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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Afraid to have anyone read the truth? I had no idea making factual statements was “spiteful”. I’ll never put my name to anything because I respect my privacy.
REPLY: And as I said, I respect Dr. Svalgaard and Steve Mosher for having the courage to put their name to their words, even though I often disagree with them. If you want to slime them, step up, otherwise shove off. – Anthony
Bart says:
April 16, 2012 at 9:39 am
Movement relative to the SSB from gravitational forces does not stress the Sun like a ball being twirled at the end of a rope – more like a ball being twirled encased in a finely woven net constraining every particle. Where there is no relative stress, there is no effect on the body.
Not due to gravity to be sure. Swinging through Leif’s ‘frozen in magnetic field’ might do something though.
Nicola Scafetta says:
April 16, 2012 at 12:26 pm
So, you are claiming that you know about mysterious and secret arguments against my paper
I have already urged you to publish the complete review report from all reviewers, the responses from the editor and your complaints and the response from the head of the editorial board. Make it a complete and nice post and submit it to Anthony.
[REPLY: Yes, happy to publish it – Anthony]
Bart says:
April 16, 2012 at 1:01 pm
“…the standard solution [not complicated] is shown on the last slide…”
Again, this is based on equi-potential surfaces. However, with a compressible medium, I do not think it is a reasonable assumption.
It is based on the assumption that the gas [fluid] is allowed to flow freely, i.e. as compressible as you can get.
Poptech says:
April 16, 2012 at 1:02 pm
scientist who does not publish on climate science [Leif Svalgaard] for their opinion on climate science. This is obviously the most logical way to proceed.
Thank you for seeing this so clearly. For your information, among the 24 most cited of my papers, four [with a total number of citations to them of 168] were advocating a possible influence on weather and climate of solar activity.
Bart says: April 16, 2012 at 1:12 pm
Putting Einstein agaist the AGW crowd would be intersting. How many people in the society will advocate AGW if by doing so they will need to reject Einstein?
Leif vs. Einstein: who will win?
Let us wait and see 🙂
tallbloke says:
April 16, 2012 at 1:23 pm
Not due to gravity to be sure. Swinging through Leif’s ‘frozen in magnetic field’ might do something though.
to the planets, not the other way around. And your ‘might do’ is so weak. The best riposte is Tweedledee’s: “if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn’t, it ain’t.”
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 16, 2012 at 8:58 am
tallbloke says:
April 16, 2012 at 8:29 am
We’ve been here before, and you didn’t specify what it was about equation (2) that you thought was wrong. So until you do, and show how that falsifies the paper, your assertion that the Wolff and Patrone mechanism isn’t viable is just that, a bare assertion. As such it contains no falsifiable content, and would quite rightly be rejected by a reviewer.
I’ll summarize the situation here: The interchange considered by Wolff and Patrone leaves the fluid elements (apparently filling the spaces into which they have been displaced) yet moving with respect to them; therefore it is valid dynamically, for the purposes of energy computation, only for an interval of time of measure zero, which is insufficient to take the temporal derivatives required to determine subsequent evolution, essential, of course, for assessing stability. Therefore Wolff’s and Patrone’s static interchange is infinitely slow and does not operate in a real star. In a real star the gravitational potential energy difference is likely to be some 10^5 times greater in the (deep) convection zone than the term that Wolff and Patrone retain as being dominant. As Gough points out “W&P have fallen into the trap of many a naive modern physics student of misapplying an initially valid formula [equation (2)] to a situation in which it is not valid”.
Finally. Thanks Leif, I’ll pass that to Charles Wolff for comment,
As simple as that. About appealing to authority: sometimes it is a good idea to consult with a recognized expert.
Good to know you know that.
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 16, 2012 at 1:23 pm
Me: “Again, this is based on equi-potential surfaces. However, with a compressible medium, I do not think it is a reasonable assumption.”
