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.
Ulric Lyons says:
April 16, 2012 at 7:30 am
“Given a very large quantity of high quality correlations of short term solar variability, including successful astronomically based based forecasts of the most practical kind, i.e. terrestrial weather predictions, there is no way planetary influences can be ruled out.”
That is what I find fascinating. Perhaps the “missing mass” is the biggest contributor with planetary distribution loosely following that. I know that’s not science, but fun to imagine none-the-less.
Nicola Scafetta says:
April 16, 2012 at 9:53 am
Geoff Sharp says: April 16, 2012 at 9:00 am
“Ok…if it is nothing to do with tides…what is your mechanism?”
The mechanism is linked to the tides as I already proved
Nicola, I am posing the question to Ulric re JEV effects on the solar cycle length.
vukcevic says:
April 16, 2012 at 9:56 am
The current density is meaningless since it is function of distance
The full quote is “on average the WIND MCs are just under one day long, are 1/4 AU in diameter, have axial fluxes of 10^21 Mx, have axial current densities of about 2µA/km2, and carry a total axial current(IT) of about a billion amps”
The magnetic flux is rooted in the sun so is the same everywhere in the rope. It is the flux that determines the current density and the total current. The billion amps is not concentrated in a thin wire but is the integrated current density over the cross section of the rope, which takes a day to pass the Earth, so the amps per second hitting the earth is only 10,000 on average.
If it makes you happy, you win, but go and have a rest, you have been at it for hours.
It is not about winning, but about your education and that does not seem to have improved. Dealing with the blog is done on the side and does not require much effort.
Nicola Scafetta says:
April 16, 2012 at 9:53 am
The issue is what is the right way to do the calculations because the empirical findings are clear!
Actually, they are not. A particularly example of bad science and empirical findings is your Auroral paper as we have discussed at length already [so no need to harp on its flaws again].
Over millions or more years that may happen. The issue is if it happens on time scales of centuries and shorter.
Fair enough, although I’m confused as to how you can eyeball this particular dynamical system and claim that there is no possible mesoscale dynamics capable of being affected when — wait for it — there is mesoscale dynamics that has pronounced periodicities that is precisely what we are addressing.
Even in a coupled dynamo model, if the dynamo loops are themselves subject to being lifted up and dropped down by a tidal force creating a bulge, even a small change in the that force might produce large changes in the areas under the bulge. If there are resonances in the coupled loops, changing the shape of the loops changes the resonances. If the resonances are involved in energy transport, modulating them even in small ways can have all sorts of nonlinear feedback.
How, exactly, are all of these possibilities excluded? Are you asserting that there is no tidal bulge/standing wave of the sun or that it does not change, or what? I ask in all ignorance, but just as one can play a theramin by waving one’s hands around “nearby” or alter modal patterns of a chaotic system with a proverbial flap of a butterfly’s wings (and at frequencies, note well, that look nothing like the wing beat of said butterfly) I’m not certain we know enough about solar dynamics to be able to conclude that this issue is in fact proven one way or another, especially by the paper in question. Perhaps you do, but if that is so I would expect you to be able to completely explain and predict the solar cycles we observe now in terms of a sufficient model.
Is this not a fair question? If you know the dynamics well enough to be certain that small (but systematic and persistent) perturbations have no chance of being nonlinearly amplified and (perhaps) acting as a resonant switch between two or more chaotic modes that represent the locally stable but distinct states that’s fine, but lacking that knowledge I would again assert that all the study above (and otehr studies and data) have proven is: a) The tidal force is weak compared to internal forces that drive the dynamics; b) so far, looking for a pure fourier correspondence between orbital periods and solar cycles shows some coincidences — but nothing convincing in favor of the hypothesis that planetary orbits are a causal influence.
a) isn’t really surprising, and isn’t a sufficient argument given that the Earth directly contradicts it by having weak tidal forces and yet large observable phenomena associated with them.
b) is the much stronger argument. Those observable phenomena on the Earth have an absolutely clear fourier signal that positively cries out “caused by sun and moon working together” long before you even figure out gravity, let alone tidal pseudoforces and tidal bulges. But does b) apply to the Sun? Here the very weakness of the tidal forces is in their favor! If they were a direct influence (as they might be if Jupiter were where, say, Mercury is:-) there would very likely be some sort of fourier components signature as the otherwise chaotic Sun slaved to the strong driving signal. But if the Sun is actually chaotic, the argument inverts — in that case you’ve got a bunch of coupled oscillators driven into the nonlinear regime to where it is quasiperiodic or multimodal. The tidal bulge (however weak) is one of the modes coupling to everything else, but the period of the signal is a solar day (give or take), not 60 years! What happens over 60 years (or whatever) is the modulation of the amplitude of the signal that is beating with the many other natural cycles already present.
