New study suggests a link between the 11 year solar cycle and the tidal effects of Venus, the Earth and Jupiter

Every eleven years the polarity of the Sun's magnetic field is reversed. Could the weak tidal forces of Venus, the Earth und Jupiter directly influence the Sun's activity? Foto: NASA/SDO

Every eleven years the polarity of the Sun’s magnetic field is reversed. Could the weak tidal forces of Venus, the Earth und Jupiter directly influence the Sun’s activity?
Foto: NASA/SDO

HZDR researchers suggest a link between the solar cycle and the tidal effects of Venus, the Earth and Jupiter

From the  Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres via press release:

Are planets setting the Sun’s pace?

The Sun’s activity is determined by the Sun’s magnetic field. Two combined effects are responsible for the latter: The omega effect is caused by the differential rotation of the hot and conductive plasma making up the Sun. This creates a magnetic field in the form of two rings situated north and south of the equator. The alpha effect, in turn, generates a magnetic field which runs along the Sun’s lines of longitude. Exactly where and how the alpha effect originates is currently unknown. Researchers at the Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR) are putting forward a new theory for this in the journal “Solar Physics”. Their calculations suggest that tidal forces from Venus, the Earth and Jupiter can directly influence the Sun’s activity.

Many questions regarding the Sun’s magnetic field are still unanswered. “As with the Earth, we are dealing with a dynamo. Through self-excitation, a magnetic field is created from virtually nothing, whereby the complex movement of the conductive plasma serves as an energy source,“ says the physicist Dr. Frank Stefani from HZDR. The Sun’s so-called alpha-omega dynamo is subject to a regular cycle. Approximately every eleven years the polarity of the Sun’s magnetic field is reversed, with solar activity peaking with the same frequency. This manifests itself in an increase in sunspots – dark patches on the Sun’s surface which originate from strongly concentrated magnetic fields.

“Interestingly, every 11.07 years, the Sun and the planets Venus, the Earth and Jupiter are aligned. We asked ourselves: Is it a coincidence that the solar cycle corresponds with the cycle of the conjunction or the opposition of the three planets?” ponders Stefani. Although this question is by no means new, up to now scientists could not identify a plausible physical mechanism for how the very weak tidal effects of Venus, the Earth and Jupiter could influence the Sun’s dynamo.

Strengthening through resonance

“If you only just give a swing small pushes, it will swing higher with time,” as Frank Stefani explains the principle of resonance. He and his team discovered in recent calculations that the alpha effect is prone to oscillations under certain conditions. “The impulse for this alpha-oscillation requires almost no energy. The planetary tides could act as sufficient pace setters for this.” The so-called Tayler instability plays a crucial role for the resonance of the Sun’s dynamo. It always arises when a strong enough current flows through a conductive liquid or a plasma. Above a certain strength, the interaction of the current with its own magnetic field generates a flow – in the case of the colossal Sun, a turbulent one.

It is generally understood that the solar dynamo relies on the interaction of two induction mechanisms. Largely undisputed is the omega effect, which originates in the tachocline. This is the name of a narrow band between the Sun’s inner radiative zone and the outer areas in which convection takes place, where heat is transported using the movement of the hot plasma. In the tachocline, various, differentially rotating areas converge. This differential rotation generates the so-called toroidal magnetic field in the form of two “life belts” situated north and south of the solar equator.

A new recipe for the solar dynamo

There is significant lack of clarity regarding the position and cause of the alpha effect, which uses the toroidal field to create a poloidal field – the latter running along the Sun’s lines of longitude. According to a prevalent theory, the alpha effect’s place of origin is near the sunspots, on the Sun’s surface. The Dresden researchers have chosen an alternative approach which links the alpha effect to the right- or left-handedness of the Tayler instability. In turn, the Tayler instability arises due to strongly developed toroidal fields in the tachocline. “That way we can essentially also locate the alpha effect in the tachocline,” says Frank Stefani.

Now the HZDR scientists have discovered the first evidence for the Tayler instability also oscillating back and forth between right- and left-handedness. What is special about this is that the reversal happens with virtually no change to the flow energy. This means that very small forces are enough to initiate an oscillation in the alpha effect. “Our calculations show that planetary tidal forces act here as minute external pace setters. The oscillation in the alpha effect, which is triggered approximately every eleven years, could cause the polarity reversal of the solar magnetic field and, ultimately, dictate the 22-year cycle of the solar dynamo,” according to Stefani.

