“Barycentric” influence of the planets on the sun is just statistically insignificant, and a previous paper that claims to find a signal in isotopic records is proven to be nothing more than a statistical artifact.
In 2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics published a statistical study of the isotopic records of solar activity, in which Abreu et al. claimed that there is evidence of planetary influence on solar activity. A&A is publishing a new analysis of these isotopic data by Cameron and Schüssler. It corrects technical errors in the statistical tests performed by Abreu et al.
They find no evidence of any planetary effect on solar activity.
In a new paper published in A&A, R. Cameron and M. Schüssler, however, identify subtle technical errors in the statistical tests performed by Abreu et al. Correcting these errors reduces the statistical significance by many orders of magnitude to values consistent with a pure chance coincidence. The quasi-periods in the isotope data therefore provide no evidence that there is any planetary effect on solar activity.
Source: http://phys.org/news/2013-09-evidence-planetary-solar.html#nwlt
The paper (h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard)
No evidence for planetary influence on solar activity
R. H. Cameron and M. Schüssler
Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung, Max-Planck-Str. 2, 37191 Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany e-mail: [cameron;schuessler]@mps.mpg.de
Received 16 April 2013 / Accepted 24 July 2013
ABSTRACT
Context. Recently, Abreu et al. (2012, A&A. 548, A88) proposed a long-term modulation of solar activity through tidal effects exerted by the planets. This claim is based upon a comparison of (pseudo-)periodicities derived from records of cosmogenic isotopes with those arising from planetary torques on an ellipsoidally deformed Sun.
Aims. We examined the statistical significance of the reported similarity of the periods.
Methods. The tests carried out by Abreu et al. were repeated with artificial records of solar activity in the form of white or red noise. The tests were corrected for errors in the noise definition as well as in the apodisation and filtering of the random series.
Results. The corrected tests provide probabilities for chance coincidence that are higher than those claimed by Abreu et al. by about 3 and 8 orders of magnitude for white and red noise, respectively. For an unbiased choice of the width of the frequency bins used for the test (a constant multiple of the frequency resolution) the probabilities increase by another two orders of magnitude to 7.5% for red noise and 22% for white noise.
Conclusions. The apparent agreement between the periodicities in records of cosmogenic isotopes as proxies for solar activity and planetary torques is statistically insignificant. There is no evidence for a planetary influence on solar activity.
…
Concluding remarks
The statistical test proposed by Abreu et al. (2012), a comparison of the coincidences of spectral peaks from time series of planetary torques and cosmogenic isotopes (taken as a proxy for solar activity in the past) with red and white noise, is logically unable to substantiate a causal relation between solar activity and planetary orbits. Furthermore, the execution of the test contains severe technical errors in the generation and in the treatment of the random series. Correction of these errors and removal of the bias introduced by the tayloring of the spectral windows a posteriori leads to probabilities for period coincidences by chance of 22% for red noise and 7.5% for white noise. The coincidences reported in Abreu et al. (2012) are therefore consistent with both white and red noise.
Owing to our lack of understanding of the solar dynamo mechanism, red or white noise are only one of many possible representations of its variability in the period range between 40 and 600 years in the absence of external effects. This is why the test of A2012 is logically incapable of providing statistical evidence in favour of a planetary influence. Alternatively one could consider the probability that a planetary system selected randomly from the set of all possible solar systems would have periods matching those in the cosmogenic records. In the absence of a quantitative understanding of the statistical properties of the set of possible solar systems to draw from, the comparison could again, at best, rule out a particular model of the probability distribution of planetary systems. Here we have shown that the test in A2012 does not exclude that the peaks in the range from 40 to 600 years in the planetary forcing are drawn from a distribution of red or white noise.
We conclude that the data considered by A2012 do not pro- vide statistically significant evidence for an effect of the planets on solar activity.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/aa21713-13-No-Planetary-Solar-Act.pdf
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Here is a peer reviewed paper showing that the sun has a strong and unequivocally influence over Earth’s climate. After reading it, Dr. Jorge Rabassa PhD, a glaciologist memebr of the Argentinean Academy of Sciences -and former staunch warmist- changed his stance in climate science making a public statement about the subject: “It is absurd to attribute global warming only to man’s activities.”
