per sq. meter, probably mostly due to an increase in low cloud cover;
(2) virtually no change in emitted infrared (LW) of +0.02 Watts per sq. meter;
(3) a Net (reflected sunlight plus emitted infrared) effect of 0.55 Watts per sq. meter loss in radiant energy by the global climate system.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR CLIMATE CHANGE?
Assuming these signatures are anywhere close to being real, what do they mean quantitatively in terms of the potential effect of cosmic ray activity on climate?
Well, just like any other forcing, a resulting temperature change depends not only upon the size of the forcing, but also the sensitivity of the climate system to forcing. But we CAN compare the cosmic ray forcing to OTHER “known” forcings, which could have a huge influence on our understanding of the role of humans in climate change.
For example, if warming observed in the last century is (say) 50% natural and 50% anthropogenic, then this implies the climate system is only one-half as sensitive to our greenhouse gas emissions (or aerosol pollution) than if the warming was 100% anthropogenic in origin (which is pretty close to what we are told the supposed “scientific consensus” is).
First, let’s compare the cosmic ray forcing to the change in total solar irradiance (TSI) during 2000-2010. The orange curve in following plot is the change in direct solar (TSI) forcing between 2000 and 2010, which with the help of Danny Braswell’s analytical skills I backed out from the CERES Net, LW, and SW data. It is the only kind of solar forcing the IPCC (apparently) believes exists, and it is quite weak:
Also shown is the estimated cosmic ray forcing resulting from the month-to-month changes in the original Moscow cosmic ray time series, computed by multiplying those monthly changes by 0.55 Watts per sq. meter per 1,000 cosmic ray counts change.
Finally, I fitted the trend lines to get an estimate of the relative magnitudes of these two sources of forcing: the cosmic ray (indirect) forcing is about 2.8 times that of the solar irradiance (direct) forcing. This means the total (direct + indirect) solar forcing on climate associated with the solar cycle could be 3.8 times that most mainstream climate scientists believe.
One obvious question this begs is whether the lack of recent warming, since about 2004 for the 0-700 meter layer of the ocean, is due to the cosmic ray effect on cloud cover canceling out the warming from increasing carbon dioxide.
If the situation really was that simple (which I doubt it is), this would mean that with Solar Max rapidly approaching, warming should resume in the coming months. Of course, other natural cycles could be in play (my favorite is the Pacific Decadal oscillation), so predicting what will happen next is (in my view) more of an exercise in faith than in science.
In the bigger picture, this is just one more piece of evidence that the IPCC scientists should be investigating, one which suggests a much larger role for Mother Nature in climate change than the IPCC has been willing to admit. And, again I emphasize, the greater the role of Nature in causing past climate change, the smaller the role humans must have had, which could then have a profound impact on future projections of human-caused global warming.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
By the way,
all the links on
http://vds-sonne.de/gem/res/results.html
are broken.
tallbloke says:
May 25, 2011 at 11:57 pm
Understanding how these apparently small energies have the effect they evidently do is the stumbling block.
The important word is ‘apparently’. These energies are not apparently small, they are in reality small.
Once an oscillation has built up in a semi rigid body
The sun is a gas and does not pulsate. There are stars that do, but their pulsations are constantly driven by changes in opacity. This is a big [but well-understood subject]. The Sun does not fall in that category. “The accepted explanation for the pulsation of Cepheids is called the Eddington valve, or κ-mechanism, where the Greek letter κ (kappa) denotes gas opacity. Helium is the gas thought to be most active in the process. Doubly ionized helium (helium whose atoms are missing two electrons) is more opaque than singly ionized helium. The more helium is heated, the more ionized it becomes. At the dimmest part of a Cepheid’s cycle, the ionized gas in the outer layers of the star is opaque, and so is heated by the star’s radiation, and due to the increased temperature, begins to expand. As it expands, it cools, and so becomes less ionized and therefore more transparent, allowing the radiation to escape. Then the expansion stops, and reverses due to the star’s gravitational attraction. The process then repeats.”
what effect has the secular decrease in the strength of the geomagnetic field had on the magnetometer readings measuring the solar perturbations of it?