The scientists surrounding Frank Stefani have been researching magnetic fields in the cosmos and on Earth for many years. They were also the first group in the world to successfully prove both the Tayler instability and the magnetorotational instability in laboratory experiments. In 1999, the specialists in magnetohydrodynamics were also involved in the first demonstration of the homogeneous dynamo effect in Riga.

Liquid-metal battery
The Tayler instability poses a serios danger to novel liquid-metal batteries.
Scheme: HZDR
Download

The Tayler instability restricts new liquid-metal batteries

“Interestingly, we stumbled upon the Tayler instability in the context of our research into new liquid-metal batteries, which are currently being investigated as possible inexpensive storage containers for the strongly fluctuating solar energy,” explains Frank Stefani. The fundamental principle of liquid-metal batteries is extremely simple. It consists of two liquid metals of differing densities – the electrodes – which are only separated by a thin layer of salt. The benefits are an extremely quick charging time, an (at least theoretically) infinite number of charging cycles and low costs, if a battery which is one square meter in size can successfully be produced. “For these batteries, the Tayler instability poses a serious danger because it inevitably arises when the cells get bigger and bigger. Without certain technological tricks, which we have already patented, the Tayler instability would destroy the battery’s stratification,” adds Stefani.

Publication: F. Stefani, A. Giesecke, N. Weber, T. Weier: „Synchronized Helicity Oscillations: A Link Between Planetary Tides and the Solar Cycle?”, in Solar Physics, Online Publication on September 1, 2016 (DOI:10.1007/s11207-016-0968-0)

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
LoganSix

Obviously the HZDR scientists should be punished in the town square for the heresy against man-made global warming.

M Seward

Absolutely. It is plain as day that they have been communing with Satan himself.
Burn them!! Burn them !!!
Wait….. Even better …. give them a Lewandowsky lobotomy!
Lewbotomise them !! Lewbotomise them !!!

ddpalmer

You can’t burn them, that would release CO2.

jeanparisot

True, Throw them in the millpond and see if they float.

Tom in Florida

““For these batteries, the Tayler instability poses a serious danger because it inevitably arises when the cells get bigger and bigger. Without certain technological tricks, which we have already patented, the Tayler instability would destroy the battery’s stratification,” adds Stefani.
Is this a real report or a commercial to sell their patented technological trick?

Hi Tom
Keeping an eye on eye on Matthew?
They are not solar scientists, but very respectful magnetic research institution. One thing they understand is properties of magnetic fields, may I add far better than any solar scientist, so there.
https://www.hzdr.de/db/Cms?pNid=580
keep safe.

Tom in Florida

Hi Vuk,
I am on the west coast of Florida so not concerned about any bad effects in my area.

Jay Hope

Yes, Vuk, there are plenty of solar scientists around who know f**k all about our star, sadly. I could name a few…..:-)

Paul of Alexandria

A report. One part of reporting on an analysis like this is to comment on other places where it has application. I’ll take their word for it that there is sufficient similarity between the Sun and the battery, at least mathematically, to warrant the comparison.

ferdberple

If you only just give a swing small pushes, it will swing higher with time,” as Frank Stefani explains the principle of resonance
=================
Finally someone considers the non-linear effects of a repeated forcing, in conjunction with Newton’s First Law.
Nowhere in the First Law does Newton mention the size of the forces involved. Over time, even the smallest for forces can overcome the largest of inertia. The planets have had billions of years to start the sun oscillating.

ShrNfr

The Escathological Cargo Cult of the CAGW is the only people I know who deny that the height of the fire under the tea kettle determines the temperature of the tea. They constantly insist that it is the brand of tea you used.

Robert of Ottawa

V.Good

expat

Friction?

Michael of Oz

like the trim tab on a huge ship’s rudder.

Greg

There’s nothing non-linear about resonance, it’s simple addition.

graphicconception

You beat me to it …!

Hmm. Okay.
1. Repetitive addition is multiplication and 2. power/polynomial equations can be rewritten as summed, differenced or alternating series of terms, so 3. addition doesn’t have to have a constant effect. Consider logarithmic addition.