DE JAGER C & DUHAU S, 2010, ‘The variable solar dynamo and the forecast of solar activity. Influence in terrestrial surface temperature’, en Cossia J (ed.), Global Warming of the 21ths century, NOVA Science Publishers, available (novembee 2011) in:
http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/2010-Variable-solar-dynamo3.pdf.
The title of this article is wrong.
If isotopes don’t correlate with the solar system barycentre, fine, but it doesn’t follow that there’s ” No evidence of planetary influence on solar activity “ .
The solar cycle is electro-magnetic in nature. It isn’t a gravitational phenomena. So looking at gravitational centre of mass of the solar system and finding no correlation with the isotope reconstruction of the solar cycle is poor grounds to conclude ” No evidence of planetary influence on solar activity’ “
If you are looking for correlation between the solar cycle and the planets, why not look at electromagnetic aspects of planets ?
I’ve found some evidence to suggest planetary influence on solar activity :
Jupiter has the strongest magnetic field of any planet in the solar system. Jupiter’s orbital period is 11.9 years, similar to the length of the schwabe solar cycle.
Considering how many papers on newly discovered electromagnetic activity in the solar system are written these days, and how little attention it gets on this blog ( i.e.zero ), can’t help think this article is bent towards Leif’s Chapmanian’s dream of minimal electromagnetic interaction in space physics.
REPLY: The title stays, tough noogies if you don’t like it. – Anthony
meemoe_uk says:
September 7, 2013 at 10:13 pm
The solar cycle is electro-magnetic in nature. It isn’t a gravitational phenomena.
Your ‘electro-magnetic’ is too vague [and see below]. The cycle is likely driven by the meridional circulation which in turn is driven by gravity [buoyancy].
If you are looking for correlation between the solar cycle and the planets, why not look at electromagnetic aspects of planets ?
You should say ‘magnetic’ instead. Plasmas cannot sustain electric fields [the charges short out immediately]. Anyway, the supersonic solar wind plasma streams away from the sun much faster than magnetic changes can flow upstream [at the Earth: 11 times faster]. In addition, the planet’s magnetospheres are tiny compared to the volume of the heliosphere.
meemoe_uk says:
September 7, 2013 at 10:13 pm
can’t help think this article is bent towards Leif’s Chapmanian’s dream of minimal electromagnetic interaction in space physics.
You know not whereof you speak. I was one the scientists who first showed [back in 1968] that the Sun’s and Earth’s magnetic fields are linked together at all times proving an interaction between the two space plasmas [it is called the Svalgaard-Mansurov effect – google it]
Well I guess the science is settled now.
jeeese!
More like, the models and methods they tested against the outputs they measured, showed little cause and effect.
Fred Hoyle went to his grave denying the big bang.
The magnetosphere of jupiter is the largest object in the solar system aside from the sun and that was only recently discovered. There is nothing more detestable than a scientist claiming to have the final word…. on anything.
Science please. Leave your ego at the door.
Paul Westhaver says:
September 7, 2013 at 10:45 pm
Well I guess the science is settled now.
I think it is premature to make such an absolute statement, but perhaps that is just me…
The magnetosphere of Jupiter is the largest object in the solar system aside from the sun
Yet is tiny compared to the heliosphere, occupying only 1/50,000 the of the sky seen from the Sun [like a quarter seen from a distance of 100 feet].
Hmmm.
Forget about the Newton’s mechanics here, the sun is an electromagnetic cauldron, its electromagnetic tentacles envelope all the planets, and those with strong magnetic fields do bite back.
Observational data during last 50 years suggest that the above may be more than just a fable:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF.htm.
( Dr. S’s bogging prowess is boundless )
vukcevic says:
September 8, 2013 at 12:13 am
Forget about the Newton’s mechanics here, the sun is an electromagnetic cauldron, its electromagnetic tentacles envelope all the planets, and those with strong magnetic fields do bite back.
They cannot because the supersonic solar wind prevents magnetic fields to penetrate upstream. You can’t get upstream by rowing at 1 knot in a river flowing at 11 knots. Your inability to learn this is boundless.
The paper seems to be saying that there is no correlation between the solar systems barycentre and cosmogenic isotope production – I presume this maps inversely to solar magnetic field strength.