The effect(s) is small and we do not correct for it. We should [and could] though, but since the effect goes in the direction of [artificially] increasing the solar influence with time, it meets with resistance from deniers if we try to correct for it [which will decrease the solar activity inferred from the compass needle]. It goes like this: the daily variation of the compass needle is caused by a dynamo effect where the ionosphere moves across the geomagnetic field lines thus inducing an electric field which then drives a current whose magnetic effect we measure on the ground. The electric field is determined [chiefly] by the magnitude of the geomagnetic field and the ions generated by solar UV, but the electric current also depends on the conductivity [inverse resistivity] of the medium: electric current = conductivity x electric field. The conductivity is determined by the ‘mobility’ of the electrons. The electrons like to spiral around a magnetic field, so a strong magnetic field acts as a hindrance to the free movements along the electric field, so a decrease of the geomagnetic field actually increases the conductivity and hence the current and the magnetic effect of solar activity, making the Sun look more active than it really is. You can now see why some people don’t want to correct for the decrease of the geomagnetic field. Then on the other hand, th electric field also decreases with the geomagnetic field, so the net effect is a kind of ‘tug of war’ between the increase and the decrease and it is not clear what the net effect is [except that it is small]. For our purposes that really doesn’t matter because the changes in the calibration of the sunspot number are discontinuous so we only we only require the geomagnetic field to not change too much for a few years before and after each ‘jump’ which is readily satisfied. For the IDV index the effect of the geomagnetic field is too small to measure, but for the IHV index the situation is a bit more complex: the size of the magnetosphere is determined as a balance between the inward push of the solar wind [kinetic energy of the particles moving at 400 km/s – called the ‘dynamic pressure’] and the outward push of the geomagnetic field. For constant solar wind [=constant solar activity] a smaller geomagnetic field results in a smaller magnetosphere. So the question is ‘will a smaller magnetosphere mean smaller geomagnetic activity or larger geomagnetic activity as measured on the ground?’. We don’t know. There are some that argue that a smaller magnetosphere means a shorter ‘reconnection line’ and hence weaker activity. There are others [including me] that argue that a smaller magnetosphere means that all gradients [change of field with distance] are larger which results in stronger activity. The questions is unresolved and is one of the topics to be discussed at the workshop. As support for the smaller magnetosphere resulting in larger activity we have the famous semiannual-Universal Time variation of geomagnetic activity: activity is strongest when the solar wind hits the geomagnetic field when it is weakest [at the sub-solar point]. The field around a dipole is twice as strong over the poles than over the equator, so as the geomagnetic field wobbles [annually and daily] because of the tilt of the Earth’s axis [annual] and of the additional tilt of the magnetic axis [daily], the solar wind will meet a changing magnetic field. Observations show that geomagnetic activity rather precisely follows that variation of the geomagnetic field at the ‘nose’ of the magnetosphere, being largest when the field is the smallest. But this is still an active area of research. So, as you can see, the arguments are complex and many people [even scientists – especially when addicted to their own pet theories] have a hard time following an argument with several links in the logical chain.
tallbloke says:
May 26, 2011 at 3:57 am
http://vds-sonne.de/gem/res/results.html are broken.
They moved their stuff around. Here is the new place:
http://www.vds-sonne.de/index.php?page=gem/res/results.html#renetz
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 26, 2011 at 7:30 am
tallbloke says:
May 25, 2011 at 11:57 pm
Understanding how these apparently small energies have the effect they evidently do is the stumbling block.
The important word is ‘apparently’. These energies are not apparently small, they are in reality small.
Apologies for my imprecision. I should have said ‘apparently insufficient’. And before you say “they are also insufficient” I just say ‘I know that’s what you think’ 🙂
The sun is a gas and does not pulsate.
When I said oscillation, a meant more a reverberation than a pulsation. The ‘pulse engine’ was just simile. The sun does reverberate I think, otherwise those scientists doing solar-acoustic experiments wouldn’t be getting any results. So although the sun is a gas, it doesn’t behave like a puff of smoke, due to the strong gravity and magnetic fields.
It goes like this :..
Great discussion and very informative, thanks.
tallbloke says:
May 26, 2011 at 8:52 am
Apologies for my imprecision. I should have said ‘apparently insufficient’. And before you say “they are also insufficient” I just say ‘I know that’s what you think’ 🙂
Precision is everything in this game. Several people [e.g. DeJager] have shown that they are indeed insufficient, but you have to understand the physics to see this.
When I said oscillation, a meant more a reverberation than a pulsation. The ‘pulse engine’ was just simile. The sun does reverberate I think
The waves are just ordinary sound waves created by overturning convection cells [‘sunquakes’] and like earthquakes only last a short time before dying out due to friction. The sun has several million such random sunquakes going off at any given time. Nothing lives long enough for any large scale effects or coherence, being clobbered all the time by new quakes.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 26, 2011 at 9:20 am
Several people [e.g. DeJager] have shown that they are indeed insufficient, but you have to understand the physics to see this.
I don’t know all the specific physics involved with solar theory, not being a solar physicist, but I do understand the mechanics of Newton, and Wolf and Patrone’s mechanism, because I qualified in mechanical science, and no-one has refuted them in a formal way. Also, I don’t think anyone has thought through the argument about tides very well. Although the vertical tides are small, the horizontal tides are not. But in any case, as I said earlier,as the correlations improve and the studies deepen, so will understanding concerning mechanisms.
The waves are just ordinary sound waves created by overturning convection cells [‘sunquakes’] and like earthquakes only last a short time before dying out due to friction. The sun has several million such random sunquakes going off at any given time. Nothing lives long enough for any large scale effects or coherence, being clobbered all the time by new quakes.
I think you’d probably have a queue of helioseismologists wanting to pick arguments with you if you said that on the floor of a conference hall.
http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/press/00/pr0015.htm
“At the edge of the convective layer, Howe and her colleagues used GONG data to determine that the rotation rate varies periodically, completing a cycle about every 15-16 months. The team used data from the NASA and European Space Agency’s Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) spacecraft to confirm the pattern of these variations.”
“At first we were skeptical of the pattern. Knowing the complexity of models used to explain the solar magnetic field and its connection to observed solar activity, we were expecting nothing, or chaos, in our observations at that location,” said Howe.
And at your own institution too.
http://soi.stanford.edu/results/heliowhat.html
“Each oscillation mode is sampling different parts of the solar interior. The spectrum of the detected oscillations arises from modes with periods ranging from about 1.5 minutes to about 20 minutes and with horizontal wavelengths of between less then a few thousand kilometers to the length of the solar globe [Gough and Toomre, p. 627, 1991]”
tallbloke says:
May 26, 2011 at 1:55 pm
I do understand the mechanics of Newton, and Wolf and Patrone’s mechanism, because I qualified in mechanical science, and no-one has refuted them in a formal way.