Joel Snider

Just curious for any experts out there: what effect is there from the larger cycles, not just from the Earth’s relative position moving through the solar system, but the solar system’s own movement through the galaxy, and that sort of thing – as opposed to simply Earth-bound forcings?

Robert of Ottawa

You could start here – but I’m not an expert

Robert of Ottawa
M Seward

Papers published in 2006 and 2008 by Victor Ermakov, Victor Okhlopkov, and Yuri Stozhkov shed some light and also note planetary influence on the Sun as well as the subsequent sollar behaviour which then flows through to an effect on earth ( via its albedo). Ut was more compelling than CAGW, that’s for sure.

Waiting for Leif Svalgaard to comment on this. It should be interesting. Otherwise, the new battery has one thing in common with almost all such devices–it is not in actual production.

Javier

Holy cow! Is the Baricenter banning still in place? Because this plays square into that hypothesis.

Dr. S ain’t going to like it.

James Fosser

Perhaps because he didnt think of it first!

Rudolf Wolf thought of it first, but later gave it up, as the idea failed to reproduce the observations:
http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202011%20SH34B-08.pdf

George Hebbard

I thought Landschidt got credit for some accurate predictions of el Ninios and La Ninos? Looks good to me.

Crispin in Waterloo

George: Yes he did, the En Nino of April 2003 predicted 4 years in advance. Very publicly.
His next two ‘prophecies’ are a major US drought in 2018 and again in 2025. The coming downturn in temperatures was also on his list long before the current sputtering sun was observed.
On the other hand there are numerous failures of predictions based on the same method.
There is a pretty obvious pattern in the butterfly diagrams of sunspots showing a resonance with the Earth-Venus beat frequency. I presumed that to be general knowledge. The idea is that the two planets pull the upper part of the sun along as the moon pulls an ocean tide but the effect is modified by their beat frequency.
For those who have not considered the beat frequency separately from the gravitational tug, consider that there are places on Earth with two tides per day and others with one. That is possible because of local geography, inertia and resonance.
From http://www.crawfordperspectives.com/ClimateKeplerianPlanetDyna.htm
“Each planet requires its own time-table and space geography. The computational challenges were mind-boggling, but they were conquered. Armed with the thus created new ephemeris (the planetary time-table), two Columbia University retired professors of geology, John Sanders and this writer, were able to prepare a planetary framework for the explanation of terrestrial climate. It was presented in a volume entitled Climate: History, Periodicity, and Predictability, edited by Michael R. Rampino (New York: Van Nostrand, 1987).”
Also see
Nature, Vol. 209) with a brief item entitled “Prediction of the Dates and Intensities of the Next Two Sunspot Minima”.

commieBob

Exactly my thoughts. Here’s a link to a previous WUWT story on a paper that finds no effect.

See - owe to Rich

Actually, no it doesn’t. The barycentre hypothesis uses the movement of the centre of gravity of the solar system relative to the centre of the Sun. That is dominated by the gas giants Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune as the effect is proportional to mass times distance.
The tidal effect, in contrast, is dominated by Venus, Earth, and Jupiter, and is proportional to mass/distance^3. I did jot down some figures on these a few years ago, but don’t have them to hand, being away from home.
Rich.

RWturner

Impossible, there isn’t enough CO2 on the sun…

Jon

Yes there is but it’s hidden in the solar depths 😀

I’d like to read whole paper, I’m not going to pay £35 just to read what I have known for years.
There is a heading up there ‘Strengthening through resonance’
Well, well
I wrote a paper 13 years ago (2003) with a title
Evidence of a multi resonant system within solar periodic activity
and guess what? In there, there is a formula it gave peak value for SC24 at 78.9 exactly what was observed 11 years later in 2014, see this link .

Their complete paper is here, no need to pay £35.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1511.09335v2.pdf
practical advice: my paper is shorter and easier to read and understand
http://cds.cern.ch/record/704882/files/0401107.pdf

Jay Hope

Thanks for the link to your paper, Vuk.

