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.
Some have called on me to define how things work. I am assuming that challenge means the solar-global warming theory and I am not going to hijack a thread that is specific to solar theory. So if you mean solar dynamics only I find Leif’s position the more credible one and so I defer to his expertise readily and eagerly. Heck, I’m still at the coffee table solar book level.
As to Earth’s temperature, in the short term, I am an ENSO coupled with a leaky atmosphere girl all the way. Over long time spans, continental movement does a number on oceanic currents and atmospheric patterns. Add to that Earth’s tilty, wonky path and you have the basics of intrinsic short and long term oscillations all over the globe.
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 16, 2012 at 2:44 pm
“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.”
This tells us little about the potential for redistribution of that region under tidal fluctuations. The entire convection zone may be influenced.
“In addition the tidal displacements are small, so there are no significant variations of the solar variables.”
Begging the question.
I’m really not cheering for one side or the other here. I’d be perfectly happy to see the idea of solar-planetary coupling laid to rest. But, I do not yet see a knock out blow. And, the apparent phase correlations make me take the possibility seriously.
No he hasn’t. What are you talking about?
“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.”
What hypothesis are the authors addressing? The hypothesis is not that the planetary influences are responsible for the length of the solar cycle, but for regularities in the variation of the solar cycle. Even during extended grand minima, we now know that the solar cycle continues, unextinguished. The hypothesis is not planetary influences cause the solar cycle, but rather resonate with it, perhaps imperfectly with phase collapses.
What are the alternate theories for regularities in solar variation? What are the hypothesized forces in those theories? Or is the only competing theory to dispute the regularities?
@Bart, “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.”
Under general relativity, where gravity moves at the speed of light (or less), you would need to think of every particle of the sun connected to a different string at a different angle, because it is feeling the influence of a dynamically moving jupiter. The limbs of the sun are “feeling” the effect of jupiter from its position 2 seconds later than the near point of the sun or jupiters position 2 seconds earlier than that “felt” by the far side of the sun.
There is no free fall for extended bodies in curved space for general relativity.
Pamela Gray says:
April 16, 2012 at 5:43 pm
“Some have called on me” You cannot even deign to mention my name. I have my answer. It is as I suspected. Scary that you are in charge of some young minds, but it is no surprise as I had many teachers like you. Academia is such a narrow measure of intellect.
Name them. I found two peer-reviewed papers where the word “climate” appears in them one time and the paper is not discussing climate change.
Anthony says:
“Stephen, congratulations on being the first defender of the indefensible. I remain unimpressed with planetary Barycentrism and its variants. I remain even less impressed with the people who get their pretzels in a twist over it.”
Anthony,
You are about to eat the biggest piece of humble pie you have seen. I am not at liberty to discuss the peer-reviewed research which will prove once and for all that you and your supporters are completely wrong. However, I can say that the published work will be so emphatic it will convince ardent critics like yourself.
Unfortunately, your arrogance on this issue will severely tarnish your outstanding record as champion of rational discussion on climate issues. This will not be good for the skeptics cause.
REPLY:Oh goody, another threat from somebody to timid to use his/her name and actually show some science. Well if it is in fact “peer reviewed”, then it must be accepted for publication. So feel free to post it here so we can all see for ourselves how much humble pie I can eat. I do love pie. – Anthony
@ur momisugly africangenesis says: April 16, 2012 at 6:58 pm
“The hypothesis is not that the planetary influences are responsible for the length of the solar cycle, but for regularities in the variation of the solar cycle. Even during extended grand minima, we now know that the solar cycle continues, unextinguished. The hypothesis is not planetary influences cause the solar cycle, but rather resonate with it, perhaps imperfectly with phase collapses.”
Which is more or less what I explain in my paper:
N. 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.” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics in press (2012).
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Scafetta_JStides.pdf
@ur momisugly Leif Svalgaard says: April 16, 2012 at 4:55 pm
Leif, argue a valid criticism or shut up. Your behavior (and also the behavior of that editor) has already been enough shameful.