Newton has nothing to do with it, and Wolf and Patrone have no mechanism for transferring potential energy into actual kinetic energy. If I carry a suitcase up the stairs it gains potential energy because their is a coupling [I’m dragging at the handle]. What their ‘mechanism’ lags is a coupling.
Although the vertical tides are small, the horizontal tides are not.
Tides depends on the distance between the ‘end points’, i.e. are proportional to the diameter of the Sun. I can tell you precisely how to calculate the vertical tides, now you tell me precisely how to calculate the horizontal tides. Without such a calculation you cannot make any statement comparing the magnitude of the two.
But in any case, as I said earlier, as the correlations improve and the studies deepen, so will understanding concerning mechanisms
Spurious correlations degrade with time. Wolf thought in the beginning that the planetary influences were first order effects [i.e. that they directly cause solar activity]. After almost 50 years of observing sunspots he realized that they not could be and abandoned his hypothesis. With Hale’s discovery of sunspot magnetism and the polarity changes, the planetary theory was further discredited as a first cause. At best it was relegated to second order [as a small modulation of something created and maintain by other processes], and falls victim to Occam’s razor [expressed by Newton as: “We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances”]. The dynamo theory [the first cause] also explains and accommodate what modulations are found, and no further causes are needed.
I think you’d probably have a queue of helioseismologists wanting to pick arguments with you if you said that on the floor of a conference hall.
Not at all, the examples you cite are not about the waves, but about what we have learned using the waves, such as flows inside the sun, the rotation rates in the interior, circulations driven by thermal differences, etc. The Howe observations are old and didn’t hold up with later data.
The second example: “The spectrum of the detected oscillations arises from modes with periods ranging from about 1.5 minutes to about 20 minutes and with horizontal wavelengths of between less then a few thousand kilometers to the length of the solar globe” just affirms what I said about the oscillations being short lived [minutes].
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 26, 2011 at 6:39 pm
Wolf and Patrone have no mechanism for transferring potential energy into actual kinetic energy. If I carry a suitcase up the stairs it gains potential energy because their is a coupling [I’m dragging at the handle]. What their ‘mechanism’ lags is a coupling.
Feel free to set your suitcase example into a formal rebuttal in the journal. Meantime I’ll trust Wolff and Patrone, their reviewers, and my own knowledge of mechanical science.
I can tell you precisely how to calculate the vertical tides, now you tell me precisely how to calculate the horizontal tides. Without such a calculation you cannot make any statement comparing the magnitude of the two.
Even the vertical tides on Earth are imperfectly understood. Wikipedia tore down nearly all their entry on tides a year or so back, and replaced it with some very basic stuff. The equations we use are heuristic and do not have a proper physical basis. So far as horizontal tides are concerned, we can be sure that due to much higher gravity, the surface flows on the sun are going to be much bigger proportionally to the vertical tides than they are on Earth. More work needed, and not just by me.
Spurious correlations degrade with time. Wolf thought in the beginning that the planetary influences were first order effects [i.e. that they directly cause solar activity]. After almost 50 years of observing sunspots he realized that they not could be and abandoned his hypothesis. At best it was relegated to second order [as a small modulation of something created and maintain by other processes], and falls victim to Occam’s razor. The dynamo theory [the first cause] also explains and accommodate what modulations are found, and no further causes are needed.
The dynamo theory has almost no predictive power. The correlation discovered between the motions of Jupiter, Earth and Venus by Jean-Pierre Desmoulins and confirmed by NASA scientist Ching Cheh Hung do not degrade with time, and can be used to accurately predict solar cycle timings and approximate amplitudes. The alignment cycles never go completely out of phase and never ‘overtake’ or ‘slip behind’ solar activity by a complete cycle during the entire sunspot record.
With Hale’s discovery of sunspot magnetism and the polarity changes, the planetary theory was further discredited as a first cause.
I made the discovery that Desmoulins and Roy Martin’s findings are further improved and enhanced by additionally considering the alignments of JEV along the curve of the interplanetary magnetic field, allowing for the change in curvature caused by changes in solar windspeed. This addresses your objection that the alignments are not relevant to the electromagnetic nature of solar activity, in terms of the timing of solar cycles at least. I think that further work on the Wolff-Patrone mechanism will be worthwhile, because it may help improve solar cycle amplitude predictions. There may well be several mechanisms at work, as indicated by the complexity of solar variation.
Here’s my graph of the alignments along the IMF, solar windspeed adjusted:
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/rotation-solar-windspeed-adjusted.png
“The spectrum of the detected oscillations arises from modes with periods ranging from about 1.5 minutes to about 20 minutes and with horizontal wavelengths of between less then a few thousand kilometers to the length of the solar globe” just affirms what I said about the oscillations being short lived [minutes].
I bow to your superior knowledge on helioseismology.
I’m away to the mountains for a backpacking trip, so I’m leaving it there for now. Thanks for your knowledge and conversation, I’ll check back to see you’ve replied when I return. I really hope we can keep productive and rational dialogue going.
zzzzzzZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz
tallbloke says:
May 27, 2011 at 1:36 am
Feel free to set your suitcase example into a formal rebuttal in the journal. Meantime I’ll trust Wolff and Patrone, their reviewers, and my own knowledge of mechanical science.
since what is lacking is a mechanism or a coupling to turn that potential energy into kinetic energy no rebuttal is needed. Their direct test using sunspot distribution is not statistically significant as they admit, so no rebuttal needed there either. Of course none of my arguments will convince you, just as no arguments can rock people’s belief in rupture and young earth.
