Nicola Scafetta sent me this paper yesterday, and I read it with interest, but I have a number of reservations about it, not the least of which is that it is partially based on the work of Landscheidt and the whole barycentric thing which gets certain people into shouting matches. Figure 9 looks to be interesting, but note that it is in generic units, not temperature, so has no predictive value by itself.
While that looks like a good hindcast fit to historical warm/cold periods, compare it to figure 7 to see how it comes out.
Now indeed, that looks like a great fit to the Ljungqvist proxy temperature reconstruction, but the question arises about whether we are simply seeing a coincidental cyclic fit or a real effect. I asked Dr. Leif Svalgaard about his views on this paper and he replied with this:
The real test of all this cannot come from the proxies we have because the time scales are too short, but from comparisons with other stellar systems where the effects are calculated to be millions of times stronger [because the planets are huge and MUCH closer to the star]. No correlations have been found so far.
See slide 19 of my AGU presentation:
http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202011%20SH34B-08.pdf
So, it would seem, that if the gravitational barycentric effect posited were real, it should be easily observable with solar systems of much larger masses. Poppenhager and Schmitt can’t seem to find it.
OTOH, we have what appears to be a good fit by Scafetta in Figure 7. So this leaves us with three possibilities
- The effect manifests itself in some other way not yet observed.
- The effect is coincidental but not causative.
- The effect is real, but unproven yet by observations and predictive value.
I’m leaning more towards #2 at this point but willing to examine the predictive value. As Dr. Svalgaard points out in his AGU presentation, others have tried but the fit eventually broke down. From slide 14
P. D. Jose (ApJ, 70, 1965) noted that the Sun’s motion about the Center of Mass of the solar system [the Barycenter] has a period of 178.7 yr and suggested that the sunspot cycles repeat with a similar period. Many later researchers have published variations of this idea. – Unfortunately a ‘phase catastrophe’ is needed every ~8 solar cycles
Hindcasting can be something you can easily setup to fool yourself with if you are not careful, and I’m a bit concerned over the quality of the peer review for this paper as it contains two instances of Scafetta’s signature overuse of exclamation points, something that a careful reviewer would probably not let pass.
Science done carefully rarely merits an exclamation point. Papers written that way sound as if you are shouting down to the reader.
The true test will be the predictive value, as Scafetta has been doing with his recent essays here at WUWT. I’m willing to see how well this pans out, but I’m skeptical of the method until proven by a skillful predictive forecast. Unfortunately it will be awhile before that happens as solar timescales far exceed human lifespan.
Below I present the abstract, plus a link to the full paper provided by Dr. Scafetta.
=============================================================
Multi-scale harmonic model for solar and climate cyclical variation throughout the Holocene based on Jupiter–Saturn tidal frequencies plus the 11-year solar dynamo cycle
ScienceDirect link
Nicola Scafetta, ACRIM (Active Cavity Radiometer Solar Irradiance Monitor Lab) & Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA
Abstract
The Schwabe frequency band of the Zurich sunspot record since 1749 is found to be made of three major cycles with periods of about 9.98, 10.9 and 11.86 years. The side frequencies appear to be closely related to the spring tidal period of Jupiter and Saturn (range between 9.5 and 10.5 years, and median 9.93 years) and to the tidal sidereal period of Jupiter (about 11.86 years). The central cycle may be associated to a quasi-11-year solar dynamo cycle that appears to be approximately synchronized to the average of the two planetary frequencies. A simplified harmonic constituent model based on the above two planetary tidal frequencies and on the exact dates of Jupiter and Saturn planetary tidal phases, plus a theoretically deduced 10.87-year central cycle reveals complex quasi-periodic interference/beat patterns. The major beat periods occur at about 115, 61 and 130 years, plus a quasi-millennial large beat cycle around 983 years. We show that equivalent synchronized cycles are found in cosmogenic records used to reconstruct solar activity and in proxy climate records throughout the Holocene (last 12,000 years) up to now. The quasi-secular beat oscillations hindcast reasonably well the known prolonged periods of low solar activity during the last millennium such as the Oort, Wolf, Spörer, Maunder