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.
Leif said:
November 10, 2012 at 10:14 am
“BTW, Abreu et al. accepts that a dynamo is creating the solar cycle.”
All my postings since my 2008 paper (based on research that we did in 2005-2006):
http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/AS06018.htm
Does a Spin–Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the Jovian Planets Govern the Solar Cycle?
I. R. G. Wilson, B. D. Carter, and I. A. Waite
have been based upon the premise that planetary tides and forces were only operating as a modulator of the underlying solar dynamo.
If you go to blog site and look at my posting from March 2012:
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/planetary-spin-orbit-coupling-model-for.html
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/short-comings-of-planetary-spin-orbit.html
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/v-e-j-tidal-torquing-model-solar-maxima.html
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/v-e-j-tidal-torquing-model-maunder.html
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/why-does-solar-cycle-keep-re.html
You will see that I have been proposing this type of model (i.e. a spin-orbit coupling – which is achieved through a process of tidal torquing) since at least 2008.
Oh, Leif, you may want to watch this space as there is [much] more to come from the likes of Abreu et al….. Sit back an enjoy the show.
David Archibald says:
November 10, 2012 at 4:03 pm
the unnamed cooling event associated with the Be10 spike centred on 1890.
The 1890 10Be spike is probably an artifact [McCracken, personal communication] as the signal was very noisy and uncertain around that time.
Ninderthana says:
November 10, 2012 at 4:34 pm
Sit back an enjoy the show.
It is, indeed, somewhat enjoyable to watch all the contortions the enthusiasts go through, try to say “I said it all along”. Abreu et al. [if correct] effectively demolish all the magnetic waves, angular momentum, spin orbit-coupling, and beating oscillator, and the like theories. To save all the kooky theories you might begin to support the notion that the dynamo is shallow [which demolishes Abreu et al.]
Yesterday Joe D’Aleo had an interesting post on his weatherBELL site called, “Two schools of thought – science vs science fiction?” I urged him to submit it to WUWT because it shows the extremes, in terms of what sort of future we might face. Another Little Ice Age vs. Global Warming.
The Little Ice Age theory was in a Russian work called, “Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth” Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, Pulkovo Observatory of the RAS
Hopefully it will not annoy Leif too much, but the Russian paper does seem to suggest that a small change in TSI can make a big difference.
I don’t want the north any colder than it already is. However there is always a silver lining to any cloud, (even a cold Little-Ice-Age cloud,) and I have read that such a chill would be good for sugar maples and would increase the production of maple syrup, and also it might even lead to an increase in the population of codfish. (Buy stock in companies that make winter clothing? Might be a boom there, too.)
David Archibald says:
November 10, 2012 at 4:03 pm
tallbloke says:
November 10, 2012 at 2:56 pm
Well, well, well. That graph is very interesting. The correlation between the de Vries cycle and what I presume to be the Be10 record is very good a lot of the time. It is evident that the last de Vries cycle cooling event was the unnamed cooling event associated with the Be10 spike centred on 1890. So the Dalton minimum was not a de Vries cycle event, and the peak of the next de Vries cycle cooling will be in 2100. Therefore the current minimum must be a combination of some of the other cycles. But which ones?
David: Take your pick, They’re all heading downwards about now. We had the big C20th ‘highest in 8000 years’ solar max. Now the party is over, and the bill is presented.
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/tsi-lean2k.jpg
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 10, 2012 at 3:53 pm
The torque depends on the mass, not on the composition and Saturn is also involved. The SSB vector is there for the sole reason of providing the reference coordinate system [which they immediately transform to a sun centered one]
If that is the case then the paper is indeed a different theory to my own, but if so not mutually exclusive. Just as we have multiple drivers of climate there is no monopoly on the Sun. Perhaps Ian WIlson could confirm or deny any SSB xyz funtion included in the planetary torque values of this paper and also which planets are included.
I am aware composition is not important. Mass and distance for tidal forces is all that is required.
A major contribution to this paper would be a timeline plot of the torque calculations.
———————————————————-
I asked them to do that, and they did, but the result was so poor that they did not want to publish it.
If you can provide the data or detailed graph that would save a lot of time. I also take it you were involved in the review process?
