Guest post by David Archibald
Long suspected, it seems that this has now been confirmed by a paper in Astronomy and Astrophysics with the title “Is there a planetary influence on solar activity?” by Abreu et al that was published on 22nd October, 2012.
From the Discussion and Conclusions section:
The excellent spectral agreement between the planetary tidal effects acting on the tachocline and the solar magnetic activity is
surprising, because until now the tidal coupling has been considered to be negligible. In Appendix A we show that the possibility of an accidental coincidence can be ruled out. We therefore suggest that a planetary modulation of the solar activity does take place on multidecadal to centennial time scales.
The authors note that current solar dynamo models are unable to explain the periodicities in solar activity such as the 88 year (Gleissberg), 104 year, 150 year, 208 year (de Vries), 506 year, 1000 year (Eddy) and 2200 year (Halstatt) cycles. They adopted a different view by regarding the planets and the solar dynamo as two weakly coupled non-linear systems.
The idea that planetary motions may influence solar activity seems to have been initiated by Rudolf Wolf in the 1850s. While energy considerations clearly show that the planets cannot be the direct cause of solar activity, they may perturb the solar dynamo.
Specifically, the authors calculated planetary torque at the tachocline. The tachocline of the sun is a shear layer which represents a sharp transition between two distinct rotational regimes: the differentially rotating convection zone and the almost rigidly rotating radiative interior. The tachocline plays a fundamental role in the generation and storage of the toroidal magnetic flux that eventually gives rise to solar active regions. A net tidal torque is exerted in a small region close to the tachocline due to the buoyancy frequency originating from the convection zone matching the tidal period. The tachocline is thought to be non-spherical – either prolate (watermelon-shaped) or oblate (pumpkin-shaped). The authors’ model describes planetary torques acting on a non-spherical solar tachocline.
Figure 5 from the paper shows the 10Be record, shown as modulation potential, and planetary torque in the frequency domain:
Panel a is the Fourier spectrum of the solar activity quantified by the solar modulation potential. Panel b is the Fourier spectrum of the annually averaged torque modulus. The spectra display significant peaks with very similar periodicities: The 88 year Gleissberg and the 208 year de Vries cycles are the most prominent, but periodicities around 104 years, 150 years, and 506 years are also seen.
The match between theory and the physical evidence is very, very good. As the authors put it,”there is highly statistically significant evidence for a causal relationship between the power spectra of the planetary torque on the Sun and the observed magnetic activity at the solar surface as derived from cosmogenic radionuclides.”
They also advance a plausible mechanism which is that the tachocline, playing a key role in the solar dynamo process, is a layer of strong shear which coincides more or less with the layer of overshooting convection at the bottom of the convection zone. The overshoot layer is thought to be crucial for the storage and amplification of the magnetic flux tubes that eventually erupt at the solar photosphere to form active regions. Small variations in the stratification of the overshoot zone “of about -10-4 may decide whether a flux tube becomes unstable at 2·10-4 G or at 10-5 G. This makes a great difference, because flux tubes that do not reach a strength close to 10-5 G before entering the convection zone cannot reach the solar surface as a coherent structure and therefore cannot form sunspots.” This sounds like an explanation for the Livingstone and Penn effect of fading sunspots.
Figure A.1 from the paper also shows the very good correlation between cosmogenic radionuclides from the period 300-9400 years BP and the model output:
Upper middle panel: 14C production rate derived from the INTCAL09 record
Lower middle panel: solar modulation record based on 10Be records from GRIP
(Greenland) and Dronning Maud Land (Antarctica) and the 14C production rate
Bottom panel: Calculated torque based on planetary positions
If planetary torque modulates solar activity, does solar activity in turn modulate the earth’s climate? Let’s have a look at what the 10Be record is telling us. This is the Dye 3 record from Greenland:
All the cold periods of the last six hundred years are associated with spikes in 10Be and thus low solar activity. What is also telling is that the break-over to the Modern Warm Period is associated with much lower radionuclide levels. There is a solar mechanism that explains the warming of the 20th Century. It is also seen in the Central England Temperature record as shown in the following figure:
Conclusion
This paper is a major advance in our understanding of how solar activity is modulated and in turn its effect on the earth’s climate. It can be expected that planetary torque will progress to being useful as a tool for climate prediction – for several hundred years ahead.