For example, according your way to do tidal calculations the lunar tides at the Bay of Fundy would be no more than about 10 cm high. According to Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Fundy
the observed tides are between 17 and 22 meters, a nice 170-220 amplification factor.
So, your math does not work for the ocean tides, why should your calculation properly describe solar dynamics?
Your physics does not prove anything, Leif. Your arguments are only prejudices.
I would pay for ring side seats like these. Thank you Anthony, mods, and commenters!
Bart says:
April 16, 2012 at 6:32 pm
“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.”
This tells us little about the potential for redistribution of that region under tidal fluctuations. The entire convection zone may be influenced.
But that has little influence on the generation region, which actually is believed to sit just under the convection zone in the stratification-stable radiative core. The reason for this is that magnetic fields are buoyant in the convection zone and will rise in about a month to the surface, not giving the dynamo enough time to work.
africangenesis says:
April 16, 2012 at 6:58 pm
What are the alternate theories for regularities in solar variation? What are the hypothesized forces in those theories? Or is the only competing theory to dispute the regularities?
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Choudhuri-Karak-2009.pdf
http://www.leif.org/EOS/SunMagneticCycle.pdf
http://www.leif.org/EOS/1112-6218v1Solar-Cycle-Variations-Dynamo.pdf
There is no free fall for extended bodies in curved space for general relativity.
The deviation are too minute to even discuss. Are you claiming that climate change is aGeneral Relativity effect?
Poptech says:
April 16, 2012 at 7:05 pm
Name them
1: Science 13 April 1973: Vol. 180 no. 4082 pp. 185-186
Solar Magnetic Sector Structure: Relation to Circulation of the Earth’s Atmosphere
cited by e.g. Solar variability as a contributing factor to Holocene climatic change
Progress in Physical Geography 1 December 1980: 487-530.
2: Influence of Solar Magnetic Sector Structure on Terrestrial Atmospheric Vorticity.
Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, vol. 31, Issue 2, pp.581-588, 1974
cited by e.g. Are solar spectral variations a drive for climatic change?
Nature, Volume 282, Issue 5739, pp. 600-603 (1979).
3: On the reality of a sun-weather effect (solar magnetic structure effect on vorticity)
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences. Vol. 33, pp. 1113-1116. June 1976
cited by e.g. Climate and paleoclimate: What we can learn about solar luminosity variations
Solar Physics, Volume 74, Issue 2, pp.435-471 (1981).
4: Seasonal variation and magnitude of the solar sector structure–atmospheric vorticity effect
Nature 255, 539 – 540 (12 June 1975)
cited by e.g. Solar-terrestrial influences on weather and climate
Nature, Volume 276, Issue 5686, pp. 348-352 (1978).
5: Interplanetary Magnetic Field Polarity and the Size of Low-Pressure Troughs Near 180°W Longitude
Science 6 April 1979 Vol. 204 no. 4388 pp. 60-62
cited by e.g. Solar variability, weather and climate: An update
Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, vol. 109, issue 459, pp. 23-55, 1983
6: Intensity of tropospheric circulation associated with solar magnetic sector boundary transits
Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics. Volume 41, Issue 6, June 1979, Pages 657–659
…
Back then there was no ‘climate science’ as such. It was understood that influences on the weather would be reflected eventually in the climate [being average weather].
tallbloke says:
April 16, 2012 at 2:35 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
April 16, 2012 at 3:31 am
Theodor 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.
This is the crucial point that has to be understood. Theodor does not associate solar slowdowns with the PTC event which is a perturbation of the torque cycle on a cycle of 35.8 years. The last paragraph of this section sums it up.
“In case of major instability events that affect the Sun’s surface and the
incidence of features of solar activity displaying in this thin, sensitive layer,
the instability seems to spread out in the planetary system and seize all events
in time series that are connected with the Sun’s activity.”