Even the vertical tides on Earth are imperfectly understood. Wikipedia tore down nearly all their entry on tides a year or so back, and replaced it with some very basic stuff. The equations we use are heuristic and do not have a proper physical basis.
The vertical tides have been well understood for centuries. On the Earth matters are complicated by the presence of land masses dividing the oceans into basins of different depth. This cannot [or rather is not worth the trouble] be addressed analytically when it is sufficient to least-square fit actual measurements of the tides at a given location to the astronomical tidal potential. But why get hung up on tides, the mechanism you are peddling does not involve tides.
So far as horizontal tides are concerned, we can be sure that due to much higher gravity
There are no ‘horizontal tides’, but if you can show there are and what their effect is, you need to to that in order ‘to be sure’ of anything.
The dynamo theory has almost no predictive power.
It is doing pretty well, I would say. We predicted a small cycle and here it is. the detailed numerical modeling needs data about the internal circulation of the Sun. Helioseismology from SDO will provide that this cycle.
The correlation discovered between the motions of Jupiter, Earth and Venus by Jean-Pierre Desmoulins and confirmed by NASA scientist Ching Cheh Hung do not degrade with time, and can be used to accurately predict solar cycle timings and approximate amplitudes.
Curve fitting always works on the past, but usually fails in the future. Hung has never predicted anything. Where are the predictions for the flares that have occurred in SC24? When will the next one be? I thought that people ‘in the know’ claim that Uranus and Neptune are the important planets for the 172-yr ‘cycles’, but never mind [those people are fast asleep, see below].
The alignment cycles never go completely out of phase and never ‘overtake’ or ‘slip behind’ solar activity by a complete cycle during the entire sunspot record.If theuy slipped a whole cycle you couldn’t tell the difference. And there are people that think a sunspot cycle is ‘missing’, between the excessively long cycle 4 and the very small cycle 5.
I made the discovery that Desmoulins and Roy Martin’s findings are further improved and enhanced by additionally considering the alignments of JEV along the curve of the interplanetary magnetic field, allowing for the change in curvature caused by changes in solar windspeed.
The solar wind speed seen from any planet undergoes several very large variations [factor of two] every 25-27 days, and besides magnetic influences cannot travel upstream.
Geoff Sharp says:
May 28, 2011 at 7:18 am
zzzzzzZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz
Sleep on. Sweet dreams.
tallbloke says:
May 27, 2011 at 1:36 am
The alignment cycles never go completely out of phase and never ‘overtake’ or ‘slip behind’ solar activity by a complete cycle during the entire sunspot record.
The idea that the sun is a ‘High-Q’ oscillator is an old one. You might enjoy Robert Dicke’s take on it: http://www.leif.org/EOS/1982SoPh78-3Dicke.pdf
Dicke’s ideas were inspired by his belief that Einstein was wrong and the some of the non-Newtonian perihelion advance of Mercury was due to oblateness of the Sun caused by a rapidly rotating, strongly magnetic inner core. We know now that Einstein was right as the Sun is not oblate enough to upset Einstein [and may other things, as recently discussed on WUWT].
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 28, 2011 at 8:23 am
The idea that the sun is a ‘High-Q’ oscillator is an old one.
Dicke elaborated more on his ideas here: http://www.leif.org/EOS/1988SoPh115-171Dicke.pdf
Today, his ideas are pretty much dead.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 28, 2011 at 8:46 am
The idea that the sun is a ‘High-Q’ oscillator is an old one.
Dicke elaborated more on his ideas here: http://www.leif.org/EOS/1988SoPh115-171Dicke.pdf Today, his ideas are pretty much dead.
And also not necessary [Occam’s razor again], e.g.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/kq55h3314h037321/
“Dicke (1978) has argued that the phase of the solar cycle appears to be coupled to an internal clock: shorter cycles are usually followed by longer ones, as if the Sun remembers the correct phase. The data set is really too short to demonstrate the presence of a phase memory, but phase and amplitude of the cycle are strongly correlated for 300 yr or more. It is shown that this memory effect can be explained by mean field theory in terms of fluctuations in alpha, which induce coherent changes in the frequency and amplitude of a dynamo wave. It is concluded that there is neither a strong observational indication nor a theoretical need for an extra timing device, in addition to the one provided by dynamo wave physics.”
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 28, 2011 at 8:57 am
The idea that the sun is a ‘High-Q’ oscillator is an old one.
Dicke elaborated more on his ideas here: http://www.leif.org/EOS/1988SoPh115-171Dicke.pdf Today, his ideas are pretty much dead.
And also not necessary [Occam’s razor again]…
On the other hand, oscillations could be generated by a radiative instability at the tachocline as advocated e.g. by Kuhn: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Kuhn-Solar-Cycles.pdf
The main point is that the oscillation must be directly driven at all times [like for the pulsating stars]. P.S. one may be a bit weary of the correlation shown in his Figure 7 🙂
Kuhn’s Figure 4 is of interest. He says: “We compute the Hilbert phase phi(t) by using Fourier transform techniques to fit the sunspot record s(t) to a function A(t) exp (i phi(t)). We call phi(t) the ‘‘unwrapped’’ Hilbert phase function. Fig. 4 shows the computed Hilbert phase for the 256 point yearly average sunspot record”
You may try to compute the Hilbert phase for the planetary influences [whatever they be and if you can even quantify them] and see if it matches Figure 4.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 28, 2011 at 7:59 am
Wolff and Patrone:
Of course none of my arguments will convince you, just as no arguments can rock people’s belief in rupture and young earth.
