New paper in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics demonstrates that planets do not cause solar cycles

Italiano: Il ciclo solare 23 (1996-2006) visto...

Italiano: Il ciclo solare 23 (1996-2006) visto dalla sonda NASA SOHO (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Planetary effects are too small by several orders of magnitude to be a main cause of the solar cycle.

Argiris Diamantis writes in with this tip:

Professor Cornelis de Jager from the Netherlands has put a new publication on his website. It is a study of Dirk K. Callebaut, Cornelis de Jager and Silvia Duhau. They conclude that planetary effects are too small by several orders of magnitude to be a main cause of the solar cycle. A planetary explanation of the solar cycle is hardly possible.

The paper is titled:

The influence of planetary attractions on the solar tachocline

Dirk K. Callebaut a, Cornelis de Jager b,n,1, Silvia Duhau c

a University of Antwerp, Physics Department, CGB, Groenenborgerlaan 171, B-2020 Antwerpen, Belgium

b Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, P.O. Box 59, NL 1790 AB Den Burg, The Netherlands

c Departamento de Fı´sica, Facultad Ingeniera, Universidad de Buenos Aires, 1428 Buenos Aires, Argentina

Abstract

We present a physical analysis of the occasionally forwarded hypothesis that solar variability, as shown in the various photospheric and outer solar layer activities, might be due to the Newtonian attraction by the planets.

We calculate the planetary forces exerted on the tachocline and thereby not only include the immediate forces but we also take into account that these planetary or dynamo actions occur during some time, which demands integration. As an improvement to earlier research on this topic we reconsider the internal convective velocities and we examine several other effects, in particular those due to magnetic buoyancy and to the Coriolis force. The main conclusion is that in its essence: planetary influences are too small to be more than a small modulation of the solar cycle. We do not exclude the possibility that the long term combined action of the planets may induce small internal motions in the sun, which may have indirectly an effect on the solar dynamo after a long time.

From the Introduction:

So far the study of solar variability has identified five solar periodicities with a sufficient degree of significance (cf. the review by De Jager, 2005, Chapter 11).

These periods are:

  • The 11 years Schwabe cycle in the sunspot numbers. We note that this period is far from constant and varies with time, e.g. during the last century the period was closer to 10.6 years.
  • The Hale cycles of solar magnetism encompasses two Schwabe cycles and shows the same variation over the centuries.
  • The 88 years Gleissberg cycle (cf. Peritykh and Damon, 2003). Its length varies strongly over the centuries, with peaks of about 55 and 100 years (Raspopov et al., 2004). The longer period prevailed between 1725 and 1850.
  • The De Vries (Suess) period of 203–208 years, with a fairly sharply defined cycle length.
  • The Hallstatt cycle of about 2300 years. An interesting new development (Nussbaumer et al., 2011) is the finding that Grand Minima of solar activity seem to occasionally cluster together and that there is a periodicity in that clustering. An example of such a cluster is the series of Grand Minima that occurred in the past millennium (viz. the sequence consisting of the Oort, Wolf, Sp¨ orer, Maunder and Dalton minima). This kind of clustering seems to repeat itself with the Hallstatt period.

It should be remarked in this connection that virtually none of the papers on planetary influences on solar variability succeeded in identifying these five periodicities in the planetary attractions.

Another approach to this problem is the study of climate variations in attempts to search for planetary influences. As an example we mention a paper by Scafetta (2010), who found that climate variations of 0.1–0.25 K with periods of 20–60 years seem to be correlated with orbital motions of Jupiter and Saturn. This was, however, not confirmed in another paper on a similar topic (Humkin et al., 2011). This is another reason for a more fundamental look at the problem: can we identify planetary influences

by looking at the physics of the problem?

The challenge we face here is twofold: planetary influences should be able to reproduce at least the most fundamental of the five periodicities in solar variability, and secondly the planetary accelerations in the level of the solar dynamo should be strong enough to at least equalize or more desirably, to surpass the forces related to the working of the solar dynamo. In this paper we discuss the second aspect, realizing that the attempts to cover

the first aspect have been dealt with sufficiently in literature while the second aspect was grossly neglected so far. A first attempt to discuss it appeared in an earlier paper (De Jager and Versteegh, 2005; henceforth: paper I). They calculated three accelerations:

1) One by tidal forces from Jupiter. They found aJup=2.8=10^-10 m/s^2.