Here Theodor is taking about solar instability events (nothing to do with sunspots) that permeate thru the solar system and influence the rise and fall of animal populations, economic turning points, stock prices, interest rates, global periods of general instability and even human creativity. Landsche..t in later papers moves away from these less than scientific statements but at no point associates these events with reduced solar output. This is where he loses the plot and delves into the esoteric and he repeats this in many of his papers, BUT he also uses the PTC event at his whim (not every 35.8 years) throughout most of his papers to invoke phase reversals so his correlations line up, without the PTC event he would have no correlations. This whole section of his work is highly questionable and is very similar to the Ed Fix model where it needs to be reset or otherwise lose the correlation. If we use the AMP event there is no need to phase reverse or reset…it is pure.
When it comes to predicting grand minima Theodor uses negative extrema of torque pulses not PTC events. Clearly understanding this point is necessary and I suggest you go and read all his papers slowly. If Theodor did use the PTC event to forecast solar slowdown I would have no discovery as the PTC event basically IS the AMP event although at a higher resolution (PTC curves are more amplified). He had the data but failed to see the importance…that is his loss and my opportunity. So what I am claiming thru Carl’s graph is a new discovery and I resent your allegations of claiming glory in the memory of Carl. Carl saw it as a new discovery (after I pointed it out) and he offered his blog to me just before passing away. It is a pity you ignore the discovery that this great man made available. I was lucky to be the first to see the importance of the AMP event (angular momentum perturbation), the rest will be history.
As the owner of a blog that is predominately focusing on planetary theory you have an obligation to get the facts right. I sincerely hope you see the light eventually and help advance this section of solar science that I think will eventually become mainstream.
Nicola Scafetta says:
April 16, 2012 at 8:50 pm
Leif, argue a valid criticism or shut up.
You had two papers rejected by solar physics. Rejected by six reviewers.
The reviews from all reviewers of which I was but one list several errors and comments on the low quality of the papers. 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.
If you do not explicitly forbid me to publish them in your next comment, I’ll take that as permission to publish them as I please.
For example, according your way to do tidal calculations the lunar tides at the Bay of Fundy would be no more than about 10 cm high.
Apart from the calculated tide being a several times higher than 10 cm, the actual tide depends on factors such as coastlines and converging fjords [where the water is pushed higher and higher]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:M2_tidal_constituent.jpg
Your ignorance of this is saddening.
Joseph Murphy says:
April 16, 2012 at 8:53 pm
I would pay for ring side seats like these. Thank you Anthony, mods, and commenters!
And especially Scafetta for providing such entertainment, with Vuk, tallbloke, and others bringing up the rear.
Ninderthana says:
April 16, 2012 at 8:46 pm
I am not at liberty to discuss the peer-reviewed research which will prove once and for all that you and your supporters are completely wrong
I thought that Scafetta thinks he already proved this once and for all [just wait, he says], are telling us that he is wrong and there are others out there with a better patent on the truth?
Leif,
Thanks for the papers. They are still in search of a memory effect that can explain longer term regularities.
“Are you claiming that climate change is a General Relativity effect?”
Major climate change is an orbital and precession effect. Minor climate change such as that detected within ice ages and interglacials might be due to variation in solar activity, and Jupiter might be the “butterfly” perturbing the nonlinear system. GR provides torque effects which make the hypothesis more plausible. A significant part of the recent warming was probably anthropogenic, due to GHGs, black carbon and aerosols, I wouldn’t be surprised if more than 30% could be attributed to these anthropogenic forcings. The uncertainty in aerosols is such that aerosols and internal climate modes such as the PDO could explain all the recent warming without increased CO2 or solar forcing. We know neither CO2 or solar variation can explain the mid century cooling and the late century warming gradient without substantial help from aerosols.
africangenesis says:
April 16, 2012 at 10:20 pm
Thanks for the papers. They are still in search of a memory effect that can explain longer term regularities.