Since we don’t know what they are, or how they work, it could be that this modulation is very important indeed — sometimes. Other times the phases and non-Markovian history could be such that it isn’t important at all. The Moon may have to be in the seventh house and Jupiter aligned with Mars before peace can guide the planets and love steer the stars, that sort of thing, where the modes being coupled to may not be periodic oscillations in the first place!
Again, my only objection is that this is not proof or demonstration that planetary orbits are not a “cause” (a, not the) — a factor that is important, but only when other conditions are just right. It is just an observation that if they are important, we cannot establish that importance — so far.
I don’t see why adding the qualification is a problem. When I teach Maxwell’s equations, I do try to teach my students that the “0” on the right side of Gauss’s Law for Magnetism (and the missing magnetic current in Faraday’s Law) don’t mean that there are no magnetic monopoles, only that we haven’t found any magnetic monopoles, looking rather hard — so far. That failure to discover them — so far — does not discourage people from looking for them, perhaps in exotic places like Lagrange points or at the center of gravity of asteroids, where gravity can bind them (as electromagnetic forces cannot).
Stating that they do not exist is bad science, even in E&M. So is saying that tidal forces exerted by the planets do not cause any aspect of solar cycles. Indeed, it is even worse science, because the physics is far more complicated and is poorly understood and involves things like magnetohydrodynamics in a plasma surrounding an ongoing thermogravitonuclear explosion with enormous energy flow and clearly self-organized macroscopic dynamics on many length and time scales, the precise arena where even a very weak perturbation can have a large effect.
So let’s agree to just say that no one has offered convincing evidence that they cause them in the form of either argument or evidence — so far.
rgb
Leif Svalgaard says: April 16, 2012 at 10:19 am
……………
Nope.
one ampere equals one coulomb per second
One billon amperes equals one billion coulombs per second.
Back to school.
@- Pamela Gray says April 16, 2012 at 6:51 am
“Izen, is your 20% including the water vapor connection or just the teeny, tiny rise in CO2 ppm itself? If you are including water vapor, this affect can be measured in terms of relative humidity. In CO2 theory, we should be seeing an increase in water vapor, thus relative humidity.”
The 20% refers to the approximate proportion of the GHE that is attributable to the CO2 alone. Obviously this varies according to the humidity, and is much more than this at altitude when the lapse rate takes the temperature below freezing reducing the humidity to negligible levels.
At lower altitudes humidity however is measurably increasing as a result of rising temperatures with a consequent increase in the GHE. –
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7163/abs/nature06207.html
“We identify a significant global-scale increase in surface specific humidity that is attributable mainly to human influence. Specific humidity is found to have increased in response to rising temperatures, with relative humidity remaining approximately constant.”
Leif Svalgaard says: April 16, 2012 at 10:23 am
Leif, my paper about the aurora does not have any error. In that paper I have proved that by taking 200 years of mid-latitude aurora data, that record presents the same oscillations of the solar system.
It is only your fantasy to find errors where they do not exist. You simply do not understand these issues that are evidently too complicated for you. If I were to publish the shameful comments that you wrote when you improperly reviewed my paper that little of respect that some people still have on you will vanish complitely.
Of course there are open issues, and not everything is clearly understood yet. But you, essentially, do not understand that in frontier science it is normal to have open issues that are not yet fully explained. You think that everytime an issue is not fully understood, the entire topic needs to be dismissed despite that other findings support it.
The empirical findings about the necessity of considering the planetary tidal forcing on the sun are evident, as proved in my papers, in particular the last one that you have not understood at all. And the teoretically findings are also evident to me, just wait.
At the moment you can enjoy reading this comment
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/15/new-paper-in-the-journal-of-atmospheric-and-solar-terrestrial-physics-demonstrates-that-planets-do-not-cause-solar-cycles/#comment-957826
which I found quite correct, and I say these same things in my paper.