2) One due to the motion of the sun around the centre of mass of the solar system due to the sum of planetary attractions (ainert).

3) The accelerations (adyn) by convective motions in the tachocline and above it.

It was shown in their work that the third one is larger by several orders of magnitude than the first and second mentioned accelerations. Soon after its publication it was realized that some of the forces are effective for a long time, which demands an integration of the forces over the time of action. That might change the results. It was also realized that more forces may be operational than the two mentioned in paper I. Therefore, in the present paper, we improve and expand these calculations; we investigate a few more possible effects; moreover, we study the effect of the duration of these actions as well.

Conclusions

We calculated various accelerations near or in the tachocline area and compared them with those due to the attraction by the planets. We found that the former are larger than the latter by four orders of magnitude. Moreover, the duration of the various causes may change a bit the ratio of their effects, but they are still very small as compared to accelerations occurring at the tachocline.

Hence, planetary influences should be ruled out as a possible cause of solar variability. Specifically, we improved the calculation of ainert in paper I and gave an alternative estimation. If the tidal acceleration of Jupiter were important for the solar cycle then the tidal accelerations of Mercury, Venus and the Earth would be important too. The time evolution of the sunspots would then be totally different and the difference between the

solar maximum and its minimum would be much less pronounced.

Taking into account the duration of the acceleration aJup does not really change the conclusions of paper I: the planetary effects are too small by several orders of magnitude to be a main cause of the solar cycle (they can be at most a small modulation); moreover,

they fail to give an explanation for the polarity changes in the solar cycle. In addition, the periods of revolution of the planets (in particular Jupiter) do not seem compatible with the solar cycle over long times. In fact, a planetary explanation of the solar cycle

is hardly possible. Besides, we estimated various other effects, including the ones

due to the magnetic field (buoyancy effect and centripetal consequence)

and those due to the Coriolis force; their relation to the tidal effects can be indirect at its utmost best (by influencing motions which might affect the solar dynamo).

As all planets rotate in the same sense around the sun their combined action over times of years may induce a small motion e.g. at the solar surface. This may have an influence on the meridional motion or on the poleward motions of the solar surface (Makarov et al., 2000), having in turn an influence on the solar dynamo (maybe leading to an effect like the Gnevyshev–Ohl rule). Again, this will be very indirect and the effect of one planet or one orbital period will be masked.

Full paper: > http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/2012-planetary-attractions1.pdf

Looks to me like Barycentrism just took a body blow – Anthony

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Stephen Wilde

A small modulation of the solar cycle over enough time seems to be all that we need to produce an amplifying effect within Earth’s atmosphere involving air circulation and albedo changes.
The most likely culprit appears to be UV variability acting on ozone in the stratosphere and mesosphere.
Individual planets are unlikely to have an effect but line them all up together periodically and that sounds more plausible.
Rather than being a body blow against a planetary effect this paper seems to accept the possibility of a small such effect over enough time.
Others have done much more detailed work with the periodicities involved in solar variations and planetary effects so let them now present their evidence.
Interestingly many of them correctly anticipated the current spell of reduced solar activity whereas the established solar experts were predicting a very strong cycle 24 just a few years ago.
A useful starting point can be found here:
http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspots.html
from one Timo Niroma

Paul Westhaver

There is a fantastic plot of the effects of the planets on the sun. I’ll put a link below. The image represents the center of mass of the solar system, (the sun’s wobble so to speak) as a consequence of the positions of the planets.
In certain circumstances, it is seen that the center of mass of the solar system is not with the physical body of the sun itself but as much as 1/2 of a solar diameter about the sun.
It seems to me that the gravitational effects show that the planets themselves have told us that they effect each other and the relative position of the sun.
Consequently I view the study with a degree of skepticism.
http://members.optushome.com.au/vk6ysf/vk6ysf/Images/solarc2-1.jpg
Further, Galileo was quite right either. The sun is not the center of the solar system. Sometimes the sun shares the actual center, but must often the center of the solar system is outside the solar disc. Barycenter is the technical term I believe.
I suspect the effects of the planets on the sun are complicated and an appropriate model is not obvious to the authors.