I don’t think any memory is needed. A random walk also has longer term variations. For the Sun, those ‘regularities’ are not all that regular.
GR provides torque effects which make the hypothesis more plausible.
The general consensus is that these effects are much too small to be detectable in the solar system, that is for bodies that are small compared to their separations, e.g. http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0543 :
“The conclusions of this paper may be viewed as providing a justification for the gravitational Detweiler-Whiting axiom [9] that a “point mass” moves on a geodesic in an effective metric produced by subtracting a certain “S-field” from the physical metric (if “point mass” is replaced by “mass with small but finite size”). The validity of this type of statement has also been extended considerably.”
Ah yes, the Wilcox papers,
Wilcox et al. (1973), Wilcox et al. (1974), Wilcox et al. (1975), Wilcox et al. (1976), Wilcox et al. (1979), Wilcox et al. (1979),
I stand corrected,
Leif Svalgaard has not published any papers relating to climate change that are not spurious.
REPLY: and you haven’t published any papers at all, give it a rest – Anthony
I am sad that Anthony’s reputation will be harmed by this. I believe that he is a genuine seeker of scientific truth [note that I did not say “The Truth”] who has just backed the wrong horse.
You will be judged by history Leif, so anything I say (about you) pales in comparison.
REPLY: My “reputation” being harmed, for publishing a peer reviewed paper review? For the record, your complaint is idiotic – Anthony
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 16, 2012 at 9:28 pm
Ninderthana says:
April 16, 2012 at 8:46 pm
I am not at liberty to discuss the peer-reviewed research which will prove once and for all that you and your supporters are completely wrong.
I thought that Scafetta thinks he already proved this once and for all [just wait, he says], are [you] telling us that he is wrong and there are others out there with a better patent on the truth?
There are various hind-cast-able and forward predictable patterns of movement in the solar system which match past proxies of solar activity such as sunspot number and 10Be deposition more or less well. Because our understanding and exploration of the solar system is still in its infancy, we don’t yet know exactly why this is so. However, this is no reason to be in denial of the fact that they exist.
While we await better understanding of underlying structure and mechanism, it is wise to keep an eye on the performance of the various different prediction methods to see which of them is performing the best, since in the absence of any useful prediction power from the standard model beyond a single solar cycle, they are the best we have. Let us know when the situation improves with the dynamo theory.
But the ‘best we have’ still has a wide range . Geoff Sharp predicts a ‘milder and shorter minimum’ from his method. Landsche..t predicted four or five low cycles centred around 2030 with Rmax less than around 70. One of our methods predicts a longer drop in activity levels, with an uptick from around 2040-2070, and then further general decline.
But I’m not discouraged by this, we have been making good progress in finding more and stronger correlations, and I expect the prediction methods to tighten up and converge as time goes on. At the end of the day, working on this stuff isn’t hurting anyone, and may just provide an important insight into the inner working of our solar system which helps advance knowledge. So let the chips fall where they may and congratulations in advance to whoever makes the breakthrough with predicting shorter timescale changes in solar activity with sufficient accuracy to make everyone else sit up and take notice.
It’s a particularly difficult time to do that, because the Sun seems to be going into a period of odd behaviour. So good luck everyone, here’s to discovering more and hoping it doesn’t get too cold for comfort.
For the record Anthony, it is the way that you are responding to those who support the planetary model that is ruining your reputation – particularly in light what is coming through in peer-reviewed publications. I find it particularly sad, given how much we owe to you in promoting the cause of climate skepticism.
REPLY: …and there you have it, I’m a skeptic, and I don’t swallow Barycentrism and its variants easily. Be as upset as you wish. Call me when you have some actual science to discuss, otherwise you are just wasting bandwidth bloviating here. – Anthony
@Bart
“If your entire body were being accelerated in precisely the same manner at every point, you wouldn’t feel a thing.”