Now one commenter suggested there is a correlation between barycentre and global climate (mean temperature) which I would agree with.
Conclusion: Svensmarks theory of cloud formation through solar magnetic field strength modulation is not the whole story or a weaker effect than thought.
I have my own mechanism for this but there is no interest here.
The sunspot cycle is a nonlinear oscillator. Like other such systems eg the heartbeat and the unforced Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction, these systems are repeatedly driven away from equilibrium toward periodic resetting perturbations. There is a good Wikipedia description:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_system
Nonlinear oscillators can be unforced, strongly or weakly forced. In weak forcing there can be a complex relationship between the forcing frequency and the responsive system oscillation. This paper has maybe achieved its objective of failing to find obvious simple strong forcing. But if it did not look for weak nonlinear forcing from planetary orbits especially that of Jupiter then this cannot be ruled out.
It is interesting that one phenomenon of nonlinear oscillators is amplitude death- maybe solar cycle minima could fall into this category?
phlogiston says:
September 8, 2013 at 12:46 am
The sunspot cycle is a nonlinear oscillator.
It would be nice if it were, but I don’t think it is, as the processes that govern the build-up of the cycle and the decay of the cycle are completely different and not part of a single system oscillating about a central value. The build-up is largely deterministic, while the decay is a random process.
In reply to:
William Astley says:
September 7, 2013 at 7:00 pm
Leif have you noticed that the solar large scale magnetic field intensity has dropped by 50%? What is your explanation, random noise?
Lief: It falls to zero every 11 years…
A Doubling of the Sun’s Coronal Magnetic Field during the Last 100 Years
Did not happen:
William: Surely you are not denying the fact the solar large scale magnetic field is becoming less cycle by cycle.
William: Yes, the solar large scale magnetic field passes through zero every 11 years. What is interesting is the average solar magnetic large scale field is becoming less cycle by cycle. Why?
http://www.solen.info/solar/polarfields/polar.html
It appears the mechanism that caused the solar large scale magnetic field to double in intensity during the last 100 years is now reversing causing the intensity of the solar large scale magnetic field to decrease.
A Doubling of the Sun’s Coronal Magnetic Field during the Last 100 Years
http://www.wdc.rl.ac.uk/wdcc1/papers/nature.htm
Evolution of the Sun’s large-scale magnetic field since the Maunder minimum
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6811/abs/408445a0.html
In reply to:
William Astley says:
September 7, 2013 at 7:00 pm
The fundamental model that is assumed for what creates the solar magnetic field and field variance is not correct.
Lief: Well, contrary to what you claim, it is reasonably well understood.
William:
It appears will have an opportunity to observe one of the most important scientific discoveries in the history of science. I can explain why the problem has not been solved and the history of scientific work related to the problem.
As I have stated there are piles of astronomical anomalies and solar system anomalies that are explained by what is causing the solar magnetic cycle. Galaxy formation and evolution, redshift anomalies, quasar jets, magtars, quasar very low frequency pulsation, quasar ejection, and so on.
Scientific teaching in preparation for those who are interesting and capable of solve complex physical problems should include a systematic presentation of anomalies and alternative theories. I have been following the astronomical anomalies for 20 years. The number of anomalies has not decreased and there is unequivocal evidence of structured anomalies. Structured anomalies cannot be explained by the standard mechanisms and point to a different mechanism which causes the structure and connections.
William:
As noted in this paper and papers I linked to above, the earth’s climate changes cyclically which requires a cyclic forcing function. If the sun is the cause of what is observed then the problem of explain the cyclic pattern mo ves from the earth systems to the sun which is the subject of this thread. i.e. What causes the solar magnetic cycle to change cyclically and what causes the solar magnetic cycle. The two issues are related.
As Svensmark notes the mechanism that causes the earth’s climate to change cyclically must also explain the polar see saw. (The observation should be called the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet see saw rather than the polar see saw as Antarctic ice sheet is the only region of the planet that is out of sync in terms of how the planet’s temperature changes cyclically driven by the solar magnetic cycle change. Cyclically the Antarctic ice sheet cools when the Greenland ice sheet warms during a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle and visa verse. Note planetary temperature as a whole follows the Greenland ice sheet cyclical temperature change; it is only the Antarctic ice sheet that is out of sync.