briansj3

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/04/11/some-thoughts-about-the-solar-system-barycentre/#comment-22899 has
April 12, 2012 at 3:54 am
Tim Channon says:
“So far as I know no-one has yet directly linked barycentre effects with actual solar activity.”
If you are referring to an actual eruptive event then you are right. However, if you are referring to the general level of solar activity then you are wrong.
One dominant influence upon the Sun’s Barycentric motion is the periodic (19.858 years) alignments of the Jupiter and Saturn. Our paper in 2008:
http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/138/paper/AS06018.htm
shows that the timing of these alignments with respect to solar maximum can be used to predict the general level of solar activity on the Sun. The predictive method has worked since the earliest reliable solar sunspot data has been collected i.e. ~1698.
Of course there are many other authors who have ways of predicting the Sun’s general
level of solar activity based on the Sun’s Barycentric motion.

cuibono1969

Ah, yes, The Jupiter Effect, 1982. Yet another catastrophe that didn’t quite work out.

CK Moore

“…the planetary effects are *too small by several orders of magnitude* to be a main cause of the solar cycle (they can be at most a small modulation…”
“Too small by several orders of magnitude” also is a good explanation of why adding a hundred or so CO2 molecules per million in the atmosphere hasn’t resulted in catastrophic global warming. Not enough suds to wash.

Stephen Wilde

Anthony, I remain unconvinced but interested as regards planetary effects. It doesn’t matter to me for the purposes of my climate description as to WHY the sun does what it does.
The paper you have put forward for discussion clearly does not rule out such effects as a potential modulating influence over enough time.
“As all planets rotate in the same sense around the sun their
combined action over times of years may induce a small motion
e.g. at the solar surface. This may have an influence on the
meridional motion or on the poleward motions of the solar
surface (Makarov et al., 2000), having in turn an influence on
the solar dynamo (maybe leading to an effect like the Gnevyshev–
Ohl rule). Again, this will be very indirect and the effect of one
planet or one orbital period will be masked.”
It is clearly not a body blow to anything.
REPLY: Yeah well, that’s your opinion, good luck with it. The WHY is everything. – Anthony

The most likely culprit appears to be UV variability acting on ozone in the stratosphere and mesosphere.

UV is, in my opinion, more important than it has been given credit for. It is also likely important for ocean warming as it is the deepest penetrating solar radiation into the oceans (and ice). The UV variation also seems to be coincident with the magnetic variation so we likely get increases in cloud albedo at the same time that we get a decline in UV radiation. The two together may have a more significant impact than is currently appreciated.

Paul Westhaver

How come the planets know each other are there? There is this mysterious force that exists between matter that communicates great distances. It is called gravity.
The force of gravity that holds Jupiter in orbit is equal and opposite to the force that Jupiter exerts on the sun. Jupiter is huge! So the force is huge.
I imagine a small tide from Jupiter moving about the sun. The particles of Jupiter and the particles of the sun “know” each other are there otherwise they would not remain in orbit of each other. Seems they are pretty smart to have figured that out.
So why do we say there is no effect?
It is because we don’t yet have an adequate model.

„Hence, planetary influences should be ruled out as a possible cause of solar variability.
What is ‘solar variability’? Size? Color? Shape? Neutrino rate? Rotation speed? Brightness?
“Specifically, we improved the calculation of ainert in paper I and gave an alternative estimation.
If the tidal acceleration of Jupiter were important for the solar cycle then the tidal accelerations of Mercury, Venus and the Earth would be important too.”

If … If …
That’s bad logic/philosophy but not science.
s. here and here and here.
V.

People seem to forget that while gravitational forces vary with the inverse square of the distance (twice as far, one-fourth as strong), tidal forces vary with the inverse fourth power of the distance (twice as far, one-sixteenth as strong). This is why the sun’s powerful gravitational force has less tidal effect on earth than the gravity of our much more feeble, but much closer, moon. And so the tidal effects on the sun of the massive but distant outer planets (Jupiter, Saturn) are negligible.