Paul Westhaver

WRT resonance…
In a perfectly resonant system the force is out of phase with the induced motion by pi.
What is the force in question and what is the induced motion? I suspect the induced variations in the MF is the effect? Gravity the force? … reading your link…

Hi there
I wrote those equations after seeing my daughters homework project on sun and its effects, without knowing much about solar activity. At later stage after doing a bit of research I concluded it can’t be either tides or gravity or bari-centre displacements due to the minuscule forces involved.
Only thing left is electromagnetic feedback, but I had no idea how it might work. Some years later NASA came up with ‘magnetic portals’ which may provide the way for a feedback mechanism, but no other author ever before proposed one, all planetary hypothesis are based on Newtonian forces, while the feedback relays on the Maxwell’s electromagnetism.
See my comment further below at 3.31pm.
PS. My short article mentions no planets (publisher stipulation at the time) but with the numbers in the equations there is no any doubt.

Paul Westhaver

OK. Thank-you.

TLMango

Joel,
The entire solar system wobbles with the sun.
There are a number of periods in which the sun’s
acceleration rotates 360 or 180 degrees. The shorter
Hallstatt cycle (2208 yrs) is one of these. It reverses
direction every 2208 yrs. Our solar system orbits the
center of the galaxy at 486,000 mph and has a side-to-side
pulse. This is the physical mechanism behind the Hallstatt
cycle.

I told you so.
I am not yet sure if it is the relationship of planets’ position and solar polar field strengths is caused or causal but there is definitely correlation. You can read what happens on the sun from looking at the position of the planets.

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=5yxjyu&s=9
acc. to my various measurements [and those done by others] the Gleissberg solar cycle is 86.5 years

A major problem is that the alpha-effect probably is not effective. Instead, the toroidal field [‘sunspots’] is brought to the poles creating the poloidal field [something directly observed], which in turn [by the dynamo omega-effect] creates the toroidal field for the next cycle.

henryp

Do we agree that one can predict the solar polar field strengths just by looking at the position of the planets?

No, most certainly not.

Hi doc
You mean that from about one in hundred of dead sunspots, its bits drift towards the pole (correct so far), than go under (get buried) than after some 5-6 years by some magic they get multiplied then magnified by an unexplained mechanism number of orders of magnitude stronger, acquire from somewhere the other half of opposite polarity and pop up (resurrected) somewhere between equator and mid latitude.
Result: bits of one ‘lucky’ dead sunspot create up to 100 new hugely powerful sunspots.
Do you still think that SC25 is going to be stronger than SC24, or a bit of revision is required?

No magic, just Faraday’s law.
And SC25 will be a bit stronger than SC24.

There you go folks. You heard it from the expert, just read my comment above substitute the word ‘magic’ with ‘Faraday’s Law’ and you know all that is worth knowing about how the sunspots are generated.

Perhaps all that you know, but fortunately there are physicists who do know a bit more,
e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/arnab-dynamo.pdf

Current solar science hypothesis
Polar field strength gives rise to next cycle sunspots.
Polar magnetic field strength is about few hundred microTesla
Sunspot magnetic field strength is about few hundred milliTesla
Amplification 1000x, not to forget 100x multiplication.
I am not convinced and don’t see much of Faraday’s law embodiment in there.
Magnetic resonance feedback makes far more sense.
Jupiter has equatorial magnetic field strength of 4.3Tesla quoted in this good e-book
Sun and all planets with magnetospheres, of which Jupiter happen to be strongest are directly linked by ‘magnetic portals’-NASA , “These gateways link the magnetic field of our planet to that of the sun”. In my view they also provide two way magnetic feedback links, synchronising solar activity to the gas giants’ orbital periodicity, or two be more accurate cos(2xJupiter sidereal) + cos( Jupiter/Saturn synodic) giving rise to the solar 22 year magnetic cycle.(it’s well past my bed time)

I am not convinced and don’t see much of Faraday’s law embodiment in there.
Personal ignorance is not a valid argument.
From http://www.leif.org/EOS/Solar-Dynamo-Theory-Charbonneau.pdf :
“Ampere’s law holds in its pre-Maxwellian form, ∇ × B = μ0J, (2) where μ0 is the magnetic permeability. Using this expression to substitute for J in Equation 1 and inserting the resulting expression for E into <b<Faraday’s law leads to the MHD induction equation, ∂B/∂t =∇× (u × B − η∇ × B)…”

ren

In 2020, when Jupiter begins to move away from Saturn solar activity will decrease.
http://services.swpc.noaa.gov/images/solar-cycle-planetary-a-index.gif

Robert of Ottawa

I’d love to read a complete as possible explanation of the internal solar magnetic fields. how they are created and their effects upon the Sun. But then we all would.

a complete as possible explanation of the internal solar magnetic fields. how they are created
Here is a fairly complete [but perhaps difficult] explanation:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Dynamos-Charbonneau.pdf or
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Solar-Dynamo-Theory-Charbonneau.pdf

Matt

Who is this Tayler ? Do you mean Sir Geoffrey Ingram TAYLOR. Just asking.

