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.
Seesaw effect?
Ninderthana says:
November 10, 2012 at 9:11 pm
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
Abreu’s mechanism does not produce an asymmetry, but assumes that there is a permanent asymmetry from the beginning.
Stephen Wilde says:
November 10, 2012 at 10:04 pm
i) That where bodies are in free fall there is no interaction between them. …
I find his position to be implausible on each count.
So, why is this particular count implausible?
All that is required is an oscillating stressor that causes the tension in the wrapped up magnetic flux tubes to vary so that as the tension increases to near rupture only a small additional stress is needed to cause many flux tubes to reconnect at once. The paper seems to posit that the core is a rigid structure and the convective zone is a rigid structure so that the shear concentrates across the tachocline. As already mentioned this is questionable because the tachocline is deep inside the sun and it would take too long for the reconnected flux tubes to rise to the surface. More likely the shear maximizes at some point in the convective zone relatively near the surface.
If the flux tubes reconnect at a relatively shallow depth the argument really doesn’t change. It is shear between differentially rotating layers that causes the flux tube reconnection. It is known that the meridional differential rotation rate of the photosphere varies with the solar cycle. This is strong evidence of the presence of an oscillating shear stress near the surface.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 10, 2012 at 10:04 am
[snip]
The AM ‘mechanism’ would not have worked anyway because the Sun is in free fall.
;———————————————————————-
In the 2 body gravitational approximation (or the free fall model) of the Moon and the Earth (the simplest integrable problem in solar system dynamics) the Moon is in free fall about the Earth.
It should be clear if there are more than 2 bodies, then the “free fall” model breaks down.
Also, the direction of the angular momentum of the Moon-Earth system in the free fall model is perpendicular to the plane of motion – and is a constant of the motion.
If you’re suggesting the angular momentum coupling of the Earth and Moon is invalid by virtual of Moon being in “free fall” about the Earth, then you don’t understand angular momentum (not to mention gravity.)
Ninderthana says:
November 10, 2012 at 9:11 pm
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
I think it is the other way around: that solar activity via Maxwell stresses control the rotation rate: http://www.leif.org/research/ast10867.pdf
“A dependence of the solar rotation velocity measured by magnetic tracers and solar activity and interplanetary magnetic field was found. An interplay between the Reynolds and the Maxwell stresses is proposed for the interpretation. As stated by Ruediger & Hollerbach (2004), the more magnetic the Sun is, more rigid is its rotation”
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 10, 2012 at 10:34 pm
What do you think?
Leif Svalgaard – You say to tallbloke “It is not credible that you have been aware of this.“. Looking back through my records, I see that I have been aware of this paper since at least March 2011, two months before its submission to A and A. It has been a long wait to see it finally published. Given that I have no involvement in solar physics etc, it is entirely credible that many others, such as tallbloke, would have known about it too.
As a matter of curiosity, is there any appreciable net magnetic influence between the sun and the planets? By appreciable, I mean comparable to gravitational tidal forces.
pochas says:
November 10, 2012 at 10:18 pm
All that is required is an oscillating stressor that causes the tension in the wrapped up magnetic flux tubes to vary so that as the tension increases to near rupture only a small additional stress is needed to cause many flux tubes to reconnect at once. The paper seems to posit that the core is a rigid structure and the convective zone is a rigid structure so that the shear concentrates across the tachocline. As already mentioned this is questionable because the tachocline is deep inside the sun and it would take too long for the reconnected flux tubes to rise to the surface. More likely the shear maximizes at some point in the convective zone relatively near the surface.
If the flux tubes reconnect at a relatively shallow depth the argument really doesn’t change. It is shear between differentially rotating layers that causes the flux tube reconnection. It is known that the meridional differential rotation rate of the photosphere varies with the solar cycle. This is strong evidence of the presence of an oscillating shear stress near the surface.
Howe & Hill have shown recently through helioseismology that the torsional ossification bands look to be generated at the Tachocline and take about 2 years to reach the surface. These bands are thought to carry sunspots.