My departure to the mountains is delayed, so I’m delighted to be able to continue our conversation.
As far as I can see your argument is that since you can’t see any mechanism described in their paper, there isn’t one, and therefore there is no need for a rebuttal. Since Wolff and Patrone, and their reviewers, and I don’t have a problem seeing and understanding the mechanism described in their paper, I guess we are at impasse on this one. I freely admit I don’t yet know if the W&P mechanism is sufficient, or if it will turn out that the planetary cycles really drive solar variation, or whether they are just a very good (and useful) proxy. I still think it’s worth trying to find out though.
The rupture and young earth stuff is just gratuitous, unprofessional, and unworthy of your intellect, as well as an insult to mine. Knock it off.
But why get hung up on tides, the mechanism you are peddling does not involve tides.
My position is that tides are insufficiently understood to enable them to be ruled out as a contributory mechanism. Your disagreement is noted. As is your use of the word ‘peddling’.
(tallbloke) The dynamo theory has almost no predictive power.
(Leif) It is doing pretty well, I would say. We predicted a small cycle and here it is. the detailed numerical modeling needs data about the internal circulation of the Sun. Helioseismology from SDO will provide that this cycle.
I predicted a small cycle of 35-50SSN on climate audit three years ago. You predicted a medium sized cycle of 65-70SSN. Proponents of other flavours of the dynamo theory predicted cycles of anything up to ~180SSN (Dikpati).
I agree with you that the prospect of detailed knowledge of the internal circulation of the sun is an exciting prospect, and I look forward to discussing it with you as it emerges.
Curve fitting always works on the past, but usually fails in the future. Hung has never predicted anything. Where are the predictions for the flares that have occurred in SC24? When will the next one be?
People can see for themselves the successful predictions Hung made in his paper, and we beat this one to death a while back so I’ll leave this one be.
(tallbloke) The alignment cycles never go completely out of phase and never ‘overtake’ or ‘slip behind’ solar activity by a complete cycle during the entire sunspot record.
(Leif) If theuy slipped a whole cycle you couldn’t tell the difference.
I’m not sure what point you are trying to make here. How could they slip a whole cycle in the space of a cycle? The planets orbital rates are pretty constant, and the solar cycle is never of zero length, or double length.
And there are people that think a sunspot cycle is ‘missing’, between the excessively long cycle 4 and the very small cycle 5.
What does this have to do with anything we are discussing? I’m not ‘people’ and you are talking to me, not ‘people’. The studies you linked form Dicke, Kuhn, (very interesting by the way, thanks for those), and the planetary cycle studies by Desmoulins and others all show there was something anomalous going on prior to the onset of the Dalton minimum. But even then the planetary cycles never slipped completely out of phase with the solar cycle. They did get more out of phase than at other times though, and I regard that as an important clue.
The solar wind speed seen from any planet undergoes several very large variations [factor of two] every 25-27 days, and besides magnetic influences cannot travel upstream.
Yes, the planets are subjected to an oscillating stream of magnetised flux. This doesn’t invalidate my finding however, and if anything, strengthens the case for dynamic interaction via the resulting reconnections between the solar flux and planetary magnetospheres. Especially those of Earth, Jupiter, and Saturn, which all display auroral activity.
You may try to compute the Hilbert phase for the planetary influences [whatever they be and if you can even quantify them] and see if it matches Figure 4.
We’ve already done something similar, and there is good agreement. If you consider Timo Niroma’s study of the distribution of solar cycle lengths, he found they cluster around 10.3 and 11.9 years. A 19.86 year signal in solar data has also recently been discovered. These periods correspond to the JEV cycle, the Jovian orbital period and the Jupiter-Saturn synodic period. This is why the JEV cycles correspond closely with the phase of the solar cycle across three centuries of observations. Wolf gave up in the late 1800’s because he didn’t quite get the JEV cycle right. If he had known what we know now, he would have continued his planetary-solar investigations to the end of his days.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/rudolf-wolf-solar-planetary-theorist-who-knew/
tallbloke says:
May 28, 2011 at 11:18 am
I still think it’s worth trying to find out though.
Let me know when you find out what their coupling mechanism is.
My position is that tides are insufficiently understood to enable them to be ruled out as a contributory mechanism. Your disagreement is noted. As is your use of the word ‘peddling’.
Tides are very important for astrophysics and lots of effort has gone into understand them. Tidal effects range from understanding rotation of planets and moons, creation of planetary rings, interaction and tidal eruptions of galaxies, creation of type Ia supernovae, and on and on. All this is very well understood. ‘Peddling’ is appropriate when pushing something based on conviction rather than facts.
I predicted a small cycle of 35-50SSN on climate audit three years ago. You predicted a medium sized cycle of 65-70SSN. Proponents of other flavours of the dynamo theory predicted cycles of anything up to ~180SSN (Dikpati).
Your prediction seems already to be invalid. Mine [of six years ago] is right on track. Dikpati et al. were high because they assumed [we don’t really know what it is] a wrong meridional circulation. Choudhuri et al. using the [almost] identical theory as Dikpati, but with input from the observed polar fields to compensate for the unknown circulation predicted a cycle around 75. Dynamo theory is doing a very good job.
People can see for themselves the successful predictions Hung made in his paper, and we beat this one to death a while back so I’ll leave this one be.
Apparently he has stopped making predictions or NASA was not impressed and are not using his method. Prediction of flares is the holy grail, so that this field seems to be dead tells something.