Smokey (Can't do a thing about wildfires)

Negative. As is clear from the paper, this would be the late R. J. (Roger John) Tayler, 1929-1997.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Tayler
(Don’t feel bad: even Google asked me “Did you mean: r j taylor”?)

Bartemis

Such a resonance does not need external forcing from the planets to be excited. Random forcing from within would dominate well beyond the infinitesimal contribution from planetary induced tidal forces. A resonance concentrates energy within a narrow frequency band centered on the resonant frequency, so a quasi-cyclical output is the result.
IOW, sure, the solar cycle is obviously governed by resonant phenomena. But, it is unlikely the planets have anything close to a significant impact.
It’s definitely not an 11 year conjunction of the planets, because the major resonating periods are at about 20 and 23.6 years, and the ~11 year solar cycle is merely the result of a rectification of those processes. The actual period to be excited is the interval between a given initial state, and when the Sun returns to that state, and that requires two magnetic reversals, not one.

Sun – Gas giants magnetic feedback
cos (2xJupiter sidereal) +cos( Jupiter/Saturn synodic)

The claim of the article is not about Gas Giants, but about tidal effects of the three inner [small] planets. So you seem to disagree with the article, which is very reasonable considering that the tidal effect are of the magnitude of fractions of a millimeter.

correct.

correct.

Greg

correct … except for fact that Jupiter is not one of the inner planets. 😉
E, V, and J are the three planets with strongest tidal force on the sun. Two inner planets ( out of four ) due to proximity and Jupiter due to its enormous mass.

Greg

considering that the tidal effect are of the magnitude of fractions of a millimeter.

Tidal forces are primarily horizontal not vertical so anyone calculating vertical displacement is probably missing the point.
Do we understand the mechanics of the photosphere in sufficient detail to explain how it will react to a tangential gravitational force?

The typical wind velocity [of the Texas-size convection cells] is 500 m/s so completely overwhelms any tidal effects.

Greg

Thanks but that avoids answering the question rather than answers it.
The typical velocity of wave movement in the sea far exceeds the vertical movement of ocean tides. That does not prevent tidal forces from having an effect, even to the scale of 18y repetition of super tides.

Well, I’ll answer it: Yes we do know enough to conclude that a fraction of a millimeter tide will have no effect on the dynamo that operates in the solar convection zone.

Here is a more elaborate answer: http://www.leif.org/EOS/DeJager-Planetary-Effects.pdf
“The data obtained here confirm the statement in paper I that the planetary attractions discussed so far are negligible as compared to the acceleration due to convective motions, even when we take into account the duration of their actions.”

Hi Greg
“correct” comment refers to the Dr S.’s last sentence
“So you seem to disagree with the article, which is very reasonable considering that the tidal effect are of the magnitude of fractions of a millimeter.”

Greg

Thanks for the link.

The main conclusion is that in its essence: planetary influences are too small to be more than a small modulation of the solar cycle. We do not exclude the possibility that the long term combined action of the planets may induce small internal motions in the sun, which may have indirectly an effect on the olar dynamo after a long time.

It seems that in the absence of anything more than hypotheses as to basic functioning of fundamental magnetic effects operating in the sun, a lot of very dogmatic and over certain claims are being made. These may or may not turn out to be correct when actually understand the sun.
This is very reminiscent of how we were told at school that it was absolutely certain that there we no other planets other than those in the solar system. This failed to recognise that we did not have the means to know even if there were. We now seem to have 1000 more exoplanets every week !
What I am suspicous about is the mm claim. Clearly this is not measurement and in order to calculate it you need to understand the medium, which we don’t.
Again anyone talking about vertical movement as a measurement of tides is paddling down at the beach, not understanding how tidal forces make matter move. We don’t properly understand tides in water, don’t pretend to understand tides in a boiling mass of plasma.

personal incredulity is not a good argument.
We understand plasma quite well. In the laboratory and in the sun.

