“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.
Vukcevic: Do you really think that tovarisch Severniy would present you with good data at height of the cold war, at beginning of the space age ……. ? ? ?
Svalgaard Severny was a personal friend of mine and of my colleagues so you better wash your mouth out with soap
We all live with our illusions, fortunatus est unum cum uno perpetuam.
Dosvadayavitch (Trust but Verify) . Vuk is accusing Severny of a cold-war red-herring slip to our very own Leif. Can’t the data be verified in the spirit of Reagan-Gorbachev ????
Dosvadayavitch (or something like that–Trust but verify). Can’t we review the data in the unlikely case a cold war Red Herring was slipped to our Leif by Dr. Severny ala Gorby-Reagan nuke destruction policy of observation. Can’t we check the data without casting doubt over it’s authenticity??
Willis Eschenbach says (9.30am):
Sorry if this is a bit off thread.
Without risking a great invasion of fruit flies I would be interested to read a post from you on the evidence for and against a link between agricultural output and the c.11 year solar cycle. Wheat prices are not ideal because they conflate volume and price level effects and as the quantity of supply rises it is likely the price of wheat would fall and vice-versa. Work done by a doctoral student of mine at the University of Southampton, using harmonic analysis, found a medium strength signal using manorial bread output, battle fatalities and tin mine output (in the latter case since the early medieval period) which corresponded with the quoted sun-spot cycle (data sourced from the Greenwich observatory). The cross correlation is weakly negative relating bread production with battle fatalities and tin output with the inference that good harvests kept men in the fields rather than in battle or in the mines. The presence of a solar effect cannot be inferred statistically as the output of the stannaries dwindled to nothing in the 19th Century about the time that the sun-spot cycle was first proposed but the presence of a 11 year cycle in the earlier data which ran for 800 year is suggestive of a link. It could be spurious of course – one can see cycles and, indeed, correlations wherever you look in historical data but, on the basis of what we found I do not think a link can be quite so readily dismissed. The study reference was Davies, G.M., (1995). Long cycles: with particular reference to Kondratieffs,. PhD Thesis, University of Southampton, Archived. I never pursued the topic as the subject was not central to my research at the time but I have often thought about the study and whether there is an effect. There was no sign of a longer Kondratieff cycle in the data . The research certainly put paid to that – thankfully!
The proof is in the predictions and thus far mainstream keeps showing us how much they do not know or understand about the sun based on their predictions.
Leif, as recently as Aug. 06, 2013 said the solar flux for sunspot 24 will average 120 between Aug 06-Dec.31, year 2013. Right now the sun is spotless,or very nearly so and the solar flux reading stands at 96!!
The angular momentum solar theory right or wrong has been and continues to make the best future solar forecast and therefore based on that alone one has to take it seriously and go with it.
Mainstream continues to forecast solar cycle 24 activity much to high.
The first shoe to fall has been mainstream forecasting solar cycle 24 to be much to active the second shoe to fall and even more significant will be the solar /climate connections which should become more evident as this prolonged solar minimum becomes more established and has more years of general sub -solar activity behind it.
As of today I am quite confident this will become the reality.
David Archibald, did a great piece on this web-site about the implications facing the globe from a prolonged solar minimum event.
He rightly points out that Dr. Libby, was the first to predict the solar conditions we presently have (some 40 years ago)and is of the opinion these solar conditions will translate to colder temperatures going forward.
meemoe_uk says:
September 9, 2013 at 2:50 am
Until you accept that the key role of electricity in space, e.g. space plasma regularly forms large, sustained electric double layers and associated electric fields
Everything interesting in a plasma happens because of electric currents which are generated by moving the neutral, conducting plasma across magnetic fields. What Alfven pointed out was that whenever speaking about electric fields in space it is important to remember that the electric field depends on the frame of reference in which it is defined. If in one reference frame, R, the electric field is E and the magnetic field is B, the electric field E’ and the magnetic field B’ in another frame R’ are given by E’ = E + VxB and B’ = B, where V is the velocity of R’ relative to R. Thus to speak about an electric field without specifying the frame of reference is meaningless, in particular one can find a V such that the electric field vanishes. These issues are described by Parker is a very accessible form: http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s8454.pdf He notes “So one way or another, there is no significant persistent large-scale electric field in a plasma. One might say that a plasma abhors electric fields and invariably finds a means to avoid them.”
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 9, 2013 at 8:13 am
Right now the sun is spotless,or very nearly so and the solar flux reading stands at 96!!
Which is what is to be expected form a weak cycle. During cycle 14 the sunspot number was zero on several days at solar maximum [e.g. in October 1906, followed by 115 a rotation later and preceded by 140 a few months before – such swings are common]. I would not be surprised to see a zero sunspot number tomorrow. This is all so normal.
,
I many in denial of the climatic response to the last two prolonged solar minimum periods,(Maunder Minimum /Dalton Minimum) and do not accept the concept of thresholds, which require a certain degree of magnitude change and duration of time change in the state of solar activity in order for it to exert an influence on the climate.
The period from 1844-2005 should have shown weak to no solar/climate correlations due to the fact solar activity through out that time was in a steady regular 11 year strong sunspot cycle with peaks and lulls which would masked any potential solar/climate correlations.
To clarify there is not one prolonged solar minimum period during that time frame following several years of sub-solar activity in general , to refer to ,to see if prolonged solar minimum conditions do or do not exert an influence on the climate directly and thru secondary means.