and Dalton minima, as well as the 17 115-year long oscillations found in a detailed temperature reconstruction of the Northern Hemisphere covering the last 2000 years. The millennial three-frequency beat cycle hindcasts equivalent solar and climate cycles for 12,000 years. Finally, the harmonic model herein proposed reconstructs the prolonged solar minima that occurred during 1900–1920 and 1960–1980 and the secular solar maxima around 1870–1890, 1940–1950 and 1995–2005 and a secular upward trending during the 20th century: this modulated trending agrees well with some solar proxy model, with the ACRIM TSI satellite composite and with the global surface temperature modulation since 1850. The model forecasts a new prolonged solar minimum during 2020–2045, which would be produced by the minima of both the 61 and 115-year reconstructed cycles. Finally, the model predicts that during low solar activity periods, the solar cycle length tends to be longer, as some researchers have claimed. These results clearly indicate that both solar and climate oscillations are linked to planetary motion and, furthermore, their timing can be reasonably hindcast and forecast for decades, centuries and millennia. The demonstrated geometrical synchronicity between solar and climate data patterns with the proposed solar/planetary harmonic model rebuts a major critique (by Smythe and Eddy, 1977) of the theory of planetary tidal influence on the Sun. Other qualitative discussions are added about the plausibility of a planetary influence on solar activity.
Link to paper: Scafetta_JStides
UPDATE 3/22/2012 – 1:15PM Dr. Scafetta responds in comments:
About the initial comment from Antony above,I believe that there are he might have misunderstood some part of the paper.
1)
I am not arguing from the barycentric point of view, which is false. In the paper I am talking
about tidal dynamics, a quite different approach. My argument
is based on the finding of my figure 2 and 3 that reveal the sunspot record
as made of three cycles (two tidal frequencies, on the side, plus a central
dynamo cycle). Then the model was developed and its hindcast
tests were discissed in the paper, etc.
{from Anthony – Note these references in your paper: Landscheidt, T.,1988.Solar rotation,impulses of the torque in sun’s motion, and
climate change. Climatic Change12,265–295.
Landscheidt, T.,1999.Extrema in sunspot cycle linked toSun’s motion. Solar
Physics 189,415–426.}
2)
There are numerous misconceptions since the beginning such as “Figure 9 looks to be interesting, but note that it is in generic units, not temperature, so has no predictive value by itself.”
It is a hindcast and prediction. There is no need to use specific units, but only dynamics. The units are interpreted correctly in the text of the paper as being approximately W/m^2 and as I say in the caption of the figure “However, the bottom curve approximately reproduces the patterns observed in the proxy solar models depicted in Fig. 5. The latter record may be considered as a realistic, although schematic, representation of solar dynamics.”
{from Anthony – if it isn’t using units of temperature, I fail to see how it can be of predictive value, there is not even any reference to warmer/cooler}
3) About Leif’s comments. It is important to realize that Solar physics is not “settled” physics. People do not even understand why the sun has a 11-year cycle (which is between the 10 and 12 year J/S tidal frequencies, as explained in my paper).
4)
The only argument advanced by Leif against my paper is that the phenomenon is his opinion was not observed in other stars. This is hardly surprising. We do not have accurate nor long records about other stars!
Moreover we need to observe the right thing, for example, even if you have a large planet very close to a star, the observable effect is associated to many things: how eccentric the orbits are and how big the star is, and its composition etc. Stars have a huge inertia to tidal effects and even if you have a planet large and close enough to the star to produce a theoretical 4,000,000 larger tidal effect, it does not means that the response from the star must be linear! Even simple elastic systems may be quite sensitive to small perturbations but become extremely rigid to large and rapid perturbations, etc.
It is evident that any study on planetary influence on a star needs to start from the sun, and then eventually extended to other star systems, but probably we need to wait several decades before having sufficiently long records about other stars!
In the case of the sun I needed at least a 200 year long sunspot record to
detect the three Schwabe cycles, and at least 1000 years of data for
hindcast tests to check the other frequencies. People can do the math for how long we need to wait for the other stars before having long enogh records.
