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, Thankyou for the Gerard Roe paper;
had he projected forward a hundred or a thousand or a hundred thousand years or so I might be tempted to describe it as a seminal paper.
But without a forward projection, what use is it ?
Though doing such a thing would bring the risk of loss of funding from the “co2 causes everything” administration.
I shall read it thoroughly nonetheless.
I have a feeling here (in this article) lie the secrets:
Possible mechanisms?:
1. Alterations to the sun’s dynamo, hence magnetosphere.
2. Subsequent effects on solar output, or at least radiation reaching earth
3. Alterations to the sun’s core, effects of reactions output
4. Alterations to the earth’s dynamo (sometimes the core moves faster, sometimes slower) effect on radiation reaching earth.
5.Alterations to the processes of the earth’s core, reactions, heat output.
6. All or any combination of the above.
7. Others…?
Can’t grasp Leif’s idea there is no gravitational tidal effect due to freefall state – this effect is clearly illustrated by the effect of the moon on the earth.
Here lie the secrets, watch this space.
Bart says: November 11, 2012 at 1:04 am
Agile Aspect says:November 10, 2012 at 10:20 pm
All sensible acceptable and understandable.
Surely it is conceivable that these effects could be of huge import where you have vast molten cores (theoretically?) producing dynamo effects and magnetospheres, and at least one molten core which is a gigantic thermonuclear reactor?
Just wondering how many times Leif and Tallbloke have been reviewers of submitted papers. That would give me an indication of who would have a better understanding of the actual process.
Leif Svalgaard said:
November 10, 2012 at 10:34 pm
“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”
Thanks Leif, a constructive comment and an interesting idea.
I may upset some om allies hear but I support Leif’s contention that according to
current Physics principles the Sun is in free-fall about the Barycentre. Is always
possible that this claim may be wrong but it is up to those who disagree with the
Equivalence Principle to show why it is wrong [and yes, I know that good-faith
attempts have been made].
Correction for typos – sorry,
Leif Svalgaard said:
November 10, 2012 at 10:34 pm
“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”
Thanks Leif,, a constructive comment and an interesting idea.
I may upset some of my allies hear but I support Leif’s contention that according to
current Physics principles the Sun is in free-fall about the Barycentre. It is always
possible that this claim may be wrong but it is up to those who disagree with the
Equivalence Principle to show why it is wrong [and yes, I know that good-faith
attempts have been made].
Interesting.. Problem is we are only guessing how the Sun works internally. I still don’t understand why Sunspots look dark.
J Martin says:
November 11, 2012 at 3:01 am
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.
We didn’t extend it further because it is a tentative and provisional result. The further out you go, the less accurate it will be, due to the imperfection of Lean’s TSI reconstruction and the strong possibility that the true cycles aren’t nice neat sinusoid shapes anyway. As Leif says, the Sun is a messy place.
Another unsatisfactory aspect is that although many of the periods in the seven cycles are close to observed planetary and planet pair periods, they are not exactly at those frequencies. This will be due to the imperfection of the Lean TSI reconstruction and to non-linear solar responses to planetary modulation. Once we have completed other studies which approach the problem from different angles, better constrained the non-linearities and found the relevant periodicities which are common to different approaches, we hope to offer an updated and improved forecast.
As it stands, I think the forecast is reasonable for the timeframe we have offered. Treat it as having +/-15% error bars.
Time will tell. In the meantime, I have a cunning plan for improvement.
****
Nicola Scafetta says:
November 10, 2012 at 12:16 pm
Hoping that Anthony realizes that Leif’s comments are based only on his prejudices, not on real science, and his past behavior is highly unprofessional. As all solar scientists who reject the planetary theory of solar variation, Leif too has no idea of what causes the solar dynamics to behave as it behaves, beginning with the origin of the 11-year solar cycle.
****
I find his physics to be impeccable, well explained and relatively easy to understand. And tho Anthony makes an effort to present alternative views, I see no indication he thinks Dr S is prejudiced. Nor do I.
REPLY: I agree. Nicola’s arguments are often more rooted in emotion than they should be. – Anthony
This actually makes a great deal of sense when you think about it. What would cause such reliable periodic changes in the output of the sun? Chaos was never really a satisfactory explanation. There’s only really one force on the sun that varies, which is gravity, and there’s only only one periodically changing source of that, which is the orbit of the planets.
Fascinating stuff, thanks for posting.
this work is known aswell ?
TESTING THE LINK BETWEEN TERRESTRIAL CLIMATE CHANGE AND GALACTIC SPIRAL ARM TRANSIT
A Shaviv / Veizer paper in GSA Today was reason to Rahmstorf to “cry for help” (climategate mails)
Shaviv ans Veizer let follow a reply to Rahmstorf
Re: Extra Terrestial Influences on Nature’s Risks. Brent Walker 2012 http://www.actuaries.org/HongKong2012/Papers/WBR9_Walker.pdf
The paper is a masterpiece of clear concise communication of scientific knowledge.