Reference
J.A. Abreu, J. Beer, A. Ferriz-Mas, K.G. McCracken, and F. Steinhilber, Is there a planetary influence on solar activity?” Astronomy and Astrophysics, October 22, 2012
Thanks to Geoff Sharp, the full paper can be downloaded from here.
(Note: This post was edited for title, form, and some content by Anthony Watts prior to publishing)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
right Geoff
Here is my hypothesis: without Uranus-Neptun you woluld have a ~20 year cycle (from top to top), or we can identify it as a ~10 year cycle of change (10 years rising, 10 years sinking).
But Uranus-Neptun create these disturbances that “cancels the effect of Saturn”. So we get a period of low change, as if the Sun only was feeling Jupiter.
Now, the beatcycle of 10/11 years suggest a Gleissberg cycle of 96 years. So if we have a Gleissberg low, and disturbances from Uranus+Neptun, and the beat-cycle of 168 years of tidal cycles 11/12-years is “unfavorable”, we can get a severe Gleissberg slowdown that lowers the solar activity below a threshold, and thus triggers the grand minima. Of some reason the solar activity fails to “start up” again, and get caught in a different state… until it escapes and enters normal activity-phase
JAn 🙂
Hi Jan, yes without N/U there would be no grand minima and also no cycle variation
. Every cycle would be the same. Your observation of N/U canceling out S (or at least trying) is correct and this is where the orbit of the Sun changes. Normally the 20 year pattern is 10 years of the sun going on the outer loop and moving away from the SSB and then returning towards the SSB (inner loop). When the disordered inner loop occurs because N/U fights S the inner loop actually tries to be an outer loop for several years (this is a new type of retrograde orbit). The path of the disordered inner loop can go outside the distance of the radius of the Sun measured from the SSB, the further it moves away the greater the disturbance and the deeper the grand minimum. this is where the 3 prongs now come in, 3 strong orbit movements give sporer type minima etc.Throughout the Holocene this pattern holds up. My theory is that the highly disordered inner loop orbit reduces solar activity to a point where the affected cycle has a failure of the Hale cycle whereby one of the poles does not change polarity or stays neutral which then disrupts the next cycle. If another strong disruption to the inner loop follows after then you get a maunder type situation etc. Disruptions as shown via the graphs can occur multiple times within a 80-90 year window, the mix of these disruptions controls that epoch and because of the multiple options there can never be repeating cycles, but there can be an occurrence of the most common gap between grand minima which is the 208 year timeframe.
I see this function as outside of what controls cycle length, so the timing of the inner loop change can also be important. If the disturbance happens around cycle max it is wasted as seen in 1830.
The Gleissberg cycle is the modulation caused by N/U. The high point is always the N/U conjunction. At this point the outer loop is furthest from the SSB and the inner loop is closest to the SSB (SC19). You will never see high cycles when AM is low.
The following diagram displays all of the data mentioned above.
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/powerwave3.png
Geoff Sharp says:
November 14, 2012 at 2:27 pm
Hi Jan, yes without N/U there would be no grand minima and also no cycle variation. Every cycle would be the same.
I think you have lost it now…
Hi Geoff
We have some similar views, and some different 🙂
This is my hypothesis simplyfied:
First we leave out Ur+Ne and look at the 10 year cycle (10 years up, 10 years down in the AM/barycentre graph). The sunspot cycle wants to correlate with this one, but there is another cycle messing it up: the tidal cycle of 11 years.