How could they slip a whole cycle in the space of a cycle? The planets orbital rates are pretty constant, and the solar cycle is never of zero length, or double length.
They only need to slip half a cycle before you assign the slipped cycle to the next cycle. Being off by 5 years happened e.g. around 1800. And, according to your graph of planetary index [which is what? BTW], will happen again in 2020.
But even then the planetary cycles never slipped completely out of phase with the solar cycle. They did get more out of phase than at other times though, and I regard that as an important clue.
With only 300 years of data we cannot tell what the slippage is. Kuhn’s analysis shows an average length of 10.89781 yr, Dicke claimed 11.13933 yr. It is not clear what yours is [perhaps you would give a number now]. Dicke and Kuhn get out of phase after 45 cycles or 500 years. If you can provide a number, then we can calculate when the observed and your planetary cycle will have slipped a complete cycle.
The solar wind speed seen from any planet undergoes several very large variations [factor of two] every 25-27 days, and besides magnetic influences cannot travel upstream.
anything, strengthens the case for dynamic interaction via the resulting reconnections between the solar flux and planetary magnetospheres. Especially those of Earth, Jupiter, and Saturn, which all display auroral activity.
That is a one-way street. Of course there are interactions but they don’t travel upstream, just like the effect of a rifle bullet shattering a melon does not influence the rifle.
We’ve already done something similar, and there is good agreement.
show a graph of that.
If you consider Timo Niroma’s study of the distribution of solar cycle lengths, he found they cluster around 10.3 and 11.9 years.
I have seen his ‘study’ and it is rather worthless.
Wolf gave up in the late 1800′s because he was considering Jupiter only.
No, Wolf considered all the planets and suggested, tentatively and with all due caution, that the overall shape of the sunspot curve was set by Jupiter, variations in its peak and minimal amplitudes were due to Saturn, and irregularities on time scales less than a year were due to combined effects of Venus and Earth. It is sad that you often make categorical statements that are false on their face.
If he had known what we know now, he would have continued his planetary-solar investigations to the end of his days.
Wolf was a very reasonable scientist and would have dropped [as he did, and everybody else since: http://www.leif.org/research/Rise-and-Fall.pdf ] the planetary investigations had he had all the data up to now and knowledge of modern physics.
tallbloke says:
May 28, 2011 at 11:18 am
The rupture and young earth stuff is just gratuitous, unprofessional, and unworthy of your intellect, as well as an insult to mine. Knock it off.
One of my best friends [whom I value very much] is a firm believer of both. He is extremely smart [possibly even more than you and I] and nevertheless is impossible to argue with in this respect. He demonstrates the power of conviction carried by someone of superior intellect.
If you consider Timo Niroma’s study of the distribution of solar cycle lengths, he found they cluster around 10.3 and 11.9 years.
Any cyclical signal when modulated by a longer cycle will exhibit two period lengths. Here are two cycles, the red one is a modulation of the blue [simple] one with a modulation period of 10 times the blue period. This is a good approximation to the solar cycle modulated by a 100-yr cycle. The power spectrum of the blue curve shows a single peak as it should. The power spectrum of the red modulated red curve shows that the peak is split into two peaks: http://www.leif.org/research/Splitting-of-Peak.png
tallbloke says:
May 28, 2011 at 11:18 am
If you consider Timo Niroma’s study of the distribution of solar cycle lengths, he found they cluster around 10.3 and 11.9 years.
There is no such clustering: http://www.leif.org/research/Distribution-Cycle-Lengths.png
‘Peddling’ is appropriate when pushing something based on conviction rather than facts.
fact1: Jupiter orbits the Sun AND the Inner Planets, Sun and IPs together are the ‘orbited object’.
fact2: The orbited object counters Jupiters motion around the barycenter.
fact3: Jupiter accelerates parts of the orbited object, the IPs.
fact4: When parts of the orbited object accelerates the rest, the Sun, must also accelerate because the object as a whole can not move closer to Jupiter.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 28, 2011 at 12:10 pm
tallbloke says:
May 28, 2011 at 11:18 am
I still think it’s worth trying to find out though.
Let me know when you find out what their coupling mechanism is.
You have quoted me out of context and I find this unworthy of reply.
‘Peddling’ is appropriate when pushing something based on conviction rather than facts.
You are slipping back into old habits. This is unfortunate.
(TB) I predicted a small cycle of 35-50SSN on climate audit three years ago. You predicted a medium sized cycle of 65-70SSN. Proponents of other flavours of the dynamo theory predicted cycles of anything up to ~180SSN (Dikpati).
(LS) Your prediction seems already to be invalid. Mine [of six years ago] is right on track.
Only in the fantasy land of pore counting.
Prediction of flares is the holy grail, so that this field seems to be dead tells something.
It tells me you may have successfully killed it.
They only need to slip half a cycle before you assign the slipped cycle to the next cycle. Being off by 5 years happened e.g. around 1800. And, according to your graph of planetary index [which is what? BTW], will happen again in 2020.
Anyone who takes a close look at Desmoulin’s graph will see through your argument.
The planetary index is derived from the closeness of the conjunction and opposition relationships of Jupiter, Earth and Venus. These can be calculated in direct straight lines or along the curve of the IMF. Every other cycle exhibits the same basic relationships. At or near maximum on even cycles, there is a superior conjunction of E and V opposite J. At or near maximum on odd cycles, there is a conjunction of J and E opposite V. This matches your observation that odd and even cycles tend to be peaky and twin topped, and also recapitulates the Hale cycle. The closeness of the relationships wanders back and forth over a longer cycle which relates to Gleissberg and the occurrence of ~12 year vs ~10.4 year cycles. Ian Wilson wrote a paper which lays out the basics well: http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/4425_wilson1.pdf
With only 300 years of data … we can calculate when the observed and your planetary cycle will have slipped a complete cycle.