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 10, 2012 at 3:53 pm
Martin Lewitt says:
November 10, 2012 at 12:42 pm
No extended body is in “free fall” under general
I don’t think anybody will claim that planetary effects are General Relativity effects.
There is a solar-planetary hypothesis based on relativistic effects. We are still working on it. R^2 against solar data from 1749 is only 0.6 t the moment, but there’s room for improvement.
Geoff Sharp says:
November 10, 2012 at 5:19 pm
Just as we have multiple drivers of climate there is no monopoly on the Sun.
Yeah, everybody’s theory is correct, they all contribute. Dream on…
If you can provide the data or detailed graph that would save a lot of time. I also take it you were involved in the review process?
I’m not at liberty to deny or affirm…
Caleb says:
November 10, 2012 at 5:04 pm
Hopefully it will not annoy Leif too much, but the Russian paper does seem to suggest that a small change in TSI can make a big difference.
That Russian paper is based on silly extrapolation of a trend that doesn’t exist. http://www.leif.org/research/Abdussa2.png and the extrapolation looks like wishful thinking http://www.leif.org/research/Abdussa2.png
tallbloke says:
November 10, 2012 at 5:05 pm
We had the big C20th ‘highest in 8000 years’ solar max
No we didn’t. C20th was not much different from the previous two centuries
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 10, 2012 at 4:19 pm
“And of the mass of the Galaxy and that of the Virgo Cluster. All the masses in the solar system, the galaxy, the universe determine the local curvature of space-time where the Sun is. The Sun moves freely such that time goes the slowest. That is free fall. Experiments show that all objects in free fall accelerate at the same rate, as noted by Galileo, is the basis of the Equivalence Principle, on which Einstein’s theory of general relativity relies.”
Leif, of-course this is true to a degree, to be specific as to why your argument is inaccurate, is in the exchange of gravitational forces of bodies in “free fall” simply put, the potential of object [A] can interact and exchange it’s potential with the potential of object [B] in free fall and vise-versa.
I found a somewhat quick and basic example of what I mean here.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/grav.html
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 10, 2012 at 4:42 pm
To save all the kooky theories you might begin to support the notion that the dynamo is shallow [which demolishes Abreu et al.]
Well now you’ve abandoned 50 years of deep dynamo theory, and headed out into the brave new world of untested hypothesis, you’re hardly in a position to describe other people’s hypotheses as “kooky”. Maybe you should be supporting the notion that the dynamo is modulated by planetary positions like Ian says. It’ll make your shallow dynamo that much easier to reboot following grand minima.
Geoff Sharp says:
November 10, 2012 at 5:19 pm
If you can provide the data or detailed graph that would save a lot of time
The best I can do is to use the graphs [not exactly what you want, but that is what we have to work with] from the published paper. Here is a comparison of the wavelet analyses of the solar modulation [at left] and of the calculated torque [at right] http://www.leif.org/research/Abreu-Wavelet-Comparison.png . I’m not impressed. Perhaps you will be convinced.
tallbloke says:
November 10, 2012 at 11:46 am
Those of us who have been aware of the progress of this paper throughout that time know how rigorously it has been vetted prior to publication.
It is not credible that you have been aware of this.
And you have produced no evidence to back that claim up. Conclusion: you are a bit economical with the truth, perhaps.
Sparks says:
November 10, 2012 at 5:33 pm
I found a somewhat quick and basic example of what I mean here.
Gravity is geometry, not exchange of particles or forces. You can describe gravity as if there is an exchange, but that does not have anything to do with free fall. Imagine an empty universe except for a binary star of perfectly symmetric shape. They orbit each other in perfect free fall and can be said to ‘exchange’ gravitons, if one wants to use that picture.
tallbloke says:
November 10, 2012 at 5:37 pm
Well now you’ve abandoned 50 years of deep dynamo theory
Well, you may notice that I have been pushing the shallow dynamo for several years. Did you understand the links I gave you? If not, try again. And it is not 50 years. Babcock’s model was a shallow dynamo. The deep dynamo was a later ‘panic’ proposal when it was discovered that the postulated strong flux tubes would rise in a month if placed anywhere in the convection zone, so would have to be put under the zone in the stable interior.