Moreover, I believe that many readers have a typical misconception of physics.
In science a model has a physical basis when it is based on the observations
and the data and it is able to reconstruct, hindcast and/or forecast them.
It is evident to everybody reading my paper with an open mind that under the scientific
method, the model I proposed is “physically based” because I am
describing and reconstructing the dynamical properties of the data and I
showed that the model is able to hindcast millennia long data records.
Nobody even came close to these achievements.
To say otherwise would mean to reject everything in science and physics
because all findings and laws of physics are based on the observations and
the data and are tested on their capability of reconstruct, hindcast and/or
forecast observations, as I did in the paper
Of course, pointing out that I was not solving the problem using for example
plasma physics or quantum mechanics or whatever else. But this is a complex
exercise that needs its own time. As I correctly say in the paper.
“Further research should address the physical mechanisms necessary to
integrate planetary tides and solar dynamo physics for a more physically
based model.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Dr. Svalgaard,
“And it so happens that the natural resonances of the sun are just those that match Nicola’s several planetary cycles, right?”
It would only have to be close for resonance effects or synchronization between two oscillators. Much weaker forces synchronized the orbits of pluto and neptune.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronization_of_chaos
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 21, 2012 at 8:29 pm
Willis Eschenbach and Leif Svalgaard are talking about everything but the content of my paper.
There is nothing new in your paper that has not already been covered extensively here.
Leif started to talk of other planets in other far stars! What kind of argument is that, Leif!
We do not have good data nor long enough data to simplistically dismiss what we can deduce for the sun.
As it is hard to cover the full breadth of a field, you may be excuded for been ignorant of stellar activity. The question of Star-Planet-Interaction is an active area of research. We have studied many dozens of systems for which such interaction might be suspected [and the number is growing as we speak].
E.g.: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.0189v1.pdf
“there is no significant correlation in the relation between the X-ray activity indicator LX/Lbol vs. planetary mass (see Fig. 3, right panel); testing for rank correlation yields r = 0.003, i.e. practically
no correlation at all. This is also true for stars with far-out planets, for which no SPI-related effects are expected (Fig. 4).”
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 22, 2012 at 12:21 pm
Moreover, the model forecast the approaching grand solar minimum that is predicted by a lot of solar scientists (actually I was one of the first, but Leif blocked my publication last year).
The coming minimum was, as you say, predicted by many [Schatten, 2003; Svalgaard, 2005; etc] based on sound physics, you were not ‘one of the first’. Your papers were rejected by several referees. Post the objections by the reviewers here so everybody can see why your papers were rejected.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 22, 2012 at 12:21 pm
About the three Schwabe peaks in the power spectrum analysis The three peaks derive from two alternative direct measures of the power spectrum analysis of the sunspot number record, see figure 3.
Dr. Scafetta
You don’t need any of that , here is a simple way, and even more acurate:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC5.htm
same as in here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
All done about 9 years ago.
Martin Lewitt says:
March 22, 2012 at 12:35 pm
It would only have to be close for resonance effects or synchronization between two oscillators.
the natural frequencies for solar oscillations are of the order of a few minutes. And you do not seem to know what a resonance is. Let me refresh your mind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance “Resonance occurs when a system is able to store and easily transfer energy between two or more different storage modes”. So what storage modes do you have in mind?
Leif,
“We have studied many dozens of systems for which such interaction might be suspected”
We need to start with the Sun, because we need very long record, we will see what we have in the next 50-years.
“there is no significant correlation in the relation between the X-ray activity indicator LX/Lbol vs. planetary mass (see Fig. 3, right panel); testing for rank correlation yields r = 0.003, i.e. practically
no correlation at all. This is also true for stars with far-out planets, for which no SPI-related effects are expected ”
On the contrary the rank correlations that I found using the data in my paper are extremely high more than 99.9%. You are just looking at the wrong observable.
Does not make any sense to state that my work is wrong just because everybody else has failed!