No you can’t. We have 300 years of data which gives an average cycle length around 11.07 years. However, the planetary cycles vary in length, never repeating exactly, and (apart from anomalous periods when solar activity plummets, as at Dalton and now when phase coherence slips a little, though never completely) continue to track the solar cycles closely.
That is a one-way street. Of course there are interactions but they don’t travel upstream, just like the effect of a rifle bullet shattering a melon does not influence the rifle.
The effect of firing a projectile sufficiently strong to shatter the melon is to induce recoil in the rifle, affecting it’s orientation. Thanks for the supporting example.
I have seen [Timo Niroma’s] ‘study’ and it is rather worthless.
You find it worthless. I find it valuable. Either way, it doesn’t change the fact that solar cycle lengths cluster around 10.4 and 11.9 years.
Wolf considered all the planets and suggested, tentatively and with all due caution, that the overall shape of the sunspot curve was set by Jupiter, variations in its peak and minimal amplitudes were due to Saturn, and irregularities on time scales less than a year were due to combined effects of Venus and Earth. It is sad that you often make categorical statements that are false on their face.
I checked what Wolf said and corrected my error before you posted, but after you copied my comment.
Wolf was a very reasonable scientist and would have dropped [as he did, and everybody else since: http://www.leif.org/research/Rise-and-Fall.pdf ] the planetary investigations had he had all the data up to now and knowledge of modern physics.
I am as interested in modern solar physics as I am in trying to find out why planetary motion correlates with solar activity so closely. I wish Wolf were here to help me, as I’m sure he would.
lgl says:
May 28, 2011 at 1:19 pm
fact4: When parts of the orbited object accelerates the rest, the Sun, must also accelerate because the object as a whole can not move closer to Jupiter.
Fact 0: all the objects are in free fall in their combined gravitational field and do not feel any accelerations at all.
tallbloke says:
May 28, 2011 at 1:35 pm
You have quoted me out of context and I find this unworthy of reply.
I found it worthy to comment, but so we are different.
Only in the fantasy land of pore counting.
Precisely to counter that it is a good idea only to count Active Regions [not spots or pores]. Here is the Active Region count for the past several cycles, and the predicted run: http://www.leif.org/research/Active%20Region%20Count.png
It tells me you may have successfully killed it.
I’m not paid by NASA to kill something they find useful.
The planetary index is derived from the closeness of the conjunction and opposition relationships of Jupiter, Earth and Venus.
What happened to Saturn or the all important [according to Geoff] Uranus and Neptune [or the even more important -according to Ulrich] asteriods, e.g. Ceres?
and also recapitulates the Hale cycle.
too much astrology for me and no connection to the Hale cycle.
However, the planetary cycles vary in length, never repeating exactly, and (apart from anomalous periods when solar activity plummets, as at Dalton and now) continue to track the solar cycles closely.
Yet you see periods of 10.4 [was 10.3] and 11.9 [which BTW are not there, see below.
The effect of firing a projectile sufficiently strong to shatter the melon is to induce recoil in the rifle, affecting it’s orientation. Thanks for the supporting example.
that you can say this shows how little your understanding is. The recoil is the same whether or not you hit the melon.
Either way, it doesn’t change the fact that solar cycle lengths cluster around 10.4 and 11.9 years.
One more time, there is no such clustering: There is no such clustering: http://www.leif.org/research/Distribution-Cycle-Lengths-2.png
corrected my error before you posted, but after you copied my comment.
Does not keep you from posting errors when it suits you. You also say on your website that I never told you about Wolf. This is, again, being economical with the truth. I have lost track of how many times I have referred you to http://www.leif.org/research/Rise-and-Fall.pdf but perhaps you don’t bother reading stuff that does not support your contentions.
I am as interested in modern solar physics as I am in trying to find out why planetary motion correlates with solar activity so closely.
If there were such a close correlation modern solar physicists would be interested too, but the evidence is just too weak to consider.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 28, 2011 at 2:06 pm
Here is the Active Region count for the past several cycles, and the predicted run: http://www.leif.org/research/Active%20Region%20Count.png
Very cool, you’ve been busy! Show me again in 300 years 😉
Seriously though, that’s interesting data. Do you have it differentiated for latitude as well? Can I have a copy of the data?
What happened to Saturn or the all important [according to Geoff] Uranus and Neptune [or the even more important -according to Ulrich] asteriods, e.g. Ceres?
I’ll let them speak for their own ideas. My discussion with you has been about the timing of the solar cycle. I think the gas giants may have more to do with cycle amplitude.
and also recapitulates the Hale cycle.
too much astrology for me and no connection to the Hale cycle.
None so blind as those who refuse to see.
(TB) The effect of firing a projectile sufficiently strong to shatter the melon is to induce recoil in the rifle, affecting it’s orientation. Thanks for the supporting example.
(LS) that you can say this shows how little your understanding is. The recoil is the same whether or not you hit the melon.
Suppose the rifle is mounted on a revolving gymbal with a flux variance detector connected to the trigger which picks up melons as they come into view and fires the rifle at closest approach to the muzzle of the gun. This is analogous to Hung’s finding.
there is no such clustering: There is no such clustering: http://www.leif.org/research/Distribution-Cycle-Lengths-2.png
Easy Leif, don’t blow a fuse. You have your count and Niroma had his. To satisfy myself, I’ll have to do one as well.