You are simply been petulant as a person that does not have any good idea to propose, but just speak and speak and speak, without never listening.
Geoff Sharp says:
April 16, 2012 at 10:00 am
It seems as though tallbloke can wax on imposing his views, but when asked a solid question here he ignores
He has a phrase for that: “Argumentum ad ignore’em?”
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 16, 2012 at 9:51 am
“Because it is not gravitationally induced, but is due to heating [by the Sun] and resulting expansion of the air.”
True enough. So, that analogy fails. How would one calculate the gravitational deformation? Surely, this is a very complicated problem. Has anyone actually assayed a solution to it which is widely agreed upon?
Nicola Scafetta says:
April 16, 2012 at 11:01 am
If I were to publish the shameful comments that you wrote when you improperly reviewed my paper that little of respect that some people still have on you will vanish complitely.
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.
Bart says:
April 16, 2012 at 11:03 am
How would one calculate the gravitational deformation? Surely, this is a very complicated problem. Has anyone actually assayed a solution to it which is widely agreed upon?
the standard solution [not complicated] is shown on the last slide of http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202011%20SH34B-08.pdf
[snip . . please post with content . . thank you . . kbmod]
vukcevic says:
April 16, 2012 at 10:47 am
One billon amperes equals one billion coulombs per second.
The billion amperes is spread over a cross section that has a with of 1/4 AU. At the speed of the rope it takes a day for the Earth to cross that area, so the Earth never sees a billion amperes, but only 10,000 A during any given second. Put it differently: the total current in the part of the rope that the Earth crosses in one second is 10,000 A. Most of that current does not hit the Earth, but passes north and south of the Earth.
@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.”
So that ‘even attraction by the equivalent of trillions of strings’ would explain why there is no high tide on the side of the Earth that is opposite the Moon. Oh, wait….
Bart says:
April 16, 2012 at 9:39 am
Myrrh says:
April 16, 2012 at 12:29 am
Bart, Myrrh is trying to tell you that you are confusing theory with reality.
You guys are talking about real physical effects, which have nothing to do with Einstein’s theories of special and general relativity. REAL effects!
No one uses Einstein’s equations for anything…except for cosmologists counting the angels on the head of the pin.
Someone above doubted orbital resonance…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_resonance
Numerous people have mentioned it…the Solar System is not a linear system, it is Chaotic.
http://www.google.com/search?q=solar%20system%20chaos
Leif Svalgaard says: April 16, 2012 at 11:42 am
So, you are claiming that you know about mysterious and secret arguments against my paper that you cannot repeat in public! This is funny.
There are only three possibilities:
1) you have already made public your arguments many times on Anthony’s blog (for example, the planetary tides on the sun are small), but they are not really convincing and are quite naive indeed.
2) you have not made public your arguments on this blog because they are so shameful that you are the first one who does not believe in them.
3) some mixing between case #1 and #2.
So, what is the secret argument, Leif? Why don’y you share it with us?
About the tides on the Bay on Fundy, this is a video
Note that in that location the equation would only imply tides of a few decimeters, while the observation gives several meters. In the sun, the things are even more interesting.
vukcevic says:
April 16, 2012 at 10:47 am
One billon amperes equals one billion coulombs per second
1 Coulomb is the charge of 6*10^18 electrons, so one billion Coulombs per seconds is 6*10^27 electrons per second. One electron has a mass of 9*10^(-31) kg, so 1 billion Coulombs has a mass of 6*10^26 * 9 * 10^(-31) = 54*10^(-5) kg or 0.00054 kg if carried by electrons and 1836 times larger is carried by protons = 1.0 kg. The Earth intercepts a VERY small fraction of that: the ratio of the cross section of the Earth or its magnetosphere to a circle with a diameter of 1/4 AU or 37 million km. The effects are infinitesimal compared to the rope.
rgbatduke says:
April 16, 2012 at 10:43 am
“so far, looking for a pure fourier correspondence between orbital periods and solar cycles shows some coincidences — but nothing convincing in favor of the hypothesis that planetary orbits are a causal influence.”