If you doubt that, read the above paper first, then try to do a very quick read of Hansen’s work: Paleoclimate Implications for Human-Made Climate Change James E. Hansen and Makiko Sato
(here at: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110118_MilankovicPaper.pdf)
(In my opinion Hansen and Sato is a masterpiece as an example of modern scientific obfuscation. If there were Nobel prizes for obscuring your meanings, methods and messages, these authors should win it. Anything authored by Michael Mann would be a close second).
The historical background at the beginning is fascinating enough, then the author goes on to discuss in detail:
Summary of our solar system
Sunspots and solar activity
Solar activity vs atmospheric effects
Covering Solar system barycentre (SSB)
Gravity, Tidal Forces, Tidal Heating
Effects of photons on the thermosphere and exosphere
Atmospheric temperatures and geomagnetic effects
ENSO/PDO interactions vs Solar cycles
Sun’s magnetosphere
Subatomic particles
An example of the clear communicative writing style, and the interesting information discussed is below:
It is mindboggling that there should have been any difficulty publishing a detailed readable, fascinating paper such as this which lays out all (most?) of the physical forces and cycles involved in our solar system, especially so the sun/earth interactions.
This work is known ?
This article in GSA Today was strongly attacked be Rahmstorf
Parts of the “discussion” here.
The “cry for help” by Rahmstorf can be find in the first Climategate mails.
Ninderthana says: November 11, 2012 at 5:53 am
“….I may upset some of my allies hear but I support Leif’s contention that according to
current Physics principles the Sun is in free-fall about the Barycentre….”
Interesting discussion.
Taking into account the relative masses involved I presume it is the SSBC which moves about the sun, although all (?) the published diagrams seem to show the sun moving in relation to the solar system barycenter.
Quote from Walker’s paper: The Sun dominates the solar system and contains 99.85% of its mass. The planets contain 0.135% of its mass of which Jupiter has more than 2/3rds. The planets’ satellites (moons) contain 0.0005% of the mass of the solar system…..
But that detail would not alter all of those little tidal surges at all.
markx says:
November 11, 2012 at 5:29 am
Can’t grasp Leif’s idea there is no gravitational tidal effect due to freefall state – this effect is clearly illustrated by the effect of the moon on the earth.
There are always tidal effects. The issue is if there are other effects besides.
Robert of Ottawa says:
November 11, 2012 at 5:58 am
I still don’t understand why Sunspots look dark.
They are not dark at all. They are more that white-hot. If you took the smallest sunspot we can see and remove all of the rest of the Sun, leaving just that tiny, tiny spot ‘hanging’ in the sky, it would shine brighter than the full moon. Sunspots look dark because of the contrast to their even brighter surroundings. Sunspots are slightly cooler than the surrounding photosphere and therefore radiate 5 times less per square meter. They are cooler because the strong magnetic field in the spots interferes with the free convection of heat from below.
Leif kindly referred us to the following:
“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.”
What if summertime insolation (reaching the surface) can also be altered by solar induced cloudiness changes other than from orbital influences ?
That would produce the temperature variations observed within glacial epochs and interglacials would it not ?
One of the ‘problems’ we have is that significant temperature swings occur periodically during both glacial epochs and interglacials and they are apparently most severe during glacial epochs.
See here for a discussion of Bond events (during interglacials) and Dansgaard-Oeschger events (during glacial epochs).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansgaard%E2%80%93Oeschger_event
We need something other than orbital changes to explain that and I think that solar induced cloudiness changes would be quite sufficient for the purpose.
Sparks says:
November 10, 2012 at 11:57 pm
What do you think?
I am a coauthor of that paper…
Stephen Wilde says:
November 11, 2012 at 8:02 am
We need something other than orbital changes to explain that
From your Wiki reference:
“D-O cycles may set their own timescale. Maslin et al.. (2001) suggested that each ice sheet had its own conditions of stability, but that on melting, the influx of freshwater was enough to reconfigure ocean currents – causing melting elsewhere. More specifically, D-O cold events, and their associated influx of meltwater, reduce the strength of the North Atlantic Deep Water current (NADW), weakening the northern hemisphere circulation and therefore resulting in an increased transfer of heat polewards in the southern hemisphere. This warmer water results in melting of Antarctic ice, thereby reducing density stratification and the strength of the Antarctic Bottom Water current (AABW). This allows the NADW to return to its previous strength, driving northern hemisphere melting – and another D-O cold event. This theory may also explain Heinrich events’ apparent connection to the D-O cycle; when the accumulation of meltwater in the oceans reaches a threshold, it may have raised sea level enough to undercut the Laurentide ice sheet – causing a Heinrich event and resetting the cycle”.