You:”It is based on the assumption that the gas [fluid] is allowed to flow freely, i.e. as compressible as you can get.”
Perhaps I have not been clear. It is reasonable when the fluid in question is incompressible. Then, you cannot have mass build up in nonlinear fashion and everything has to end up evenly distributed. The change in pressure is proportional to the change in height, with the constant of proportionality dependent on the gravitational force.
When, on the other hand, you have a compressible medium, the density depends on temperature and, if you have a (at least) linear lapse rate, the pressure becomes exponential, with the exponent dependent on the gravitational force. This is fairly standard. It is on page 38 of my undergrad fluid mechanics textbook.
I do not have time to work through the equations right now, but with a nonlinear dependence on gravity, I do not see that it is straightforward, or even likely, that the ultimate distribution should conform to an equi-potential surface.
Thanks Leif for your answers….so I would think that an accreting stellar disc would gain spin momentum from the incoming dust and its frozen magnetics…?
I did argue with some NASA solar expert about the possibility of an electron flow back to the Sun and he finally agreed there WAS a flow, though he didn’t think it actually went INTO the Sun. Was Alfven wrong about the back-current? I note that his theory of an electric-arc effect did not gain favour. I am still puzzled by what can accelerate the solar wind – still accelerating at earth’s orbit distance, and where the mass actually goes at the end of the system, even if it is not completely closed. But then, I am just seeking to understand these things – staying open to the potential of a mechanism we do not yet understand to explain the correlations. Thanks again for your time and persistence.
[REPLY: Yes, happy to publish it – Anthony]
Anthony, where is the argument against my findings? Why Leif cannot say it by himself?
What happened with that journal was that the biased editor, after my complains about the evident editorial dishonesty, asked Leif to have a debate with me on the journal by making his comments and my rebuttal open, and Leif refused. Now he changed idea, apparently. He can write back to that journal and tell them that he wants to debate now.
Why should I put those comments on your blog? There are just a long list of no-senses which are not different from the nosenses Leif has already said plus some other extremely shameful things.
In science only the scientific arguments matter, everything else does not.
So, Anthony, where is the scientific argument?
Are there mathematical errors in my analysis? where?
Are there physical errors? where?
Are there philosophical errors? where?
This is what matters.
You are very naive in trusting Leif, Anthony.
Above I showed a video about the tides on the Bay of Fundy. By using Leif’s equations and the equations used by Callebaut, de Jager and Duhau, what you see in the Bay of Fundy would be impossible: there is a 100 factor amplification from those equations.
Tidal effects cannot be understood without studying amplification mechanisms, which in the sun are numerous and far more powerful than what you see on the Bay of Fundy.
People do not even understand the amplification mechanisms of the ocean tides. What makes you believe that Leif understand solar dynamics?
For example, did Leif propose a model to explain the observed solar patterns at multiple scales as I did in my latest paper? Where is it?
REPLY: I’ve met both of you personally. It conduct here that differentiates. Not playing this game Nicola, put up of shut up time – Anthony
Factually stating that Steven Mosher is not a scientist and Leif Svalgaard does not publish on climate science does not “slime” them. Come on!
REPLY: Phrased that way, not a problem (except that Leif has proven you wrong) but your previous posts are still unacceptable – take a 24 hour time out. – Anthony
Geoff Sharp says:
April 16, 2012 at 3:31 am
Theodore makes it very clear in all his papers that the PTC event (what you think is a solar downturn) is a mechanism for changing phase. ie phase reversal.
It’s not that I think the events were solar downturns. They were solar downturns.
Theodore said they were in the first two sentences of the quote too.
Your offer of a guest post is 2 years late, and considering your recent censorship performance I would not entertain the idea.
Good. Saves me the hassle. Your site is still linked from mine though, and I wish you every success with your theory. Several methods come up with quite similar results for the solar slowdown, one or more will turn out to be directly related to the underlying causes. In our lifetimes hopefully.