In addition I would like alternative explanations to account for the many past abrupt climatic changes(such as all 3 of the Younger Dryas events) the earth has undergone in the past.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/clip_image002_thumb.gif?w=624&h=410
As we can all see from the diagram solar cycle 24 is tracking much closer to solar cycle 5 ,rather then solar cycle 14.
In addition mainstream said expect a double peak in solar activity.
So far they are off.
Let us see first what the average solar flux reading is between Aug 06,2013-Dec.31,2013 and then go from there.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 9, 2013 at 9:14 am
As we can all see from the diagram solar cycle 24 is tracking much closer to solar cycle 5 ,rather then solar cycle 14.
As you all can see from http://www.leif.org/Wolf-SSN-for-SC5.png, our knowledge of what SC5 looked like is not very good, so a detailed comparison does not make much sense. Note that the blue curve shows what Rudolf Wolf thought the cycle looked like. The Layman’s Sunspot Number is [avowedly] trying to duplicate Wolf’s method and data.
Let us see first what the average solar flux reading is between Aug 06,2013-Dec.31,2013 and then go from there.
Let us also see what definite number you predict for that average. So far the flux for that period stands at 116.
Leif
Here is one proof of my nonsense. Graphs made by Semi.
http://virakkraft.com/AM-Uranus.png
Try to remember this now. The planets orbit all the mass within their orbit, not just some of it (sun).
Correction Leif, if you take the solar flux reading from the web-site solen ap index, and add each solar flux reading posted on it from Aug.06-Sep. 08 the total over those 34 days is 3842.1 which comes to an average solar flux reading of 113.0, for that time period. That site agrees with the solarham.com web-site when it comes to solar flux.
Example solar ham.com shows average solar flux for aug 114.7 as does solen ap index web-site.
solar ap index is the solar terrestrial activity report site. That is the standard which is being used.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 9, 2013 at 9:40 am
Correction Leif, if you take the solar flux reading from the web-site solen ap index, and add each solar flux reading posted on it from Aug.06-Sep. 08 the total over those 34 days is 3842.1 which comes to an average solar flux reading of 113.0, for that time period.
You get this number because you do not know whereof you speak. What you should average is what the Sun puts out, not what we observe at Earth. Since we during the period in question have been farther away from the Sun than 1 AU, we observe at Earth a lower flux. Correcting for the distance you should have found 115.77.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 9, 2013 at 9:41 am
Example solar ham.com shows average solar flux for aug 114.7 as does solen ap index web-site.
The correct number is 117.73. The authoritative source is this [where they actually measure the flux] ftp://ftp.geolab.nrcan.gc.ca/data/solar_flux/daily_flux_values/fluxtable.txt The next to the last column is the flux adjusted to 1 AU. You should only use the noon value at 20:00 UT [as there is a slight instrumental variation during the day].
I take solar flux as do those web-sites as to what is observed here on earth, which is WHAT MATTERS when it comes to solar/climate connections.. You know very well from reading my PAPERS,that is how I value it, and what I have based my predictions on.
my prediction of 110.0 for average solar flux is for what is observed here on earth.
I could care less about what the sun puts out, it is what we observe here on Earth that matters.
Leif, I am going to use solarham.com, and solen ap index web-sites.
They say the correct number is 113.0 that is the number I am going by.
Leif is just like AGW theory people which will pick data that makes them look or appear to be correct ,even when being flat out wrong. lol. what else could you say.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 9, 2013 at 9:51 am
I could care less about what the sun puts out, it is what we observe here on Earth that matters.
Averaged over a year [and that is important as far as the climate is concerned] what the Sun puts out and what the Earth receives are precisely the same. When you talk about solar cycles and compare with the past, what matters is what the sun puts out. From now on until Dec 31, the Earth is approaching the Sun, so the observed flux will be larger than what the Sun puts out, at the end of the year actually 4.5 units higher. What I predict is obviously what the Sun puts out. So, if you want to compare apples with apples, that is what you should compare with. Capice?
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 9, 2013 at 9:54 am
Leif, I am going to use solarham.com, and solen ap index web-sites.
They say the correct number is 113.0 that is the number I am going by.
Well, you should use the number put out by the people actually measuring the flux. But if you insist on solarham, you may be dismayed that they from now on will put out numbers that are increasingly larger than what the sun puts out.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“The period from 1844-2005 should have shown weak to no solar/climate correlations due to the fact solar activity through out that time was in a steady regular 11 year strong sunspot cycle with peaks and lulls which would masked any potential solar/climate correlations.”
Solar cycles 12-14 were weaker, and the period regularly had very low land temperatures in the temperate zone.
I am mildly amazed at the thought we have seen enough sunspot cycles to do comparisons as if they had predicative value, and amused.
The sun has been blank for about two days now, has anyone any predictions of when spot activity will resume? http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_1024_HMII.jpg
Leif, hypothetically if sun spots do not return what then? and for how long will the sun have to remain spotless before a major solar event is declared, and also ‘hypothetically’ will there be any warnings issued about a cooler period on earth?
Also for the sake of interest, take note of where Uranus and Jupiter are during this blank spell during solar maximum. It suggests a midway point of cycle 24, the end of cycle 24 will be when Jupiter and Uranus are opposite each-other which will be about July 2017.
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/000986.gif