AnonyMoose

Mercury affecting the Sun is as likely as a piece of notebook paper on the road affecting my car.

ed

Are not all of the planets and the sun linked magnetically to some degree? Aren’t sunspots magnetic in nature? is it possible that magnetic/planetary shielding may effect climate? Barycenter may be a proxy for other parameters no anthony?
REPLY: Oh, please, next I’ll be hearing about the “iron sun”. What part of “…the planetary effects are “too small by several orders of magnitude” don’t you understand? – Anthony

Not by gravity, but electro-magnetic connection is a definite possibility, showing a promising result with even the simplest of calculations
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm

peterhodges

We do not exclude the possibility that the long term combined action of the planets may induce small internal motions in the sun,…
their combined action over times of years may induce a small motion
e.g. at the solar surface…

They say themselves they do not exclude the possibility.
And the key to me is “combined action”…the solar system is not a linear system, it is a non-linear system.
Also, it seems to me that if the combined action of the planets can pull the entire sun around the solar system barycenter, then the combined action of the planets could also pull around a little surface material in tidal effects.
REPLY: Yeah well, that’s your opinion, good luck with it – Anthony
Geez if I was there I would fetch you a cup of coffee Anthony!
Thanks for posting this up anyways, I foresee a 200+ comment post. Hopefully we keep it civil.
REPLY:“Could” isn’t the same as “does”. Well, when Nicola and Tallbloke show up, I’m sure we’ll see fireworks. May as well go out with a bang. – Anthony

cgh

Anthony, your comments on The Jupiter Effect are spot on. That piece of mysticism was right up there with Worlds in Collision and Chariots of the Gods. One thing to be said for Velikovsky; he genuinely believed in what he was writing. That’s not so clear with the Jupiter boys.
As for the “Oh wait..” syndrome, the Millerites famously got this wrong twice in the late 19th century in predicting the Second Coming. Their method of prediction was based on Bishop Ussher. After the second spectacular failure of the world to end, they disappeared for a few decades, re-emerging as Jehovah’s Witnesses.
People LIKE believing in catastrophism. What all of these various theories seem to have in common is to try to diminish the importance of human intelligence and achievement. In sum they are all an onslaught against the Enlightenment and rational thinking which brought us science and technology.

Kasuha

I don’t believe in barycentrism at all. What I believe in, however, is that other planets affect Earth’s orbit and that changes to this orbit are accompanied by changes in energy coming to Earth from Sun due to variations in distance between Sun and Earth. These changes don’t happen just on Milankovitch cycle scales tens of thousands years long. There are also much less pronounced changes on scales of just years. Variability of these changes is smaller than, but on the same order of magnitude as variability caused by sun activity – for instance March TSI varies by about 0.5 W/m2 over course of four years due to that and has shifted by about 2 W/m2 in last 100 years. These changes don’t need the planets to have any real effect on Sun itself but still may have effect on Earth’s climate, especially if we’re looking at such details like Earth average temperature in thousandths of a degree.

Steve

IF there is a corelation, there must be a reason for the corelation. The causality might be backwards, or there could be a cascade effect. But surely if there is a long sequence of corelation, there has to be some reason for it beyond the same coincidence happening over and over again.

Paul Westhaver

By the same token that I regard AGW as bad science, I say dismissing a hypothesis out of hand is equally bad science. The foundation of science is data. We have data that says that the planets and the sun are aware of each other gravitationally.
What we don’t know is the effects of gravity on the swirling surface of the sun.
I accept that gravity exists and operates predictable between celestial bodies.
We can only now, from space, just barley measure the effect of the moons gravity on our oceans and our earth’s crust. So we have a model for that and data to support it. Imagine trying to make those measurements 93,000,000 miles away and if the earth was a ball of plasma.
The difficulty in making the measurement does not mean the effects are not there.

Paul Westhaver

I always found it an interesting coincidence that the average rotational period of the sun, (it varies from pole to equator) is about the same as the period of the lunar orbit around the earth.
… and the period of my 3 sister’s synchronized PMS….
They are all the same… go figure.

vukcevic says:
April 15, 2012 at 11:47 am
Not by gravity, but electro-magnetic connection is a definite possibility, showing a promising result with even the simplest of calculations
As Einstein said: “make it as simple as possible, but no simpler”. You seem to be far out on the ‘no simpler’ scale. The supersonic solar wind expels all electric/magnetic effects.