I am still wanting to know what this comment on your blog meant?
“Geoff wants to claim the glory to himself and in the memory of the late Carl Smith”
You were there when I said it , so you know. Here’s the full context so your audience can get the gory details if they wish.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/04/11/some-thoughts-about-the-solar-system-barycentre/
Specifically here’s the full quote around your clipped half sentence:
Ian: It’s regrettable, but there it is. I always take care to mention the pioneers and current theorists when I write articles on this subject. Geoff wants to claim the glory to himself and in the memory of the late Carl Smith, and takes umbrage when I mention the other pioneer’s work in relation to his claims. Ray Tomes had a stand up argument with Landsche,,t at a conference about the Jose 179 year and the 171 year cycles years before Geoff came on the scene. Your own analysis is more thorough and informative, and much appreciated.
Nicola Scafetta says:
April 16, 2012 at 1:28 pm
Leif vs. Einstein: who will win?
What nonsense is that? You have gone off the rail here.
tallbloke says:
April 16, 2012 at 1:37 pm
Finally. Thanks Leif, I’ll pass that to Charles Wolff for comment
‘Finally’ is nonsense. You had the Gough comment all along. Pass that onto Wolff too.
“sometimes it is a good idea to consult with a recognized expert”
Good to know you know that.
You didn’t seem to know that.
Bart says:
April 16, 2012 at 1:48 pm
When, on the other hand, you have a compressible medium, the density depends on temperature and, if you have a (at least) linear lapse rate, the pressure becomes exponential, with the exponent dependent on the gravitational force.
Solar activity is generally believed to take place in a narrow layer near the tachocline, so the gravitational force [and pressure and temperature] is very nearly constant in the region of generation where the tidal force is supposed to work its magic. In addition the tidal displacements are small, so there are no significant variations of the solar variables.
Peter Taylor says:
April 16, 2012 at 1:55 pm
Thanks Leif for your answers….so I would think that an accreting stellar disc would gain spin momentum from the incoming dust and its frozen magnetics…?
When the star is first forming it acquires a large angular momentum that way and ends up rotating very fast causing it to shed mass which in combination with a strong stellar wind transfer that angular momentum to a circumstellar disk, which in turn brakes the star.
I did argue with some NASA solar expert about the possibility of an electron flow back to the Sun and he finally agreed there WAS a flow, though he didn’t think it actually went INTO the Sun.
In a magnetic flux rope there are electrons bouncing back and forth between mirror points high in the solar atmosphere [like in the Van Allen belts of the Earth].
Was Alfven wrong about the back-current? I note that his theory of an electric-arc effect did not gain favour.
Short answer is yes. One problem with his scheme is that the polar fields reverse every 11 years and hence also the current in the Heliospheric current sheet and any postulated ‘back-current’.
I am still puzzled by what can accelerate the solar wind – still accelerating at earth’s orbit distance, and where the mass actually goes at the end of the system, even if it is not completely closed.
We are all puzzled a bit by the mechanism. The problem is not that we don’t have any, it is that we have too many and can’t decide which is the right one. The mass flow at the end of the solar system simply merges into the interstellar medium, like smoke from a chimney merges into the air.
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 16, 2012 at 2:44 pm
tallbloke says:
April 16, 2012 at 1:37 pm
Finally. Thanks Leif, I’ll pass that to Charles Wolff for comment
‘Finally’ is nonsense. You had the Gough comment all along. Pass that onto Wolff too.
Oh I will. When Wolff and Patrone have stopped laughing I expect they’ll tell me to tell you to get it past peer review if you can.
“therefore it is valid dynamically, for the purposes of energy computation, only for an interval of time of measure zero, which is insufficient to take the temporal derivatives required to determine subsequent evolution,”
Lol.
tallbloke says:
April 16, 2012 at 2:57 pm
Oh I will. When Wolff and Patrone have stopped laughing I expect they’ll tell me to tell you to get it past peer review if you can.