This causes drifting in the 10 year cycle, until a phase-failure occurs (Gleissberg low). We then see a couple weak solar cycles, and then it gets back in phase with the 10 year cycle.
So in this simplyfied version there is much room for variation in the sunspot cycle.
Here you can see the drifting
http://www.sibet.org/solar/jusa02.wmv
But I seem to agree that Ur+Ne is needed to explain the grand minima. And this is how:
When the sunspot cycle has experienced a phase-failure (Gleissberg low), it would normally come back in phase and start up the stronger cycles again.
BUT if the startup-cycle finds a disrupted AM/barycenter bu Uranus+Neptun, it doesnt “get any energy”. In the stockmarket I would call this a “bottom-or-edge-of-cliff”… and in this case the edge of a cliff.
So the “solar dynamo” experiences a severe slowdown (a “trap”), that cant be reversed before decades later (grand minimum).
In the Maunder minimum this was the case at sunspotcycle -9 (around year 1646)
However after the Dalton we saw SC7 being able to start just soon enough before the Ur+Ne disturbance, and the solar dynamo escaped the trap. So in this case the tidal cycles allowed the sunspot cycle to begin early, and the disturbance was just a bit too late to ruin the party 🙂
When looking at current situation, I would expect this Gleissberg low to influence SC24 and 25, ending around year 2030. There is a mild Ur+Ne disturbance around year 2045, which is too late to create a trap and grand minima. Also the tidal cycles are not in the right state to create trouble the way I see it. So the Gleissberg should end around year 2030, and we get stronger cycles again. So looks like ~100 years until next chance…
Is there something to “The Jupiter Effect” after all?
lsvalgaard says:
November 14, 2012 at 2:54 pm
lsvalgaard says:
November 14, 2012 at 2:54 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
November 14, 2012 at 2:27 pm
Hi Jan, yes without N/U there would be no grand minima and also no cycle variation. Every cycle would be the same.
——————————————————
I think you have lost it now…
This is not a figment of imagination, rather it is what the data shows.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/powerwave3.png
If grand minima are excluded the data shows solar cycles are in step with Solar AM.
Before you can offer comment on a theory it is important to understand it’s base principles. I have offered a challenge some time ago to prove your understanding, but so far you have not illustrated the understanding required.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/216
janbenestad says:
November 14, 2012 at 3:37 pm
Hi Geoff
We have some similar views, and some different 🙂
I think we are on the same page. Although the 2045 AMP event looks to be almost non existent from my end.
Geoff Sharp says:
November 14, 2012 at 4:57 pm
If grand minima are excluded the data shows solar cycles are in step with Solar AM.
This is vague statement. ‘In step with’ means what? You explicitly said all cycles will be the same [amplitude?]. This is clearly wrong.
lsvalgaard says:
November 14, 2012 at 5:54 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
November 14, 2012 at 4:57 pm
If grand minima are excluded the data shows solar cycles are in step with Solar AM.
———————————————————————-
This is vague statement. ‘In step with’ means what? You explicitly said all cycles will be the same [amplitude?]. This is clearly wrong.
Let me attempt to make the point more clear. The natural trend in solar cycle amplitude (grand minima omitted) follows the the same trend in amplitude of solar AM. This is clear on the powerwave diagram. N/U are the ONLY planets capable of modulating the amplitude of solar AM outside of the base AM sine wave created by Jupiter and Saturn. The J/S sine wave does not vary in amplitude, but when the outer two planets are added amplitude is added when N/U are together. Without the AM change in amplitude only available from N/U the solar cycles would also not change in amplitude. AM or another aligned force would seem to drive the solar dynamo. This is part one of the theory which also lines up with observations.
Geoff Sharp says:
November 14, 2012 at 7:28 pm
Let me attempt to make the point more clear. The natural trend in solar cycle amplitude (grand minima omitted) follows the the same trend in amplitude of solar AM.