You need to see what I did, not what others have done.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 21, 2012 at 6:14 pm
This is complete nonsense. At every point from the center to the surface the inward pressure [gravity] balances exactly the outward pressure [of a hot gas]. This is called hydrostatic equilibrium: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_equilibrium
So there are no convection currents, no CME’s, no turbulence, no “magnetic ropes”, no flows – the sun is in exactly balanced hydrostatic equilibrium.
I see.
A balanced presentation would have included both a positive and critical review or it would have included a response from Dr. Scafetta to your and Anthony’s criticism. There is nothing balanced about the current presentation as it is biased against Dr. Scafetta’s paper as he was not given the opportunity to defend himself in the main article. This is why I recommended leaving the criticisms to the comments.
I hope I added two numbers correctly this time, if so the polar magnetic field appears to be on the move.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC6.htm
Ideal ‘zero crossing’ would have happened about now, but it appears it’s few months late. SC24max in a year or so ?
Poptech says: March 22, 2012 at 12:54 pm
“There is nothing balanced about the current presentation as it is biased against Dr. Scafetta’s paper as he was not given the opportunity to defend himself in the main article.”
I agree.
At least my comment in
Nicola Scafetta says: March 22, 2012 at 12:30 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/21/scafettas-new-paper-attempts-to-link-climate-cycles-to-planetary-motion/#comment-931615
needs to be added to the main article.
Terry Oldberg wrote:
The term “conjecture” references a model that is insusceptible to statistical validation. The term references a model that is susceptible to statistical validation but that has not been statistically validated while the term “scientific theory” references a model that has been statistically validated.
Could you please provide me with the source of these definitions? I am most interested in knowing their origins, as I am unable to find any reference work that insists on the usages you are putting forward as mandatory to either physics in particular or science in general.
I’m familiar with both Popper’s and Hawking’s oft-quoted definitions of ‘theory,’ and neither of them seem to demand ‘statistical validation’ for the term to be applicable.
Since general usage of the two words considers a theory to be by-definition conjectural, which would make your criticism a distinction without a difference. I’m assuming that you are citing some form of canonical definition that you can reference.
General definitions simply hold a ‘theory,’ scientific or otherwise, to be an explanation of a system or observed phenomena that has been proposed but not yet proved or disproved.
Can you enlighten me with a citation for your much more specific definitions, please?
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 22, 2012 at 12:50 pm
We need to start with the Sun, because we need very long record, we will see what we have in the next 50-years.
Not at all. We have a great laboratory called the Universe. It presents us with many examples that show us the effects with which to compare our theories
You are just looking at the wrong observable.
see above
You need to see what I did, not what others have done.
I and several reviewers have seen what you did and found it wanting. Post the reviews here, so everybody can see what you did wrong.
Z says:
March 22, 2012 at 12:52 pm
So there are no convection currents, no CME’s, no turbulence, no “magnetic ropes”, no flows – the sun is in exactly balanced hydrostatic equilibrium.
I see.
You do not see anything. My point was that there is not some point inside the sun where the forces are balanced, but that they are VERY nearly [to high degree of approximation] balanced throughout the sun and any other star.
Poptech says:
March 22, 2012 at 12:54 pm
he was not given the opportunity to defend himself in the main article. This is why I recommended leaving the criticisms to the comments.
He was given the opportunity to present the paper in the first place. If Anthony has reservations, that is his prerogative. You don’t like that, go elsewhere
vukcevic says:
March 22, 2012 at 12:45 pm
All done about 9 years ago.
that particular numerology [and the numbers 9.93 and 11.86] is 112 years old: http://www.leif.org/EOS/1900MNRAS-Brown-Sunspot-Tides.pdf including the 61-yr period and its [failed] prediction of a solar maximum in 1908 [although Scafetta believes that there was a auroral and solar large maximum at that time]
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 22, 2012 at 1:12 pm
At least my comment in […]
needs to be added to the main article.
As well as the reports from all the expert reviewers.