I will try again….
pochas says:
November 10, 2012 at 10:18 pm
All that is required is an oscillating stressor that causes the tension in the wrapped up magnetic flux tubes to vary so that as the tension increases to near rupture only a small additional stress is needed to cause many flux tubes to reconnect at once. The paper seems to posit that the core is a rigid structure and the convective zone is a rigid structure so that the shear concentrates across the tachocline. As already mentioned this is questionable because the tachocline is deep inside the sun and it would take too long for the reconnected flux tubes to rise to the surface. More likely the shear maximizes at some point in the convective zone relatively near the surface.
If the flux tubes reconnect at a relatively shallow depth the argument really doesn’t change. It is shear between differentially rotating layers that causes the flux tube reconnection. It is known that the meridional differential rotation rate of the photosphere varies with the solar cycle. This is strong evidence of the presence of an oscillating shear stress near the surface.
Howe & Hill have shown recently through helioseismology that the torsional oscillation bands look to be generated at the Tachocline and take about 2 years to reach the surface. These bands are thought to carry sunspots.
Sunspots are electro and magnetic artifacts.
Is the activity result of a closed loop meridional motion of ‘magnetic entities’ with regular amplification(Babcock-Leighton) ?
or
Is the activity a less regular process but synchronized by an electro and magnetic feedback?
Surprisingly both of the above produce almost identical output
Results of research by:
Y.-M. Wang , J. Lean , and N. R. Sheeley, Jr. from Center for Space Research, Naval Research Laboratory, USA
and
S. K. Solanki – I. Baumann – D. Schmitt – M. Schüssler from Max-Planck-Institut, Germany
are compared here
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC17.htm
Leif,
“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.”
The orbital system would be generating gravity waves. Neither star could be rotating, and they could have no relative motion to each other, a situation which would obviously have to be temporary. Tidal forces would be creating a tidal bulge, spherical symmetry and lack of quadrupole moment would be lost, different parts of each start would be experiencing different space curvature. In GR only point test particles with zero extension are in free fall. Any extended body would have to be represented by multiple test particles and they would have different paths, resulting in torques.
Representing extended bodies as point masses in free fall is only an approximation, which breaks down, even in newtonian gravity when quadrupole and higher moments are present. The approximations can be good for many uses, and the GR effects orders of magnitude smaller.
Agile Aspect says:
November 10, 2012 at 10:20 pm
“It should be clear if there are more than 2 bodies, then the “free fall” model breaks down.”
It doesn’t break down for more than 2 bodies. The number of bodies is immaterial.
The only way the presence of a neighboring gravitational body or bodies can be detected by another body is by differential stresses induced across the latter by the former, due to fact that the gravitational attraction is not constant across the physical volume. To the extent that the gravitational attraction is not constant, there is a divergence of geodesic paths for neighboring molecules.
This divergence gives rise to what we call “tidal forces”, and that is the only manner in which the “free fall model” can be said to “break down”. It does not matter if the path taken by a particular body appears to be a series of wild curlicues relative to a distant observer. If the motion is induced by gravitation, the body does not “feel” the motion, except and exclusively to the extent that neighboring differential volumes are being tugged in different directions.
This is precisely what makes gravity so special as a force of nature – it acts on all masses within its sphere of influence exactly the same, with no shielding of its influence possible. If you are thinking, e.g., of an analogy with the “forces” one feels on an amusement park ride like this, that is a completely inappropriate analogy. You feel those forces because your body wants to move in a straight line, while the teacup constrains you to move with it. The differential between the acceleration of the parts of your body in contact with the teacup versus those which are not in contact is what makes you sense the motion. In a gravitational field, to the extent that the field is constant throughout your body, every part of your body is being accelerated exactly the same amount. Ergo, you feel nothing.
Mike Jonas says:
November 11, 2012 at 12:01 am
Leif Svalgaard – You say to tallbloke “It is not credible that you have been aware of this.“. Looking back through my records, I see that I have been aware of this paper since at least March 2011, two months before its submission to A and A. It has been a long wait to see it finally published. Given that I have no involvement in solar physics etc, it is entirely credible that many others, such as tallbloke, would have known about it too.
As Leif Svalgaard says when asked if he was a peer reviewer of the paper:
“I’m not at liberty to deny or affirm….”
Yet he casts aspersions on me because:
“you have produced no evidence to back that claim up. Conclusion: you are a bit economical with the truth, perhaps.”