I see three positions being staked in believable territory on this topic: that the planetary gravity is not strong enough to directly cause tidal effects which is reasonable. It is however not the claim that has been made so it is a bit of a misdirection into territory that has been well explored.
The second position is that as the sun swings around the Barycentre in space, that it will be uniformly attracted to the gravitational pull of all the planets working together (hence the relationship between the sun and the collective barycentre). This is not really how things work as the planets are always moving and the sun, having to respond to the change in where the barycentre is, moves erratically as demonstrated on the position plot posted way up this page.
The third position is that the sun acts as it if was either a rigid ball or a uniformly dense gas ball, or a gas ball with a uniformly changing density (increasing towards the centre).
The simple arguments against the barycentre and anything solar and cyclical caused by planets focus on Position 1 and 3 because they are straw men and miss the point. They are well argued above, but that are not what is taking place on the sun.
The reality of solar displacement from a constantly changing combined gravitational pull is that the sun is disturbed in a cyclical fashion and that there is at least some evidence of the inner planets having an effect on the position of sunspots, though I do not have anything to present about a mechanism for the latter. It seems there are others who have read widely on this subject and sifted the material for valuable observations. Most people are not correct on everything, sometimes only one thing, and it takes time to find a reasonable theory that fits most facts.
The correlation between solar activity (therefore weather) and planetary position is so obvious that people who thought the Earth was flat, who thought malaria was caused by bad air, and who thought that bleeding cured diseases, who knew very little about science as we understand it today, knew how to use the planetary positions and sunspots to understand how that was going to affect crops. Yes, this is a weak argument and it is easy to take cute pot shots at anything involving people in the past and yes, no one who hasn’t published a peer reviewed paper can’t make an informed comment (it’s good job I have or I wouldn’t know anything!)
But the alternative to something as obvious as this is unacceptable: that solar activity drives the position of the planets; that the cycles that occur repeatedly on the Sun are in fact pushing the planets to be conveniently in the same relative position with the same total sum and position of gravitational influence and thereby to ‘create’ the solar system’s planetary patterns through some non-gravitational, non-electrical force that emanates from the Sun.
Call me when you have some actual science to discuss, otherwise you are just wasting bandwidth bloviating here. – Anthony
Hi Anthony,
The development of scientific theory doesn’t begin with a full understanding of underlying mechanisms. It begins with observation, correlation and hypothesis generation. Then it continues by making predictions, testing them against observables, and refining the hypothesis. Eventually, with good luck and a following wind, a hypothesis will gain sufficient support through the accuracy of its predictions that the corpus of knowledge it must be reconciled with might be forced to reassess some of its underlying assumptions in order to accommodate the new theory.
These days, the inertia of the ‘consensus’ is mighty difficult to overcome, because positions become entrenched when much public money has been sunk in generating them and reputation is at stake. We know this from the climate wars. However, any honest assessment of our state of knowledge of the inner workings of the Sun, and the flows of energy in the wider cosmos will conclude that knowledge is still in its infancy in these areas. This fact should always be borne in mind when deciding how much weight to place on the pronouncements of the worthy incumbents of the hallowed halls of acedeme.
So we are discussing science, but it’s unfinished science. That makes it too far ‘out there’ for your taste and so we will pursue it elsewhere. But on the occasions when you make a strong claim here such as “New paper in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics demonstrates that planets do not cause solar cycles”, when in fact the paper is only addressing one of several possible mechanisms for the transfer of energy waves, particles or whatever, and the correlations which have been found have properly calculated Pearson R2 values demonstrating that the probability of the relationships being pure chance is as low as 10-10 in some cases, I think the onus is on you to ensure that debate is open, fair and both sides are held to the same standards of discourse. Which on the whole you’ve done a pretty good job of here, so thank you, and may your sceptical but hopefully still open mind rest in the knowledge that scientific truth always prevails in the end.
Cheers
TB.