Kasuha says:
April 15, 2012 at 11:51 am
for instance March TSI varies by about 0.5 W/m2 over course of four years due to that and has shifted by about 2 W/m2 in last 100 years.
1: TSI [in March or any other month] varies 1.5 W/m2 over the six years of half a solar cycle and the 2 W/m2 change in the last 100 years is not established. BTW, during the year from January to July, TSI varies about 100 W/m2 simply due to the elipticity of the Earth’s orbit. None of this has anything to do with the planets.

Crispin in Johannesburg

I believe this is a body blow to at least one approach to the plantary theories – that of direct gravitational pull being some kind of accelerator.
We have known for ages that the pull on the surface is small relative to other things going on in the Sun. This paper reviews it. On the other hand, risking Anthony’s ire, there are other ideas which hold more water in my view. Small changes in solar activity have an amplified effect on the Earth’s cloud level. Why not expect something else could happen like that? Why are there so many examples of small influences having a large effect? We are not talking butterflies, we are talking about a few very large planets that dance in a repeating pattern, whose radii from the Sun are thenselves governed by mutual influence. It is not a coincidence that the Earth-Venus orbits have a 5:2 beat frequency.
There is no discussion in the paper at all about a cyclic accumulation of effects which if you speed things up, starts to look more realistic to our puny, short lives. It is not the single effect of the pull and even the accumulated pull, but the cumulative effect of a small pull of a cyclical nature. This should be blindingly obvious when discussing orbital influences. It is quite a difference effect from straight gravitational pull and cannot be predicted from just the acting force alone. The sun is not a rock, it is a complex gaseous blob with many unknown ‘circuits’.
A small girl on a swing pushed by a another small child can be seen swinging high in the air with masses of energy in the swing system. The force necessary to swing high is not the amount that one gets in a single push. It is the cyclical effect of having the push at the right time, repeatedly. According to this paper, the pushing child has not nearly the muscle power to make the other child swing so high. Yet the girl swings. Alchemy? Magic? Cyclic forces?
The sun has very low frequency waves pulsing around it continuously. It sings on a very low note. Does this have any effect on internal behaviour? Surely it must. It must be resonant too, or it would not persists at the same frequency. So why should there not be resonances at the multiples of barycentric acceleration rates just as some who study them claim? Just because something happens slowly does not mean it cannot be the ‘swing set effect’ from a small cyclical perturbation. To rule them out before investigating them seems hasty.
If Landscheidt was as wrong about his ENSO predictions based on the rate of solar acceleration as Hansen is about everything he ever predicted, then I would toss both models in the same trash bin. But they are not comparable at all. Landscheidt was refused publication of papers on the subject not because he did not know how and what to calculate to be able to predict things, but because he did not know what exact the mechanism was. Well that is true, he didn’t know. But he predicted ENSO events all the same, and the coming downturn, and the coming Minimum, in the face of endless criticism that the gravitational effect as to small to cause such cycles.
So, skeptics, don’t invest in a garden swing set because according to the Callebaut et al, the consensus is that no child has enough energy to get another one swinging, by 4 orders of magnitude!

Crispin in Johannesburg says:
April 15, 2012 at 12:21 pm
The sun has very low frequency waves pulsing around it continuously. It sings on a very low note. Does this have any effect on internal behaviour? Surely it must. It must be resonant too, or it would not persists at the same frequency.
Typical periods for these waves are of the order of 3 to 5 minutes.

Dr. Deanster

All I’s gots to say on this …. is … what if their mathmatical model is wrong?? We here all have experience in positions on issues based on “models” … do we not?
You can’t say what is false, until you know what is truth. We don’t know what is truth, and therefore any speculations, based in good science or not .. remains just a speculation. Hence, why in science you hear words like “this suggests” .. or “our data is consistent with” … ie., we don’t know Jack Schiet … but we’ll try and sound like we do.
This is all reminiscent of the AGW crowd and their claims about Total Solar Irradiance. So they plug it in their models and manipulate the parameters to make it seem as if CO2 is going to cook our butts. So, we have this fine paper that creates some scenario in a mathmatical model, and then makes claims about what their mathimatical model says, … as if it is reality. But is it??
I don’t know if there is a planetary/sun relationship on the suns activity …. and I’m not convinced by this paper that there is not a planetary/sun relationship on the suns activity. But to give the guys credit … science is about making hypotheses and going about testing them. At least they aren’t studying the impact of man’s CO2 emissions on the sun’s activity …

Edim

This reminds of the “TSI variation is too small” argument against solar mechanism for multi-decadal climate change.