You can have a look at the Steinhilber et al model reconstruction my co-blogger Tim C was working on before March 2011 and draw your own conclusions though. note the 2011/02 datestamps in these URL’s.
http://daedalearth.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/sbf-tsi-a.png
Here is the comparison with the original data:
http://daedalearth.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/sbf-tsi-c.png
And the Spectral analysis of the data and the model:
http://daedalearth.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/sbf-tsi-b.png
Anyway, as you can see from Leif’s attempt to cast aspersions on the Abreu et al paper in his very first comment on this thread, he evidently believes that because the paper was received and accepted on the 17th May 2011 it therefore received no peer review at all, so how could he by his own account have been a reviewer for it, and why would he leave this as an open question? (Even though it was pointed out that the finally published paper contains reference to a 2012 paper, demonstrating that it underwent a series of revisions prior to publication 17 months later in Oct 2012).
I’m not the one with the credibility issue here. We have been working on the solar-planetary theory for the last four years and put up with the constant abuse, misrepresentation and all round ignorant behaviour from the man who successfully brought about the demise of the forums at solarcycle24.com before doing his best to wreck WUWT. Many of the people who enjoy “discussion on a civil and scientific level” have already left.
It’s a sunny day, I’m going for a walk.
tallbloke says: November 10, 2012 at 2:50 pm
…………….
Also of interest is the plot Vukcevic made of successive Jupiter – Saturn alignments along the Parker Spiral at solar minimum.
the above mentioned graph direct link is:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/J-S-angle.htm
This would suggest that the solar meridional circulation is a primary process with the secondary electro/magnetic feedback regulated modulation/synchronization
Hence the Babcock-Leighton hypothesis may be partially correct if the magic ‘amplification’ (that no one can explain how it works) is rejected in favor of the feedback synchronization as proposed by Vukcevic.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC17.htm
The evidence of planetary affects on climate has been around for years. We can see a ~1,000 year cycle (previously mentioned in WUWT posts) and a 60 year cycle which was rising for 30 years prior to 1998, but is now declining, offset in part by slight rising in the 1,000 year cycle as it approaches a maximum. .
Hence the last 14 years of world climate records clearly indicate that there has been no net warming since this time in 1998. That is, there has been no net accumulation of energy in the Earth system – probably a slight loss in fact. So net radiative imbalance at TOA must also have been in accord with a cooling climate, not a warming one.
But all those energy diagrams and models “predicted” carbon dioxide would cause extra warming. If this fails to happen in 14 years, it can also fail to happen in the next 600 years, by which time I predict the world will be back at a minimum similar to the Little Ice Age.
The reason the energy diagrams are wrong is because they assume (and clearly indicate) dual heat flows between the surface and the atmosphere. They imply that radiation always transfers heat in the same direction. They assume that, if the net heat transfer is from hot to cold, then all is OK. But the two processes they assume happen are independent. A heat flow by radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface does not force a greater flow of radiation out of the surface which is due to the surface being warmed more. Any such preliminary warming, no matter how infinitesimal, would be a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
The only possible correct physical explanation is that which I have summarised starting on p.47 of Joseph Postma’s October 2012 paper. My reasons for such are also therein.
Unless and until scientists understand when and by how much radiation transfers heat, they will continue to fumble with hypothetical, invalid concepts which mislead the world with their carbon dioxide hoax.
In my house I have two heaters, a reverse cycle A/C and a French parlour stove that runs on wood. Both of these are ultimately powered by the sun. The Earth has but one ultimate heat source the sun, anything that affects dear old sol will change our heat source in some way.
That our climate tends to cycle in overlaying sine waves some times adding and some times subtracting, giving us variations, can only possibly be cosmological, as nothing on earth has these frequencies. The harmony of the spheres is coming back to haunt to catastrophists.
It is good to see Tallbloke here, for it is clear thinkers like he that may solve some of the deeper mysteries of our sun god without the need of sacrificing virgins.
tallbloke said: on November 10, 2012 at 5:05 pm
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/tsi-lean2k.jpg
My favourite graph of the moment. If only it went to 2100. But looking at it, that would produce an all too controversial result which I guess is why Tim Channon didn’t extend it to 2100.
A graph that upsets both the “co2 is everything” brigade and the “TSI isn’t strong enough” brigade. Fine by me.