I disagree: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/15/new-paper-in-the-journal-of-atmospheric-and-solar-terrestrial-physics-demonstrates-that-planets-do-not-cause-solar-cycles/#comment-957589
rgbatduke says:
April 16, 2012 at 10:43 am
Even in a coupled dynamo model, if the dynamo loops are themselves subject to being lifted up and dropped down by a tidal force creating a bulge, even a small change in the that force might produce large changes in the areas under the bulge. If there are resonances in the coupled loops, changing the shape of the loops changes the resonances. If the resonances are involved in energy transport, modulating them even in small ways can have all sorts of nonlinear feedback.
As is explained in the paper under discussion the sun’s convection zone consists of millions of large [Texas-size] convection cells that randomly move up and down a thousand kilometer at speeds on 1 km/second with a life-time of a quarter of an hour. In addition there are tens of thousands horizontal flows with a life time of 20 hours and speeds of 0.5 km/sec. These movements completely wash out any millimeter-sized influence on the scale of days, month, or years and exclude resonances because of the random nature of the movements
anna v says:
April 16, 2012 at 9:14 am
tallbloke :
April 16, 2012 at 8:48 am
It is futile arguing on this since you do not seem to understand the difference between dynamics and mathematical devices.
In his previous response Tallbloke said:
“The planets are what do things to the Sun, not the barycentre. They force it to gyrate in a complex motion between the continuously redistributing masses that are the orbiting planets. And if you sum the forces, you find that the Sun gyrates around the centre of mass of the entire system.”
And
“Whether you want to calculate from the Sun as a fixed point or the barycentre is your choice. The same relative motion will be derived whichever way you do it. But the barycentre imparts no forces, the separate masses in motion impart the forces. The barycentre is just a convenient (and real as you see the solar system from outside) locus.”
And
“We are assigning the dynamics to the planets and Sun, and the barycentre is a useful reference point which derives from the sum of the force vectors.”
I am forced to agree that discussing this with you is futile because no matter how many times I demonstrate to you the fact that we are well aware of where the forces originate and arrive, you still misinterpret what we say in order to make it look like we are trying to say the barycentre itself conveys the forces. It’s a straw man argument, and you are making yourself look silly by trying to stick it in our mouths.
Internally it is just a useful mathematical point correlated with the real dynamics. It certainly does not make the sun wobble.
We didn’t say it did. The planets make the Sun wobble, just like all the Sun’s with exoplanets we see out in space.
The equivalent tides on the sun are of the order of milimeters or so.
Agreed, but this doesn’t stop Jupiter and the other gas Giants causing the Sun to wobble by 2.2 solar diameters as it swings around the point in space which is the centre of mass of the Sun and moving planets.
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 16, 2012 at 11:45 am
“…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.
Crispin in Johannesburg says:
April 16, 2012 at 12:09 pm
“So that ‘even attraction by the equivalent of trillions of strings’ would explain why there is no high tide on the side of the Earth that is opposite the Moon. Oh, wait….”
That is the tidal effect. As I said, the degree to which the gravitational field is non-uniform across the body is the only effect possible. So, talking about “heaving about the SSB” is a misplaced analogy. There is no similarity here with, e.g., the centrifugal “force” one feels on turning a tight curve. That “force” is actually the force of your car seat tugging against your back side, and the stress induced by the rest of your body trying to keep up with your back side is what you feel. If your entire body were being accelerated in precisely the same manner at every point, you wouldn’t feel a thing.
[snip – Even though you are a skeptic, take your spiteful prose elsewhere, if you want to put your name to it while criticizing others who do, I’ll publish it, otherwise kindly shutup – Anthony]
rgbatduke says:
April 16, 2012 at 9:34 am
Well said Robert. I’d just add that while the forces acting over a solar day cancel in 25 days, the forces acting as the planets move above and below the solar equator go on for much longer. ~6 years a side for Jupiter, ~30 for Saturn ~86 for Uranus ~165 for Neptune. Whatever the interior of the sun looks like, it has a gradient with discontinuity in it at around 0.7r, and so there will be a significant quadrupole moment built up over years by the ‘z’ axis motion of the planets relative to the Solar spin axis.
I liked the rafting story too. Everything’s bigger in America. 🙂
peterhodges says:
April 16, 2012 at 12:20 pm
“No one uses Einstein’s equations for anything…except for cosmologists counting the angels on the head of the pin.”
You are wrong.
Einstein’s theory has been through the ringer over a century of very bitter disputation. But, it passed every test with flying colors, and its competitors failed one after the other. If your idea for countering the AGW tide relies on debunking Einstein, you have zero hope of prevailing.