Edim says:
April 15, 2012 at 12:29 pm
This reminds of the “TSI variation is too small” argument against solar mechanism for multi-decadal climate change.
And both hold true for precisely that reason: “too small”.

Edim

Leif, that’s argumentum ad ignorantiam and also very dogmatic. Paradigm paralysis?

Kasuha

Leif Svalgaard says:
April 15, 2012 at 12:20 pm
1: TSI [in March or any other month] varies 1.5 W/m2 over the six years of half a solar cycle and the 2 W/m2 change in the last 100 years is not established. BTW, during the year from January to July, TSI varies about 100 W/m2 simply due to the elipticity of the Earth’s orbit. None of this has anything to do with the planets.
____________________________________
I was talking about changes to TSI introduced by changes to Earth orbit only – changes by the Sun activity go on top of it, i.e. either add or subtract. I know the annual variance is about 100 W/m2 but we are already all used to subtracting the annual period and looking at variations in the rest so I’m not doing anything new here.
And yes there is a shift in TSI caused by gradual distortion of Earth’s orbit, I actually went ahead and made the necessary calculation (with a huge help of NASA tools usually used for astronomic purposes which provided precise historical space coordinates of Sun and Earth).
http://www.volny.cz/kasuha/temperatures/TSI1850-2050.zip
(there is a graph at about line 210 in the first sheet)
I am not saying these variations are big. I am not even saying they have any measurable effect on climate as I did not perform any analysis in that regard. I am just saying they definitely are there.

Paul Westhaver

A teacher struck my daughter when she was in grade 3. I went nuts. The principal of the school said it didn’t happen. about 28 days later my daughter came home with bruise marks on her arm from the same teacher. I took my daughter to the ER and had the “finger mark” bruises diagnosed and photographed.
I wrote a letter to the principle that if my daughter was ever touched by the teacher again i’d sue him and the school as well as have criminal charges laid.
27 days later that teacher was out on “sick” leave.
27 days after that she was out again… then the weekends got in the way and the pattern collapsed.
My point is that patterns avail themselves. It is contingent on us to discover the nature of the pattern. Why did the teacher freak out on my daughter at 27 day intervals? I don’t know. I speculate that she had a recurring event in her life, like a paycheck issue or a hormonal issue or her wicka group meetings influence her.
People are very good at sensing patterns and rhythms and 1s usually the foundation of the first guess in a new discovery. History is replete with people who thought that all that is to discovered is already discovered. In the mythological words attributed to Galileo…. yet it moves.

Leif Svalgaard says:
April 15, 2012 at 12:12 pm
@ vukcevic The supersonic solar wind expels all electric/magnetic effects.
except that
The Supersonic solar wind is pushed out of the way by the CMEs. As you know far better than I do, during CME there is a direct electric and magnetic connection between a magnetosphere and solar surface layers, but for some reason forgot to mention.
The Origin and Development of the May 1997 Magnetic Cloud
C. E. DeForest , Stanford University, Stanford, California

Logan in AZ

This topic does not seem to include the well known concept of self-organized criticality (SOC, Per Bak) —
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organized_criticality
For example, an artillery round is sometimes used to trigger an avalanche. Californians are waiting for a big earthquake, and the trigger could be very small as the stress slowly builds up to the rupture point. Thus one could get an approximate correlation of SOC events with tiny perturbations — and endless disputes from those who demand an impressive mechanism.

Matthew R Marler

Stephen Wilde: Rather than being a body blow against a planetary effect this paper seems to accept the possibility of a small such effect over enough time.
How small does the effect have to be to be considered negligible for Earth atmospheric/climate science?

Matthew R Marler

Authors say: their combined action over times of years may induce a small motion
e.g. at the solar surface…

This was already noted by Peter Hodges, and probably others. Does not this quote of the authors tend to support claims by the solar enthusiasts that gravitational effcts are not so small as to be negligible?
A “body blow” is not a knockout. If this is indeed a body blow, it will take many, many more such for a TKO.