From Rikubetso, Hokaido, Japan [explains my tardy reply]
Apart from that not being the case, you are also [as I pointed out] throwing under the bus all planetary ‘mechanisms’ and ‘theories’ that rely on Jupiter and Saturn to regulate the amplitude of the solar cycle [by Vuk, Aubreu, Wolff&P, tallbloke (?), and all the rest]. In a sense that is OK with me as under the bus is where they belong. It is good of you to here confirm this.
lsvalgaard says:
November 15, 2012 at 3:45 pm
Apart from that not being the case, you are also [as I pointed out] throwing under the bus all planetary ‘mechanisms’ and ‘theories’ that rely on Jupiter and Saturn to regulate the amplitude of the solar cycle [by Vuk, Aubreu, Wolff&P, tallbloke (?), and all the rest]. In a sense that is OK with me as under the bus is where they belong. It is good of you to here confirm this.
If you wish to ignore the solid correlations that’s fine, but you run the risk of being left behind.
No one is under a bus here, Aubreu et al and Wolf & Patrone have both corresponded with me commenting on the synergy, tallbloke is working on the Z axis (which may offer subset data) that needs the outer 4 and he is also working on the cycle timing which is unrelated IMO and Vuk needs to add 2 more planets to his equation. No one has any claim on the full solution just yet, but the momentum is moving fast. Exciting times for us.
Geoff Sharp says:
November 15, 2012 at 7:19 pm
No one has any claim on the full solution just yet, but the momentum is moving fast.
It seems to me that everybody claims to have a full solution. What does not have momentum is your Angular Momentum idea. And your claim that without Neptune and Uranus all solar cycles would be the same. The rest of the gang claims that they have excellent correlation without N and U. You can’t have it both ways..
lsvalgaard says:
November 16, 2012 at 1:47 am
What does not have momentum is your Angular Momentum idea.
AM may just be a marker that exists closely alongside torque, velocity and other forces. They are all related. It seems the real division is with the Babcock boys, shallow dynamo, deep dynamo, fast and slow conveyor belts, crazy theories that say the solar poles drive the next cycle etc etc.
The sad part for you is that your own ranks are now joining us.
Are epicycles making a comeback?
There are some problems with the conclusions in the paper of Abreu et al.
The authors have compared their FFT torque frequencies with the FFT spectrum of Steinhilber et al. and their time calibration.
They do argue with solar tide forces from planets, without naming any planet or couple.
The named phantom cycles like de Fries etc. was given without any link to astronomical geometries.
It is not clear to me whether the calculated FFT frequencies are independent from the Steinhilber spectrum or not.
Well, it is well known since 2010 in this blog that the global temperature proxies can be simulated using astronomical solar tide functions of couples in the solar system which I have called Geometric Harmonic Index (GHI). *)
Depending on the number of couples I have introduced the basic GHI and many other GHIx up to GHI 11 to simulate the present RSS or UAH data.
http://doormann.tripod.com/images/uah_rss_ghi11_r_oct.gif
One can compare the spectrum of Steinhilber et al. with the GISP2 spectra in a time interval or in whole.
But also if there is a match this does not mean that the time calibration of the isotope data is of astronomical precision.
I can make use of a time interval of -2500 CE to -500 CE, and can compare it with different GHI compiles.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/dtsi_vs_gisp2_vs_ghi.gif
Trying to match the GHI for the last 2000 years, it seems that there is a time calibration that do not match with the astronomical time line.
This is also indicated if the FFT spectra of Steinhilber et al (green) are calibrated by a factor of 0.93333 in the frequency values, because the FFT spectra of the GHI2 (lightblue) and the GHI 4 (bue) does match then in the major peaks:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/compare1.gif
The point here is that all the calculated GHI spectra have basis in real planetary synodic tide functions and real positions on the heliocentric plane of the ecliptic.
However, it seems that there is no interest in research of solar system geometries neither in WUWT nor elsewhere.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/climate_code_s.htm
V.