REPLY: And again, I’ve seen nothing that impresses me in Barycentrism and its variants. As they say, correlation is not causation, and I don’t see the “several orders of magnitude too weak” gravitational effects as anything convincing. Plus the authors say in their conclusion that “Hence, planetary influences should be ruled out as a possible cause of solar variability. ”
It (barycentrism et al) looked interesting at first, but not anymore. I went in with an open mind months (now years) ago, now I’ve emerged with a healthy skepticism on the claims made. I gave Scafetta a platform, now he can’t even bring himself to allow his peer reviews to be scrutinized, which I find telling.
I’ll probably take down that page with the widget forecast, because I’ve lost a lot of trust, due to the sniping, and as you know, you have been a huge catalyst in my transformation. -Anthony
“David Ball says:
April 15, 2012 at 1:25 pm
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. ”
I agree. I almost hate reading anything about the sun here on WUWT because it turns into a “settled science” lesson from Leif. Well I am glad to see there isnt a consensus yet. /sarc off
Tallbloke,
Thanks for your spirited and well thought out responses to Anthony remarks. Unfortunately, he sometimes uses emotion and gut-feeling to filter his view(s) of the world.
When he does this, reason and logic often goes out the window.
He has lumped all those who promote the planetary hypothesis into the one basket and tarred each of us with essentially the same brush. All that this proves is that he is human. A failing that we all share.
If Anthony bothered to visit my site, he would know that:
a. I have long concluded that the Sun is in free-fall about the Barycentre – ruling out the
possibility that the Sun’s motion about the barycentre could produce internal motions
within the Sun.
b. In my 2008 paper, I presented tentative evidence that the equatorial rotation rate of the Sun
was correlated with the rate of rotation of the Sun about the Barycentre. I recognized that
this empirically derived correlation did not necessarily mean that Sun’s rotation rate and
Sun’s Barycentric motion were causally connected, however, I proposed that it might suggest a
spin-orbit coupling mechanism was involved.
c. I proposed a second model in which periodic alignments of Venus and the Earth produce
a tidal bulge in the out-layers of the Sun, and that the rotation rate of the outer layers of the
Sun was affected by the gravitational force of Jupiter tugging on this tidal bulge. The main
reason for proposing this tidal-torquing model was the fact many of its timing cycles
matched those that were observed in changes in the level of solar activity. I have openly
admitted that the forces associated with particular mechanism fall orders of magnitude short
of those needed to make this a viable mechanism.
d. I have openly admitted that there is known physical mechanism that explains why there
are distinct peridocities in the planetary motion that closely match those found in the levels
of long term solar activity (e.g. 2300 year Hallstatt cycle, 208 year de Vries cycle, 90 year
Gleisberg cycle, 22 year Hale cycle and 11 Schwabe cycle). I also acknowledge the fact these
periodicities are so similar, does not prove a causal link. However, I believe that these
correlations are worthy of further study as they strongly suggestive an underlying physical
mechanism may be present.
All through my studies, I believe that I have used the scientific method, along with reason and logic
to guide my investigations.
[Note: I cannot mention the additional peer-reviewed evidence that (I believe) proves the
general hypothesis that the level of solar activity cycle in the Sun is externally
influenced by planetary configuration(s), as it is still in press.]
REPLY: “If Anthony bothered to visit my site, he would know that:” Well when a) you post with a made up name, and b) don’t include a website, it is rather hard to even know of its existence. For all I know you are just another blathering kid living in his mom’s basement. If you want respect and recognition, stand up and be counted, otherwise don’t blame me for not figuring out your writings due to your own lack of transparency. – Anthony
Correction:
d. I have openly admitted that there is NO known physical mechanism that explains why there are distinct peridocities in the planetary motion that closely match those found in the levels of long term solar activity (e.g. 2300 year Hallstatt cycle, 208 year de Vries cycle, 90 year Gleisberg cycle, 22 year Hale cycle and 11 Schwabe cycle).