Schitzree

REPLY: Oh, please, next I’ll be hearing about the “iron sun”. What part of “…the planetary effects are “too small by several orders of magnitude” don’t you understand? – Anthony
———————-
The problem I have with the “too small by several orders of magnitude” argument is the same one I have with the “It must be CO2 causing the warming because we don’t know of anything else that could do it” argument. Evidence can prove something but a lack of evidence doesn’t necessarily disprove it.
Not saying I’m accepting the Barycentrism argument, but I won’t write it of just because someone says they can’t figure out how it might work.

Schitzree

On a lighter note I love Oliver’s “Iron Sun” theory. Neutron Repulsion makes a great power source to go between Fusion and Anti-Matter in my star fighter RPG. great science fiction.

Edim says:
April 15, 2012 at 12:43 pm
Leif, that’s argumentum ad ignorantiam and also very dogmatic. Paradigm paralysis?
Not sure who the ignoramus is here.
Kasuha says:
April 15, 2012 at 12:43 pm
I am not saying these variations are big. I am not even saying they have any measurable effect on climate as I did not perform any analysis in that regard. I am just saying they definitely are there.
The Earth’s orbit is not static and in calculating the effect the actual orbit [perturbations and all] are taken into account. It is even necessary when compensating for the orbital changes to take into account that the photons of TSI left the Sun 8 minutes before they hit the Earth. The point is that Earth’s orbit is what it is [changing all the time].
vukcevic says:
April 15, 2012 at 12:54 pm
The Supersonic solar wind is pushed out of the way by the CMEs.
So the CMEs are even more supersonic than the solar wind, thus adds to the effectiveness of sweeping all electric/magnetic effect outwards preventing them from reaching the sun.

G. E. Pease

This four-page paper provides both theoretical and empirical evidence of a physical planetary cause for the observed periodic variations in the differential rotation of sunspots:
Periodicities in the Sun’s “Torsional MHD oscillations” and planetary configuration,
Javaraiah, J.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1996BASI…24..351J
From p. 352:
“In the present paper we show that the amplitudes of the symmetric and antisymmetric torsional oscillations of the Sun depend upon the contribution of the major planets to the symmetric and asymmetric parts of the angular momentum of the solar system.”

clipe

When I was a child I didn’t need any help wrapping a swing around a crossbar.

David Ball

One of the reasons I was first attracted to WUWT? was all the interesting perspectives that were presented. One of the reasons I hated reading realclimate was the dogmatic insecurity presented. It is creeping into this blog even though Anthony definitely tries to be reasonable. Not a big fan of the barycentric idea ( it is apparently used to locate extrasolar planets) as a solar influence. Even though I do not agree with it, I am intelligent enough to know that we do NOT have all the pieces to the many puzzles of our universe. The insecure closed minds are doing a great deal of harm to what should be a friendly informative discussion.
Another point is that a person (everyone) cannot be right about everything. Every great figure from science has some important contributions, but also a great number of things they were wrong about. Often due to lack of all the information necessary to draw correct conclusions.
Chill and enjoy the process. Bring your best information. People can draw their own conclusions. My humble opinion only, for what it is worth.
A friendly question to Dr. Svalgaard. Isn’t the earth’s magnetic field protecting us from the “far stronger” solar wind? Or did I miss something? Be nice, thank you.

SØREN BUNDGAARD

We are now able to identify planets in other solar systems, because their sun wobbles. We know their numbers of planets, their size and so on, but we could not measure any planet impact on our sun, if we measured it from another Solar System?

In the begining climate skepticism was sound. Folks wanted to see the data, wanted to see the code, wanted to understand the physics before they claimed knowledge. Over time the skeptical position has been infected by people who actually believe they Know that the planets influence the sun and they Know that the sun drives the climate. When asked for proof, when asked for a physical mechanism with proper forces and units, when asked for experiments, falsifiable experiments or even predictions, the response is silence or speculation or desk pounding: it could be x, it could be y, you havent ruled out grelims, or leprauchans. At best you get chart showing corelations and models whose functional form is aphysical. If mann or jones wrote some of the crap you see from the barycenter crew, they’d be laughed out of the room. But, up until recently, they’ve been tolorated. Tolerated perhaps because they attack climate science. Folks have looked the other way with respect to the sharing of code. They’ve looked the other way and not asked the tough questions about physics and tests and completeness. The planets do not explain the appearence of sunspots. They dont explain the timing, the size, the strength. They dont explain
ANYTHING. Imagine they were perfectly corelated. They still would EXPLAIN nothing. And even if sun spots were perfectly corelated with temperature they would not EXPLAIN the climate. They would not explain the ph of the ocean, hurricanes, clouds, rain, temperature, the carbon cycle, volcanic effects, dust in the sahara, multi year ice, you name it. The climate is, as we all know, very complex. Sunspots do not explain it. cannot explain it.
Does the sun play a role. Of course. Do sunspots. of course. Do GCR? maybe. Do GHGs? of course. Is our current understanding of the climate complete? nope. Check a GCM, it doesnt capture ALL of reality. it cant. Will adding the position of Jupiter to a GCM improve the hindcast.
That’s testable. But to do that yu must express the effect of Jupiter in PHYSICS.