Great paper Nicola – I’m convinced your empirical approach to climate is the only useful one and contrasts with the IPCC assumption based modelling approach. Don’t worry about Leif too much his position reveals a failure of imagination. But don’t discount what he says entirely . I always found in business it was very useful to have an “abominable no man” around to keep everyone honest.Empirically based paradigms have often been said to be impossible because the orthodox couldn’t conceive of a mechanism . In my own field – as an undergraduate in geology at Oxford continental drift – as it then was – was regarded as science fiction by the faculty because the lighter continents couldn’t possibly drift through the heavier mantle. I believe Kelvin calculated that because of the measured heat flow the earth couldn’t be more than about 45 million years old while geologists were looking for hundreds of millions or more.. Then radioactivity was discovered. Empirical correlations point the way to new fundamental discovery. The correlation comes first and the mechanisms will follow
[+ emphasis]
May I suggest that the choice to use the word magic was a bad one.
I predict that you may take some flak for that.
O, for goodness’ sake, Poptech, when will you drop this refrain? Your kvetching about “balanced presentations” and showing bias is wearing thin.
Anthony introduced Dr Scafetta’s paper by declaring his reservations, and he ends his prelude with a declaration of his skepticism. This is his right and even his responsibility. Whether you and others agree or disagree, this whole topic that appears to me like a mad mazurka on the fuzzy borders between science and pseudoscience.It’s Anthony’s perogative, then, to clarify his views. exercise his bias and to even distance himself lest he and WUWT be misunderstood. The accusation of being sympathetic to pseudoscientific claims is toxic one to the skeptics who, because of politics and funding, have to work ten times as hard to establish their credibility. Leif and of course, Willis (being Willis), do the same with less subtlety and politeness, and while you may not like this and even I might raise an eyebrow, it’s one way of doing informal and vigorous peer review. Think of it as an invention of the blogosphere and an improvement on the vague, two-faced blather and pretence of objectivity one often encounters in professional journals.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 22, 2012 at 1:25 pm
……..
Hi doc, here we meet again ..
Thanks for the link, that is an excellent article, that any aspiring planetologist (astrologer is a wrong term, astrology = science of stars), should study in detail before embarking on calculating planetary gravitations, tides, etc. In my defence, I did do a rough calculation long ago and realised that a few cm tide of the subsurface flow’s fluid, in the convection zone, are next to irrelevant.
Hence, as you may recall I proposed ‘the electro-magnetic feedback hypothesis’; here is short reminder we considered some 2-3 years ago:
‘Magnetic ropes or clouds’ that emanate out of the sun, are linked to it by combination of electric current and magnetic field
http://ase.tufts.edu/cosmos/pictures/Sept09/Fig8_7.MagCloud.gif
moving through heliosphere as shown by this NASA animation
If the ‘magnetic rope’ doesn’t hit a magnetosphere it progresses to the far reaches of the heliosphere and disperses along the heliopause. But if it does hit a magnetosphere, a reconnection ensues, part of it is short-circuited, than ‘bang’! the energy is discharged.
http://www.igpp.ucla.edu/public/THEMIS/SCI/Pubs/Nuggets/reconnection/262351main_reconnect.mpg
Nothing controversial to this point I hope.
The hypothesis:
since the ‘magnetic rope’ is connected to the source, i.e. the sun, the short circuit effect is transmitted back to the solar surface.
Svalgaard and Hathaway said to me: this can’t happen since the solar wind doesn’t allow anything electro or magnetic to move upstream i.e. against the solar wind, to connect back to the sun.
My reply: solar wind gets swept out of the way by the CME ( e.g. , day the solar wind died, Forbush etc), as clearly shown here:
http://iswa.gsfc.nasa.gov:8080/IswaSystemWebApp/iSWACygnetStreamer?timestamp=2038-01-23+00%3A44%3A00&window=-1&cygnetId=261
Thus the role of gravitation force is limited, and only important as far as it moves J & S with their huge magnetospheres along the orbits. Many details are left to be worked out, but that could be a task for next generation of enthusiasts, to whom I sincerely recommend article
http://www.leif.org/EOS/1900MNRAS-Brown-Sunspot-Tides.pdf
as the most essential reading.