For David Archibald,
What, if any, impact does this paper have on your 2008 prediction re the US and other mid latitude regions? In your March 2008 presentation “Solar Cycle 24: Implications for the United States” for the International Conference on Climate Change (available from your website), you stated:
“2008 is the tenth anniversary of the recent peak on global temperature in 1998. The world has been cooling at 0.06 degrees per annum since then. My prediction is that this rate of cooling will accelerate to 0.2 degrees per annum following the month of solar minimum sometime in 2009.”
I think the month of solar minimum in 2009 was January? Clearly the predicted cooling hasn’t happened. In fact the US in particular has warmed at a rate of +0.27C per annum since Jan 2009 (UAH). Globally, the temperature trend since the peak that occurred in April 1998 is currently slightly positive, at +0.01C per annum (UAH), well up from the cooling trend you reported in March 2008.
I just wondered if anything you’ve found in this paper might have influenced your predictions in 2008, and perhaps improved their performance? Thanks.
tallbloke says:
November 11, 2012 at 1:08 am
You can have a look at the Steinhilber et al model reconstruction
The Steinhilber data has been around for a while [and published several years ago]. It is not credible that you have been aware of the A&A paper and the details of its peer review cycles. Abreu et al. have kept this very close to the vest.
Anyway, as you can see from Leif’s attempt to cast aspersions on the Abreu et al paper in his very first comment on this thread, he evidently believes that because the paper was received and accepted on the 17th May 2011 it therefore received no peer review at all, so how could he by his own account have been a reviewer for it, and why would he leave this as an open question?
The paper has been submitted to other journals and rejected there. The particular A&A paper was submitted on May 17 and accepted the same day. That does not leave much room for serious review. Adding a reference after acceptance during copy-editing is not unusual. Often the reference in the submission is labelled as ‘paper submitted’ or ‘in press’. The Journal then on its own fills in the final reference when it becomes available.
Leif said
I was hoping you had a new slant on the standard theory as the standard theory in it’s current form does not adequately account for the timing of the onset of glacial periods and cannot be used to predict the timing of the next glacial period and perhaps more importantly the rate at which it will progress.
We do therefore need some innovative thinking and research on this subject as the implications for society exceed even the most extreme scenarios posited by the co2 brethren.
It is inevitable that any hypothesis or theory leading to an improvement in this situation will attract criticism, but,
that’s a Leif quote, is it not ?
J Martin says:
November 11, 2012 at 3:49 am
the standard theory in it’s current form does not adequately account for the timing of the onset of glacial periods and cannot be used to predict the timing of the next glacial period and perhaps more importantly the rate at which it will progress.
This is a popular myth, that is dispelled here http://www.leif.org/EOS/2006GL027817-Milankovitch.pdf
“The available evidence supports the essence of the original idea of Koeppen, Wegner, and Milankovitch as expressed in their classic papers [Milankovitch, 1941; Koeppen and Wegener, 1924], and its consequence: (1) the strong expectation on physical grounds that summertime insolation is the key player in the mass balance of great Northern Hemisphere continental ice sheets of the ice ages; and (2) the rate of change of global ice volume is in antiphase with variations in summertime insolation in the northern high latitudes that, in turn, are due to the changing orbit of the Earth.”
“if the match is good enough”…that’s a Leif quote, is it not ?
I don’t think the match is good: http://www.leif.org/research/Abreu-Wavelet-Comparison.png
J Martin says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
November 11, 2012 at 3:01 am
The controversial result being a deeper minimum at about 2100 than the Maunder minimum.
That’s based on noticing that the graph delivers a pretty good match for the Maunder minimum with both the two largest curves going low during that period but not getting anywhere near coinciding.
BUT, it looks as if the two largest curves will virtually coincide at about 2100 thus producing a deeper low than the Maunder minimum. I can’t work out what effect the other smaller curves may have then just by looking at it, so it would be nice to see the author extend it to 2100 so we can see.
J Martin says:
November 11, 2012 at 3:01 am
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/tsi-lean2k.jpg
My favourite graph of the moment.
Not even Lean believes in that old, obsolete reconstruction.
Angular momentum is conserved. Over time, the Earth’s rotation slows. To compensate for that loss of AM, the Moon moves further out. So AM CAN affect bodies distant from each other. Free fall has nothing to do with it.