There is no known earth based mechanism that can cyclically change the earth’s temperature simultaneously affecting the Greenland Ice sheet and Antarctic ice sheet and causing the so called ice sheet see saw.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml
Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock by Stefan Rahmstorf
Many paleoclimatic data reveal a approx. 1,500 year cyclicity of unknown origin. A crucial question is how stable and regular this cycle is. An analysis of the GISP2 ice core record from Greenland reveals that abrupt climate events appear to be paced by a 1,470-year cycle with a period that is probably stable to within a few percent; with 95% confidence the period is maintained to better than 12% over at least 23 cycles. This highly precise clock points to an origin outside the Earth system; oscillatory modes within the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in period.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612145v1
The Antarctic climate anomaly and galactic cosmic ray
Contradictory trends in temperature in Antarctica and the rest of the world, which are evident on timescales from millennia to decades, provide a strong clue to what drives climate change. The southern continent is distinguished by its isolation and by its unusual response to changes in cloud cover.
Borehole temperatures in the ice sheets spanning the past 6000 years show Antarctica repeatedly warming when Greenland cooled, and vice versa (Fig. 1) [13, 14]. North-south oscillations of greater amplitude associated with Dansgaard-Oeschger events are evident in oxygenisotope data from the Wurm-Wisconsin glaciation[15]. The phenomenon has been called the polar see-saw[15, 16], but that implies a north-south symmetry that is absent. Greenland is better coupled to global temperatures than Antarctica is, and the fulcrum of the temperature swings is near the Antarctic Circle. A more apt term for the effect is the Antarctic climate anomaly.
phlogiston says:
September 8, 2013 at 12:46 am
This paper has maybe achieved its objective of failing to find obvious simple strong forcing.
The paper has a much more limited goal, namely to show that the Abreu et al. calculation of statistical significance of something in excess of 99.99999% is erroneous.
Leif Svalgaard says: September 8, 2013 at 12:31 am
They cannot because the supersonic solar wind prevents magnetic fields to penetrate upstream.
Doc
You are misleading your readers. Your analogy is wrong, it is not ‘puddle boat up the river’, it is puddle boat in a whirlpool.
It is an electromagnetic close circuit, and you know it far better than I do, but for those interested in the matter, rather than quote numerous papers on the ‘magnetic flux ropes’, or ‘magnetic clouds’ emanating from the sun, here is pictorial set of links .
However, I would single this one from the US navy (the people who know)
http://wwwppd.nrl.navy.mil/prediction/storms.html
Close Electromagnetic Circuit not a ‘paddle boat up the river’ is operative mechanism here. Until you consider the science of the ‘solar magnetic flux ropes’ as it is currently understood any discussion on the subject is a waste of time.
vukcevic says:
September 8, 2013 at 1:12 am
Until you consider the science of the ‘solar magnetic flux ropes’ as it is currently understood any discussion on the subject is a waste of time.
The supersonic flow is not an analogy and holds also for flux ropes, but you are right, it is a waste of time to teach you. Solar magnetic flux ropes are expelled from the Sun and flow with the solar wind [in fact are part of the solar wind]. They are not part of ‘closed electromagnetic circuits’. You will not find that phrase in the article you linked to [or any other link about flux ropes]. And you forget that it is not only the US Navy that knows. I know as well.
Solar Magnetohydrodynamics is one of the most difficult fields in physics
and it is, but for those who like the challenge here is a link to a good article
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2009/17/aa10971-08/aa10971-08.html
on the evolution of the ‘solar magnetic flux ropes’, the feedback paths within the heliosphere.
but don’t ask me for clarifications.
Leif
The Earth+Moon orbits the center of the Sun as do all other planet+moon systems …
There is so much confusion about what orbits what
And you are adding to that confusion. No planet+moon system orbits the center of the Sun. They all orbit the center of mass of all the mass they are orbiting plus the mass of the planet+moon system. No wonder you still don’t understand why the planets affect the Sun.
Leif Svalgaard on September 8, 2013 at 12:56 am
phlogiston says:September 8, 2013 at 12:46 am
The sunspot cycle is a nonlinear oscillator.
It would be nice if it were, but I don’t think it is, as the processes that govern the build-up of the cycle and the decay of the cycle are completely different and not part of a single system oscillating about a central value. The build-up is largely deterministic, while the decay is a random process.