Climate is complex but surely any influence on solar activity will finally be reflected on our weather.
The irony is that astrology might have some scientific basis afterall. Alignment of planets causing sever weather ! Druids would have said I told you so but morden mann wouldnt listen and finds his own doom.
Leif, these currents could be affected by other process, I’m going with “the third option” where every piece of the puzzle is needed to build a bigger picture.
P. Solar says:
November 10, 2012 at 3:39 pm
“You may have to consider surface to mass ratio when comparing Jupiter to and orbiting satellite.”
True enough. However, consider also the much longer orbit period, and what might happen on a similarly scaled time interval.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 10, 2012 at 3:53 pm
“But you blithely put it forward.”
And, quite clearly indicated it as such. This is bad?
“The flux is always in the same direction so the planets are always pushed out [never in].”
Effectively a modulation of the radially directed gravity. Orbit prediction is exquisitely sensitive to the gravitational parameter, as every OA worth his salt knows.
“Comet tails are not due to solar wind pressure, but to ions picked up by the magnetic field in the wind.”
You might even say it “…results from ionization and magnetism.” I’m pretty sure somebody said that previously.
Sparks says:
November 10, 2012 at 5:33 pm
If you are talking about tidal forces, nobody will have any disagreement. Point masses are in free fall. Bodies of measurable extent will experience tidal forces. If you search for “tidal” on this page, that is what almost everyone is talking about.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 10, 2012 at 6:08 pm
“Gravity is geometry, not exchange of particles or forces. You can describe gravity as if there is an exchange, but that does not have anything to do with free fall. Imagine an empty universe except for a binary star of perfectly symmetric shape. They orbit each other in perfect free fall and can be said to ‘exchange’ gravitons, if one wants to use that picture.”
Leif, it is an inverse square law, force which depends upon the product of the two interacting sources. This is also called potential, Whether or not the the sources are in free fall a property of space-time geometry is included as a gravitational constant.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 10, 2012 at 5:49 pm
The best I can do is to use the graphs [not exactly what you want, but that is what we have to work with] from the published paper. Here is a comparison of the wavelet analyses of the solar modulation [at left] and of the calculated torque [at right] http://www.leif.org/research/Abreu-Wavelet-Comparison.png . I’m not impressed. Perhaps you will be convinced.
The only thing I am convinced about is that they might be onto something, but perhaps only at a high level. This would be confirmed if I could see a detailed planet torque graph and compare known grand minima. The detail would need to be at the level produced by the Carl Smith graph I use.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/sunssbam1620to2180gs.jpg
Its interesting that Neptune has an orbital eccentricity of 0.0086 in relation to the persistent period and phase of the 88-year solar cycle oscillation. Neptune has the most Circular orbit of all the larger outer planets. It’s also not a gas giant like Jupiter and Saturn, it is a large planet tugging on the sun and interacting with the potential of other planetary mass in the solar system.
Bart says:
November 10, 2012 at 6:28 pm
“…nobody will have any disagreement. Point masses are in free fall.”
Bart, I haven’t stated in anyway that the Sun is not in free fall. I was elaborating upon this in regard to what Leif said. I’m thinking out loud, I hope it’s constructive and not seen otherwise.
There is no chance that such correlation is incidental:
Bond and Bond 2001
North Atlantic
http://kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/bond-et-al-2001.gif
Neff et al 2001
Oman
http://www.sciencebits.com/files/pictures/climate/crcFig1.jpg
http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate#Neff
Mangini et al 2005
Austria
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v207/neuralnetwriter/GlobalWarming/JK_Austrian_Speleothem.jpg
Leif,
I know that you are educated enough to understand the following.argument. I am sure that most of those reading this blog will also understand it as well. The reason that I am giving it is to make sure that others on this list are aware that you have no pseudo-scientific hole in which Leif can “safely” hide.
If you start out with the hypothesis that: Changes in the relative rotation rate of layers in the convective layers of the Sun can influence the long-term strength of the solar dynamo (think of it as a Gedankenexperiment or thought experiment) {N.B. the following arguments are independent of the depth of the dynamo in the Sun’s convective layer}.