Your faith is strong. You’ll need that strength.
It looks as if I got off only with few minor scratches, [snip]
REPLY: Take a 48 hour time out for that ugly label – Anthony
vukcevic says:
April 16, 2012 at 3:05 pm
It looks as if I got off only with few minor scratches, [snip]
But did you learn something?
“REPLY: I’ve met both of you personally. It conduct here that differentiates. Not playing this game Nicola, put up of shut up time – Anthony”
Anthony, science does not work as you want or wish. There are simple rules that need to be taken into account. To be humble in scientific research is a duty for every real scientist.
I ask you again:
Are there mathematical errors in my analysis? where?
Are there physical errors? where?
Are there philosophical errors? where?
This is what matters.
I note that you were not able to find errors in my papers.
When my paper has been accepted it was peer reviewed by three persons expert in solar and space weather physics including the editor and all three were quite professional and detailed in their comments. Very different from the nosenses that Leif says.
So, if you have valid arguments against my work, present them. If not, keep an open mind in things in which you clearly are not expert.
These issues are important and will be the future for both solar physics and climate science.
If you have a different working theory, present it. Or be humble.
OK, I read all these posts and am not catching the connectionto what is the causation of the various solar cycles with respect to solar system total mass. As an example, what if a large body liken to Jupiter were to pass throught the solar system as does a comet. What would be the sun’s response? And, how does that response line up with solar cycles that are not exactly timed with current rotational velocities of the known planetary mass? How much of the sun ejection returns to the sun?
highflight56433 says:
April 16, 2012 at 3:22 pm
what if a large body liken to Jupiter were to pass throught the solar system as does a comet. What would be the sun’s response?
In my estimate, nothing significant. Should it actually plunge into the Sun it would increase the Sun’s mass and hence its luminosity which would mean an increase of temperature on the Earth. Another increase would come from a slight shrinking of the Earth’s orbit.
How much of the sun ejection returns to the sun?
As far as we know, none, after it has passed the so-called Alfven point some 10-15 solar radii from the Sun, where it reaches escape velocity. Close to the Sun, 90% or so falls straight back again.
What’s causing the Earth’s wobble? http://www.longrangeweather.com/ArticleArchives/ChandlersWobble.htm
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 16, 2012 at 3:09 pm
“But did you learn something?”
This is more interesting than any course I have ever been on. This back and forth makes for fascinating reading. Some heavy hitters posting, too. This is why cannot stop reading WUWT?
I’m sure it is frustrating for Anthony. Hopefully the benefits out weigh the costs.
So therefore, Leif, if a large gas bag like Jupiter does little to ditrube the sun, then orbital planets are even less significant and nothing outside of the sun is influencing the various solar cycles strength and duration.
I admire Nicola Scafetta’s perseverance in defending his work, that’s a good quality, most scientific papers that are discussed here and criticized are never to be heard of again and usually the author/authors are either too lazy to show up for their own defense or believe that they a totally above such a task.
Being able to take criticism of your work must greatly help the evolutionary path that it will take, Nicola Scafetta Believes he deserves the grade and is willing to become evolved in debate with even the toughest of critics and this has caught peoples attention. Work it out guys, work it out.
Nicola Scafetta says:
April 16, 2012 at 3:19 pm
I note that you were not able to find errors in my papers.
The reviews from all referees of which I was but one list several errors. As Anthony says “put up or shut up”. Publish those reviews and attendant email exchanges and threats and we can go from there. If you are not humble enough to do that, give me permission to publish them all.
highflight56433 says:
April 16, 2012 at 4:00 pm
So therefore, Leif, if a large gas bag like Jupiter does little to ditrube the sun, then orbital planets are even less significant and nothing outside of the sun is influencing the various solar cycles strength and duration
That is how I see it, yes. Other people may see it differently. You can always lower the bar enough to eventually accept anything.