I cany prove mathematically that its a nonlinear oscillator. It satisfies two of the classic pre- requisites, it is an open dissipative system with heat constantly moving from the core outward, and it is usually in a far from equilibrium state. But it is possible that the sunspot cycle is driven by linear processes only.
vukcevic says:
September 8, 2013 at 1:26 am
and it is, but for those who like the challenge here is a link to a good article
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2009/17/aa10971-08/aa10971-08.html
on the evolution of the ‘solar magnetic flux ropes’,
Which does also not talk about ‘closed electromagnetic circuits’ nor ‘feedbacks’
lgl says:
September 8, 2013 at 1:29 am
No planet+moon system orbits the center of the Sun. They all orbit the center of mass of all the mass they are orbiting plus the mass of the planet+moon system.
Apart from the tautology you are dead wrong. Does the ISS orbit the center of the Earth? moving as it does at a constant distance [6370+415 km] from the center.
phlogiston says:
September 8, 2013 at 1:33 am
I can prove mathematically that its a nonlinear oscillator.
The sun is not even an oscillator as there is no restoring force.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 8, 2013 at 1:25 am
They are not part of ‘closed electromagnetic circuits’.
Oh yea, the folks at Los Alamos National Laboratory were dreaming when produced this illustration
http://www.swepam.lanl.gov/Figures/Figure07.JPG
Flux ropes push your ‘common garden’ solar wind out of the way.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 8, 2013 at 1:35 am
Which does also not talk about ‘closed electromagnetic circuits’ nor ‘feedbacks’
Correct on the feedback. Electromagnetic feedback is my hypothesis
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF.htm
based on the scientific analysis by many solar researches and supported by the data from your own institution !
Leif
Does the ISS orbit the center of the Earth?
Yes, because it does not orbit Earth+Moon. If it were it would orbit the center of mass of its own mass and the mass of E+M.
William Astley says:
September 8, 2013 at 1:01 am
What is interesting is the average solar magnetic large scale field is becoming less cycle by cycle. Why?
Because solar cycles vary, they become stronger for a while, then become weaker for a while, then stronger, then weaker, etc, just like the weather gets warmer, then colder, then warmer, etc. We have a pretty good explanation of why the sun does that.
It appears the mechanism that caused the solar large scale magnetic field to double in intensity during the last 100 years
It appears that it did not double during the last 100 years. Here is what it has been doing: Figure 10 of http://www.leif.org/research/2009JA015069.pdf
It appears will have an opportunity to observe one of the most important scientific discoveries in the history of science.
It appears you have an exaggerated opinion of your ability.
vukcevic says:
September 8, 2013 at 1:44 am
the folks at Los Alamos National Laboratory were dreaming when produced this illustration
http://www.swepam.lanl.gov/Figures/Figure07.JPG
You are dreaming if you find ‘closed electromagnetic circuits’ there.
Flux ropes push your ‘common garden’ solar wind out of the way.
The solar wind is composed of plasma with different speeds pushing plasma ahead out of the way, flux ropes among them. After a while flux ropes may even disconnect from the Sun. There are no ‘closed electromagnetic circuits’ involved. Find a paper that says there is and we can continue.
vukcevic says:
September 8, 2013 at 1:51 am
Electromagnetic feedback is my hypothesis based on the scientific analysis by many solar researches
Link to ‘many solar researchers’ talking about your hypothesis.
and supported by the data from your own institution !
not at all ‘supported’ as you are just curve fitting.
lgl says:
September 8, 2013 at 2:01 am
“Does the ISS orbit the center of the Earth?”
Yes, because it does not orbit Earth+Moon.
Does the Earth orbit the center of the Sun?
Yes, because it does not orbit the barycenter.
——-
We are now in full kook-mode, with the usual suspects in full swing peddling their own stuff instead of staying on topic and discussing the paper which is the topic of this thread.
Leif
Does the Earth orbit the center of the Sun?
Yes, because it does not orbit the barycenter.
No, it orbits the center of mass of the Sun, Mercury and Venus. How is the gravity of Mercury and Venus magically turned off so that it does not influence the Earth? We are not off topic. Everybody need to understand this very basics before judging whether or not the planets can have any influence on the Sun.