This is very reminiscent of how we were told at school that it was absolutely certain that there we no other planets other than those in the solar system.
You must have had very poor teachers. Planets have long been assumed [all the way back to Kant and Laplace] to be a natural consequence of formation of a star from a contracting cloud.

Greg

No sadly, I had fairly typical teachers, who know just about enough about the subject being taught to blag a class of adolescents that they know what they are talking about and would get rather tetchy if anyone asks any probing questions.
We were also told that each region of the Earth has a climate which is constant and shorter term variations which are called weather.
This seems to so deeply ingrained in society as a whole that “climate change” is necessarily caused by human actions and anyone who does not accept that is a “climate change denier”.
That was about 40 years ago and things only seem to have gone downhill since then. I consider myself lucky. I could have been born later and would probably have left school illiterate and been brainwashed with CAGW since kindergarten.

Curious George

A serious danger to novel liquid-metal batteries. A startup behind a new kind of battery made of liquid metal has cut a quarter of its staff and has pushed back the first commercial sales of its batteries, according to a note from the company’s CEO Phil Giudice.
http://fortune.com/2015/09/11/liquid-metal-battery-layoffs/

pkatt

Lol I thought discussing this sort of theory was heresy.

Bob Osborn

Nope just making it an explanation for the greenhouse effect is heresy

Hocus Locus

Homer Simpson picks up another liquid-metal battery and shakes it, holds it up to his ear. “This one doesn’t work either!”
The solar cycle does not precisely match the orbital characteristics of any one solar body because, jazz. Science cannot tell for sure because, opera.
Thars no just-Jupiter in thar suggests Willis Eschenbach cyclically
It’s a cosmic trick-shot, claim Scafetta & Willson periodically
Roger Tattersall (Tallbloke) says “Kerrrching–JACKPOT!”, sinusoidally
We know for certain, for instance, that for some reason for some time in the beginning, there were ‘hot lumps’. Cold and lonely, they whirled noiselessly through through the black holes of space.

Richard G.

“During this extinct time the earth was like a giant steam room and no one, not even man could get in.”

Ross King

The Sun is the “Elephant in the Earthly Room”. On any scale, AGW is infinitesimally small compared with the Earth’s heat quantum and surface dissipation, and smaller still compared with insolation. And still fractional compared with the *variation* of insolation over the Sun’s 11-year cycle). (Anthony: when is someone going to PICK UP ON THIS SCALAR, ACHILLES-HEEL, ARGUMENT????)
Hubris drives the Alarmists into blaming homo sapiens as culprit for climate changes (sic). Therein lies the “Big Lie” by — essentially Snake-Oil Salesmen — dependent on their ‘pitch’ for a livelihood.
And are they committed?? Big-time! Once their balloon is burst, All (97%??) self-serving mannipulators of the scientific process will be vilified (I sincerely hope) by the Scientific/Academic Community for Charletanism. And — trillions of wasted tax-payers $ later — good riddance.
In expectation of their denouement, crack-open the Champers …. and drink a toast to their banishment. And to the CO2 (the essence of life) bubbling out of your glass … savour it!

Gordon Dressler

The article states: “Approximately every eleven years the polarity of the Sun’s magnetic field is reversed, with solar activity peaking with the same frequency.” and then “Interestingly, every 11.07 years, the Sun and the planets Venus, the Earth and Jupiter are aligned.”
Yet the 11-year (Schwabe) cycle is documented to have fairly great variability in any given cycle’s period, ranging from 8 to 15 years. That is a +/- 30% variation, seemingly random. Now consider that against the referenced 11.07 well-defined cycle of planetary alignments.
Conclusion: further evidence that there are, in nature, things such as merely-coincidental correlations.

Poly

Where is the cowboy cyclist slayer?

Carla

Gordon Dressler October 4, 2016 at 4:25 pm
————————————————————
Good Point..
We still might find Interstellar Reconnection in the Heliotail.
Reconnection is seen in other stellar systems occurring between 5-10 solar (stellar) radii. Coronal heating comes to mind here.
There is a larger picture here. The sun is part of a larger system, that we don’t yet fully understand all the mechanisms and how they interact.
Dr. S., are the planetary bodies considered at this time to be in equilibrium with their sun?
To me the planetary theorists have it backwards. The planets are in their current orbits as dictated by the sun over time.
And we all seem pretty, “Happy Together.”