Tom in Florida says:
November 11, 2012 at 5:47 am
Just wondering how many times Leif and Tallbloke have been reviewers of submitted papers. That would give me an indication of who would have a better understanding of the actual process.
For years I have reviewed a dozen+ of papers per year…
Fair enough, but it delivers a reasonably close approximation to both the Dalton and the Maunder which was some 400 years ago, so I would argue that extending it 100 years into the future is not unreasonable and not stretching the model too far.
Wouldn’t it be tempting to generate a graph using the nearest planetary and planet pair periods ?
That’s a lifetimes work just there. I look forward to the “updated and improved forecast”, but worry that you still won’t extend it to the obvious point of interest, the year 2100.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 11, 2012 at 4:38 am
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.
Well, the lower amplitude one she produced later is still pretty much the same shape as regards the proportions and timings, Just the amplitude of the individual cycles changes in relation to the long term variation, so the obsolescence of the older one doesn’t affect our cycles analysis much because we can just bump up the amplitudes of the cycles producing the 11 year cycle. Because the timings don’t change much, the prediction doesn’t change much either.
Is this SORCE/TIM reconstruction the latest word Leif?
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/tim_tsi_reconstruction_2012.jpeg
Ninderthana says:
November 11, 2012 at 5:53 am
Leif Svalgaard said:
November 10, 2012 at 10:34 pm
“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”
Thanks Leif,, a constructive comment and an interesting idea.
I may upset some of my allies here but I support Leif’s contention that according to
current Physics principles the Sun is in free-fall about the Barycentre. It is always
possible that this claim may be wrong but it is up to those who disagree with the
Equivalence Principle to show why it is wrong [and yes, I know that good-faith
attempts have been made].
As Martin Lewitt pointed out, there is no freefall under current physics (relativity).
According to the hypothesis I’m working on with Ray Tomes, relativistic effects due to gravity changes produced by the motion of the planets above and below the solar equatorial plane as they orbit and the velocity of the energy moving from solar core to solar surface will produce an internal N-S oscillatory motion of the core relative to the surface layers of around 140 metres at the decadal timescale . This doesn’t sound like ,much, but will affect the radiant output of the Sun by something like 4*20/56000 or 0.14%. Due to pressure differences, it would also strongly affect meridional flows under the surface layer, which will in turn affect the surface rotation rates at various latitudes. The timing and amplitude of these meridional variations is similar to those which are observed. See for example A&A 509, A30 (2010) Long-term variations in the mean meridional motion of the sunspot groups J. Javaraiah.
There’s still some way to go with this one, but it’s looking good.
Leif,
It may be that D-O cycles and/or Bond events could be reset internally as proposed but I suggest that in fact they are set and reset by cloudiness/albedo changes induced by solar variability.
I think that the authors in proposing ‘internal’ system resetting would have been unaware of the extent to which solar changes can affect global cloudiness and thus surface insolation.
For me, the decreasing cloudiness (and more zonal jets) of the late 20th century when the sun was active and the increasing cloudiness (and more meridional jets) since the sun became less active after the peak of cycle 23 has been an eye opener.
That should have been an eye opener for AGW proponents too because their theory proposes more humidity leading to more clouds and a greater insulating effect.
In fact. cloudiness decreased during the warming spell which is the opposite of their proposition. Now, cloudiness has increased and warming has ceased with maybe cooling to come despite still increasing CO2.
Either I will be proved right or wrong in due course but at present a lot of new papers are fitting that scenario.
I am pretty confident that all the climate changes we have observed are the result of changing solar effects on global cloudiness caused not by the Svensmark effect but by changes in jetstream behaviour and the length of the lines of air mass mixing.
Zonal jets give less global cloudiness and more energy into the oceans. Meridional jets give more global cloudiness and less energy into the oceans.
And, as tallbloke says, your revised solar data only affects amplitude and not the basic shape of the pattern of solar variability. I told you that a couple of years ago.
As long as the pattern remains the amplitude is of little significance so much of your recent effort in reducing the amplitude of solar variability may well be in vain as far as climate consequences are concerned.
tallbloke says:
November 11, 2012 at 8:37 am
Well, the lower amplitude one she produced later is still pretty much the same shape as regards the proportions and timings, Just the amplitude of the individual cycles changes in relation to the long term variation
It is not about the amplitudes of the individual cycles, but about the long term background. In her work with Wang in 2005, they produced a much smaller background variation:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.png
Is this SORCE/TIM reconstruction the latest word Leif?
No. And it is not a SORCE/TIM reconstruction. It is Greg Kopp’s. The problem with this and similar ones is the [unwarranted and unsupported] assumption that there is a background level given by the cycle average of the Group Sunspot Number [which itself is flawed]: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-Background-Not.png
The assumption has failed in the last decade.
As one can represent almost any function by the sum of a number of sine waves, I’m sure you can reproduce any TSI reconstruction equally well, even my guess http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-Guess.xls
Try it.