I have lost track of how many times I have referred you to http://www.leif.org/research/Rise-and-Fall.pdf but perhaps you don’t bother reading stuff that does not support your contentions.
I linked that paper in the comments on my website, after I read it. Check the date.
(TB) I am as interested in modern solar physics as I am in trying to find out why planetary motion correlates with solar activity so closely.
(LS) If there were such a close correlation modern solar physicists would be interested too, but the evidence is just too weak to consider.
Fair enough, you are busy guys, and I rely on you to tell me stuff about the latest findings and data. I’ll just keep coming up with correlations and successful predictions which will hopefully, eventually, make you all sit up and take notice.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 28, 2011 at 2:06 pm
lgl says:
May 28, 2011 at 1:19 pm
fact4: When parts of the orbited object accelerates the rest, the Sun, must also accelerate because the object as a whole can not move closer to Jupiter.
Fact 0: all the objects are in free fall in their combined gravitational field and do not feel any accelerations at all.
Fact 101. Planets and stars don’t have feelings.
Their parts are however differentially accelerated by gravitational interactions, because they are not inert amorphous objects in some a priori Newtonian mind experiment. Stars particularly, have matter and energy radiating from their cores outwards, which may be differentially affected by the orbiters, as Wolf and Patrone have discovered.
By the way, thanks lgl for that interesting argument. It deserves some careful thought.
“I have seen [Timo Niroma’s] ‘study’ and it is rather worthless.”
I’ve just checked Timo’s methodology and it is considerably more statistically sophisticated than yours.
http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspots.html#tleng
“In the next table I have drawn lengths of the cycles so that the “official” value gets four points, the nearest value three points, the tenths of years whose distance is 0.2 years get two points and finally one point is given at the distance of 0.3 years. This should compensate for the inaccuracy of the values. For the years 5 and 6 I have used the calibrated values, for the cycle 22 the traditional value. The tentative cycle 0 (10.2 years) is added with a “o” notation.”
tallbloke says:
May 28, 2011 at 2:48 pm
Seriously though, that’s interesting data. Do you have it differentiated for latitude as well? Can I have a copy of the data?
Actually, yes, I do have it by latitude [Hathaway’s tabulation of regions on his website], that is how I know which cycle the region belong to. I don’t split it by latitude. You can have my final count [give me little while to make it presentable].
I’ll let them speak for their own ideas. My discussion with you has been about the timing of the solar cycle. I think the gas giants may have more to do with cycle amplitude.
What makes science such a successful endeavor is when people can build on each other’s work and it all fits together. That is not the case with the planetary ‘theories’ which is partly the reason that they are not accepted.
None so blind as those who refuse to see.
One cannot see what is not there, or rather: many people see things that are not there.
Suppose the rifle is mounted on a revolving gymbal with a flux variance detector connected to the trigger which picks up melons as they come into view and fires the rifle at closest approach to the muzzle of the gun. This is analogous to Hung’s finding.
The precise analogy would then be Jupiter shine [coming into view enabled by light]. But the Sun cannot see the Jupiter shine and tidal effects are way too small and magnetic effects cannot travel upstream, so the analogy is dead.
You have your count and Niroma had his. To satisfy myself, I’ll have to do one as well.
I think one should alwasy take a look first oneself, rather than just picking what other’s analyses if the fit.
I linked that paper in the comments on my website, after I read it. Check the date.
But you still say “Leif Svalgaard has never mentioned it either, until I asked…” with all the innuendo that “…” implies. You should say: “As Leif has been saying again and again, even Rudolf Wolf initially believed in planetary influences. A view he soon abandoned.”
Fair enough, you are busy guys, and I rely on you to tell me stuff about the latest findings and data. I’ll just keep coming up with correlations and successful predictions which will hopefully, eventually, make you all sit up and take notice.
People only take notice if you predict something spectacularly’ different from what everybody else is predicting. Only in that case is the ‘prediction’ crucial in discriminating among theories. That was why the Dikpati prediction attracted so much attention. You might find it useful to read my referee’s report on their paper: http://www.leif.org/research/Dikpati%20Referee%20Report.pdf
As I say in the report: “As a definite prediction, the paper is potentially important. Especially since the prediction is discordant from several other recent predications that point to a very small cycle. The measure of understanding is always a successful prediction, so their model would be put to a stringent test”
tallbloke says:
May 28, 2011 at 3:04 pm
Fact 101. Planets and stars don’t have feelings.
Dumb response. To feel a force means to change in response to the force.
Their parts are however differentially accelerated by gravitational interactions
These are tidal effects and there are no other gravitational effects [until you get into the almost unmeasurable General Relativity effects like frame-dragging, gravitational waves, and the like.
tallbloke says:
May 28, 2011 at 3:14 pm
I’ve just checked Timo’s methodology and it is considerably more statistically sophisticated than yours.
“This should compensate for the inaccuracy of the values.”
You cannot make up data by ad-hoc adjustments. There is nothing sophisticated about his attempt to construct data out of thin air. And you missed the point that you get a split peak when you have amplitude modulation of a quasi-cyclical variation.
I simply show the values as they are. One cannot do better. It is possible to investigate the phase stability, e.g. by plotting the phase of the Hilbert Transform. For that you need to make a time series of the planetary ‘solar’ cycles. Perhaps you have. If so, provide a link to the yearly [or better: monthly values – to see the influence of Venus and Earth].