Sarge (March 22, 2012 at 1:14 pm):
Thanks for taking the time to reply. Wikipedia’s article { http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjecture } on the topic of “conjecture” defines two of the three terms. To quote from the article:
A conjecture is a proposition that is unproven but is thought to be true and has not been
disproven. Karl Popper pioneered the use of the term “conjecture” in scientific philosophy.
Conjecture is contrasted by hypothesis (hence theory, axiom, principle), which is a testable
statement based on accepted grounds.
I’ve used the term “validation” as it is used in Wikipedia’s article { http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-validation_(statistics) } on on “Cross-validation (statistics)” To quote from the article:
…cross-validation involves partitioning a sample of data into complementary subsets,
performing the analysis on one subset (called the training set), and validating the analysis on
the other subset (called the validation set or testing set).
I’ve prepended the modifier “statistical” to “validation” to make it clear that the semantics attached to “validation” are those of mathematical statistics and not those of computer engineering.
In the article entitled “Spinning the Climate,” { http://www.klimanotizen.de/2008.07.12_Gray_Spinning_the_Climate.pdf } the long-time IPCC expert reviewer Vincent Gray reports that the IPCC once claimed its climate models to be statistically validated. When Gray pointed out to IPCC management that none of these models had been statistically validated or were susceptible to being statistically validated, the IPCC reacted through a suberfuge in which the word “validated” was changed to “evaluated” in all subsequent IPCC assessment reports. “Evaluated” is a statistically meaningless term but few readers of the IPCC’s assessment reports know that. Thus, the IPCC’s subterfuge has had the effect of suggesting validation in the minds of the IPCC’s numerous dupes without providing the reality of it. In the minds of these dupes, the IPCC’s models appear to be scientific theories when they are at most conjectures.
vukcevic says:
March 22, 2012 at 2:12 pm
Svalgaard and Hathaway said to me: this can’t happen since the solar wind doesn’t allow anything electro or magnetic to move upstream
My reply: solar wind gets swept out of the way by the CME
CMEs are sweeping outwards and the same goes for them.
To all:
My opinion is that everybody who presents a new approach or theory,
which he can substantiate with some reasonable evidence, in particularly
overlooked evidence, should receive a double {[+]}. and should be ENCOURAGED
……whereas….a double {[-]} should go to all Warmists, they had 30 years time
and billions in funds…
Furthermore, a double { {[-]} should go AS WELL to commentators who, until
now, have NOT produced an approach of their own, for not being capable to do
so, and therefore, to feel important, resort to “know-it-all-critizism”, which they
mistakenly consider to be “scientific”….but are only attempts to “derail” the post….
Double {[-]} to the baddies…..
JS
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 22, 2012 at 2:36 pm
…………..
Your observation is correct; there is no external magnetic field within body of the magnetic rope
http://ase.tufts.edu/cosmos/pictures/Sept09/Fig8_7.MagCloud.gif
as outlined with a ‘wriggly’ purple line, to impede bi-directional electro-magnetic communication, (as outlined by the arrow-ed purple line) between front lobe of the rope and its source at the sun’s surface.
Electro-magnetic feedback path along purple line marked with arrows (consult the above link)
– Solar surface
– Front lobe & reconnection
– Back to the solar surface
Here feedback loop flow is in the anticlockwise direction.
Let’s remind everyone of the following:
Sunspots (as the solar activity in general) in the origin and the consequence are essentially of the electro and magnetic nature, where the gravitational effects are negligible.
In figure 10 of the Scafetta paper, just after 2020 and around 2035, the SSN drops to zero. This gives the impression that they have gone negative and have been clipped because negative SSNs are not possible.
I encountered the same problem recently and I worked around it by recognizing that the solar cycles reverse sign from one cycle to the next (observable through magnetic fields). Two consecutive cycles are in fact two halves of one full cycle of 22 years.
I have not fully read the Scafetta paper (& most comments above), so perhaps it is explained there, but it seems as though it is a mistake to ignore the sign of the cycles.
Without known data I assumed that they alternate, ad nauseam, but in all likelyhood the beat between frequency components may cause a the cycle to break up and result in consecutive positive cycles.
Is there any better information available than my guess of simple alternation of the cycle sign?