Ask yourself the question, is it possible for the planets to affect the relative rotation rate of layers in the convective layers of the Sun? .
Given the incredibly weak nature of gravitational and tidal forces between the Sun and the planets, the only feasible way to accomplish this is to:
a) produce an asymmetry in the spherical shape of layers in the convective zone of the Sun
b) have a tangential planetary gravitational force (i.e. a torque) acting upon these layers
c) assume that it is possible for these layers to slide over each other, allowing the layers to change in their relative rotation rates.
These three requirements logically leads to following TIDAL-TORQUING MODEL:
You need to use the strongest planetary tangential gravitational force to maximize b). This means that b) must be produced by the planet that acts on the Sun with the strongest gravitational force i.e. Jupiter.
You need to use the strongest planetary tidal forces in order to produce a)..Given that Jupiter is being used in this model to provide the tangential gravitational force, this leads to the choice of the alignments of Venus and the Earth, since they produce the greatest tidal distortions of the Sun’s convective layers, if you exclude Jupiter.
This model has the potential of producing the changes in the relative rotation rate of layers in the convective layers of the Sun that are required, however, it has two significant problems:
1) The combined tidal forces Venus and the Earth must be amplified by resonances between the orbital periods of these two planets and the layers in the convective layers of the Sun. [There is some evidence that this does in fact take place]
2) It assumes that it is possible for layers in the Sun’s convective zone to slide over each other, allowing the layers to change in their relative rotation rates..
If either of these problems are not overcome then the TIDAL-TORQUING MODEL fails.
The reason why I believe that these two problems are [in fact] overcome is justified by figure 8 on page 90 of our 2008 paper:
Does a Spin–Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the Jovian Planets Govern the Solar Cycle?
I. R. G. Wilson, B. D. Carter, and I. A. Waite
which can be downloaded for free from :http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/AS06018.htm
Figure 8 shows that there is an observable correlation between equatorial rotation rate of the Sun and its motion about the Barycentre of the Solar system. A correlation of this nature is telling you that there must be a TIDAL-TORQUING interaction between the planets and the Sun i.e. the dominant gravitational force of Jupiter must be acting tangentially on tidal distortions in the out layers of the Sun.
Leif Svalgaard said
November 10, 2012 at 4:42 pm
Abreu et al. [if correct] effectively demolish all the magnetic waves, angular momentum, spin orbit-coupling, and beating oscillator, and the like theories.”
Abreu et al. is a spin-orbit coupling model!
A tidal torquing model is exactly the same as a spin-orbital coupling model in the case of the planets and the Sun.
Tidal torquing takes place between two astronomical bodies if the gravity of one body acts upon tidal bulges induced in the other body e.g. the Earth-Moon system.
A spin-orbit coupling model for the Sun means that the rotation rate of the Sun varies with the orbit of the Sun about the Solar System’s Barycentre. This will occur naturally if there is tidal-torquing taking place between the Jovian/Terrestrial planets and the Sun.
Geoff Sharp says:
November 10, 2012 at 6:38 pm
This would be confirmed if I could see a detailed planet torque graph and compare known grand minima.
The best they have is their Figure 3: http://www.leif.org/research/Abreu-Torque.png
Did not impress me a whole lot.
Regardless of why solar behaviour is variable it seems clear to me that such variability changes the size of the polar air masses, the behaviour and / or positioning of the jets, global cloudiness and thus the amount of energy getting into the oceans to fuel the climate system.
Active sun gives less clouds, more energy in and an increase in energy flow through the system.
Quiet sun gives more clouds, less energy in and a decrease in energy flow through the system.
The timing of any climate consequences then being modulated by internal ocean cycling which can either oppose or supplement the solar effects for as long as it takes the thermohaline circulation to run a complete circuit.
Leif’s position seems to depend on the following propositions:
i) That where bodies are in free fall there is no interaction between them.
ii) That the changes in solar behaviour are negligible.
iii) That the frequent correlations between climate and solar activity are entirely coincidental.
iv) That there is no plausible mechanism whereby small changes in TSI or any other solar feature could affect the climate system from above.
I find his position to be implausible on each count. I see little evidence in support of any of those propositions.