David Ball says:
April 15, 2012 at 1:25 pm
A friendly question to Dr. Svalgaard. Isn’t the earth’s magnetic field protecting us from the “far stronger” solar wind? Or did I miss something? Be nice, thank you.
Indeed it does, but to a point. And the solar wind is not ‘far stronger’. It is extremely weak. Its magnetic field is 10,000 times weaker than the Earth’s. The mass hitting the magnetosphere is equal to about one good-sized turkey per second. On the flip side, the magnetic field of the Earth concentrates and magnifies the effect of the solar wind: strong currents [with their attendant magnetic field variations] are set up by the interaction. These can have bad effects on transformers, satellites, and other technological infrastructure.
Steven Mosher says:
April 15, 2012 at 1:32 pm
But to do that you must express the effect of Jupiter in PHYSICS.
And therein lies the difficulty.

Edim

Leif Svalgaard says:
“Not sure who the ignoramus is here.”
I am sure. You are. I am too, just like everybody else. We’re all ignorant of something.
Maybe the argument from lack of imagination fits better – P is too incredible or I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true; therefore P must be false. It’s a logical fallacy.

SØREN BUNDGAARD says:
April 15, 2012 at 1:32 pm
We are now able to identify planets in other solar systems, because their sun wobbles. We know their numbers of planets, their size and so on, but we could not measure any planet impact on our sun, if we measured it from another Solar System?
This is a good point. Unfortunately no effects on planets around other stars on stellar activity have yet been found. See the final slides of http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202011%20SH34B-08.pdf
But this research is still ongoing, so perhaps one day we will get the final proof/disproff of this, althoung I have already gotten arguments from various sides that our solar system is unique in just the right combination of planets, etc, and that therefore only in our system will the planets drive solar activity. So strong is the belief in the planetary hypothesis than it, almost by definition, becomes impossible to falsify. Go figure…

G. E. Pease

This is the correct link to the Javaraiah paper referred to by me at 1:21 pm:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1996BASI…24..351J
Please note that the last part (…24..351J) needs to be included in the link, and the link must be a single color to open correctly in most browsers. It will open if copied to your web browser as a text line.

Agile Aspect

The most glaring deficency in the paper is the lack of N body calculation or surface integrals – or any numerical results other than a handful of point calculations.
I would expect more from undergraduates.
Since they haven’t evaluated even a single integral and the argument is based entirely on point calculations, this paper is equilvalent to claiming since the power production of the Sun is roughly 280 Watts/m^3 (note the units) – which is roughly equilvalent to the power production of a salmon – then it’s impossible to get a Sun burn.
[SNIP: if you can rephrase that without being insulting it might get through. -REP]

Crispin in Johannesburg

@clipe
You must be dreaming. By 4 orders of magnitude.
@Leif
Thanks re the frequency. There is a lesson from HAM radio history that relates to frequency. In the early days LF was king. Transmissions reached hundreds of miles. As transmission frequency rose so did distance until one fine day they tried 14MHZ and the whole world was ringing with chattering in Morse Code.
I predict that when the low frequencies of the sun are probed sudden things will appear. Someone above mentioned the sun spots and planets. There is a clear relationship between the butterfly pattern and the position of the Earth-Moon-Venus barycenter. I found that very confirming re the ability of planets to affect the sun.

David Ball

Castor and pollux are incredible multi star systems. Hard to believe they even exist in the configuration that they do. Multiple links if you bing “castor and pollux”.

David Ball

Thank you for your kind response. Please correct me if I misunderstood, but does your response not contradict what you posted to Vukcevic?