(The method I have been using is the Periodicity Transform of Sethares and Staley, using seat-of-the-pants engineering and my own interpretation of the method. I am merely tinkering for the hell of it and pure curiosity).
Just a note that some of us in the peanut gallery would appreciate, whenever possible and at everyone’s convenience, an “elevator speech” summary of this kerfaffle. If it’s not too much trouble.
Do you give yourself a “a double {[+]}” for your post, Mr Seifert? 🙂
Thanks for the formatting fix-up, moderator; I promise to be more careful.
To Peter:
If not, I would not have said so, see German Amazon.de
with ISBN 978-3-86805-604-4
Thank you for the question…..
JS
vukcevic says:
March 22, 2012 at 3:19 pm
there is no external magnetic field within body of the magnetic rope as outlined with a ‘wriggly’ purple line, to impede bi-directional electro-magnetic communication
The rope is filled with coronal plasma and a magnetic field and is moving out from the sun a supersonic [superalfveninc] speed so no feedback is possible. The counterstreaming electrons are a VERY VERY tiny population of high-energy particles that [like cosmic rays] are not frozen in, but they do not have any effect on the overall propagation. It is like an airplane flying into a hurricane. the plane can go where it wants but the air goes with the hurricane and the wind cannot blow counter to the flow of the storm. You can get off the electro- magneto- chair. There is nothing there.
Ken S says:
March 21, 2012 at 8:41 pm
Within the mist of what seems to be several on going pissing contests may
I ask a question?
Is there any effect on any of the mentioned forces as a result of our solar system’s
tilt as it orbits in free fall around the Milky Way Galaxy?
=================
Yes. Our climate changes…
Someone mentioned in one discussion the Kate Humble/Dr Helen Czerski series which has just finished running on the BBC, can’t recall which, he wondered if they’d blow it with some AGW nonsense, I didn’t notice any. Instead, they actually gave really good real world physics explanations of our seasons and weather; terrific explanations of the Indian monsoon and typhoons in the US and the climate/weather at the Antarctic. In all the programmes they were very detailed in describing the tilt, explaining how this affected the Earth using lines in the sand on beaches and stone for the Sun and an apple carried around with its stalk pointing the direction, as well as good computer graphics, because, the whole series was built around the Earth’s tilt..
I was particular interested in what they had to say about the climate change in the Sahara around 5,000 years ago when it dried out, as I’ve wondered before how that had happened. I’d been recording them to watch and so kept the last programme which covered this so I could watch it again – here’s I hope an accurate in the important details, but I got the gist, of what was said:
“Although the gravitational pull of the Moon and Sun have stabilised Earth’s tilt they don’t do it perfectly, today’s angle of tilt 23.4 degrees, but over regular 41,000 year cycles the angle swings between 22 and 24.5 degrees.
“Back when the Sahara was green, [5-10,000 years ago], the Earth’s tilt was close to its maximum angle – together with small cyclical changes in the direction of the tilt and the shape of our orbit was the result that the Sun shone more intensely over the northern hemisphere, powering a monsoon in the Sahara.
“About 5,000 years ago the monsoons failed and the Sahara changed, the vegetation began disappearing, and within a few hundred years it turned from savannah to desert. The people moved north and east to the still fertile river valley, the Nile.
“It’s wonderful to think that because changes in the tilt and orbit are cyclical the Sahara will become green again – but not for another 15,000 years!” (Kate H.)
“In the year long journey around the Sun we’ve travelled 900 million kilometres through space, and in that time we’ve seen how the Earth’s spin dictates the Earth’s climate patterns. How changes in our orbit can transform our planet and how the Earth’s tilt controls the seasons.” (Dr Helen C.)
“Now our voyage is over, but the planet goes on. Each new orbit creating its own unique mix of endlessly varied natural phenomena. It’s quite a ride.” (Kate H.)
“Orbit: Earth’s Extraordinary Journey”: Right now you’re hurtling around the Sun at 100,000 kms an hour. Join Kate Humble and Dr Helen Czerski as they explore the relationship between the Earth’s orbit and the weather
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00xztbr
[Automatic re-direct, it gave the url as /orbit ]