The solar system is now so old that we can consider it to be set in its ways. In some billions of years the Sun will swell up and loose some mass which will alter the shape of the system, but for now everything is pretty stable.

Carla

Thanks Dr. S.
We know that as the Earth orbits around our Sun, that it orbits above and below the solar equator
within the heliocurrent sheet neutral boundary region.
So then are all the planets, within their respective orbits, above the solar equator, in their most northern extent above the solar equator and within the heliocurrent sheet in Summer? Lowest extent in Winter?
Midway at Equinoxes?
Could the motions of the inner three planets within the heliocurrent sheet be responsible for some
Co. and Counter rotating interaction regions with the heliocurrent sheet?

Summer and winter are local phenomena. Ask an Australian when summer is.
The movements of the planets have nothing to do with the heliospheric current sheet. The sheet rotates in about 27 days and sweeps over the [almost stationary] planets.

henryp

It may be that the relationship between the solar polar magnetic field strengths and the position of the planets is or was caused by what happens on the sun, but the relationship is there…….
1) as proven by this study
2) as proven by myself
3) As proven by a number of other people, including W. Arnold back in 1985 before they started with the CO2 nonsense.
SC 25 will be more or less the same as SC17

Greg

“2) as proven by myself”
LOL, I don’t recall having seen anything from you that would remotely be considered a proof of anything by anyone other than your good self.
Neither does the current paper claim to “prove” anything either if you read it.

Electric currents flow in a flux rope are bi-directional and so providing for the electromagnetic feedback . Two currents are separate entities in the layered plasma and do not cancel out (a very crude analogy would be electric current in a twisted pair)
http://ase.tufts.edu/cosmos/pictures/Sept09/Fig8_7.MagCloud.gif

The counterstreaming electrons are not part of the solar wind, but are energetic particles bouncing back and forth between the footpoints of the flux rope. Not electric currents. And not influencing the solar cycle at all as they are generated by shocks in the corona or even further out.

Any one who is interested in the connections we are talking about can research flux transfer events.
FTEs.
They occur every 8 minutes on earth, and are described as a portal between the sun and earth that are brief, bursty and powerful.
The structure of these events are helical.
Here is a description of FTEs from Saturn:

These twisted helically structured magnetic fields are called flux ropes or “flux transfer events” (FTEs) and are observed at Earth and even more commonly at Mercury. The conditions that allow FTEs to be generated at a planet worsen with distance from the Sun, however they have been observed at all the planets out to Jupiter. The Cassini spacecraft has been in orbit around Saturn since 2004, and after many years analyzing the data collected, Cassini has observed the first FTE at Saturn. The observed magnetic signature was successfully compared to that of a model to show that Cassini indeed observed a flux rope at this giant magnetosphere, and that the spacecraft passed close to the structure’s center. It is also estimated that the flux rope could be up to 8300 kilometers wide.

These are possibly sunward. Any ways, FTEs are a question.

Sorry, this is a response to something below.
Too many tabs open.

Flux ropes are rooted in the Sun and are part of the outward streaming solar wind. When the magnetic field [the flux rope is magnetic flux] in the rope meets the magnetic field of a planet, the two fields can connect and energy can be transferred to the planet. Not the other way around.

Zeke see comment just above (at 1:07 am) I posted in wrong place

It’s possibly very similar to the way that Jupiter interacts with its satellites.
At the north polar auroras of that gas giant, there are footprints of the various moons, esp. Io.
The same connection of the sun with its satellites would exist in an electrically connected solar system. The place to look for the modulation of solar activity by the sun’s planets would be at the sun’s poles.
This is not a well-studied area, but it should be.
Another comparison could be with other main sequence stars similar to our sun. Some of them are quite violent and exhibit x flares that would end life on earth. Our sun seems to be well heeled and most of the time the worst flares are not even geoeffective.
Yes, I want to know as much as anyone else.

There is a vast difference between Jupiter and the Sun: the Sun has a solar wind that sweeps away all magnetic influence from the outside. The Jupiter has not.

The earth and Jupiter have flux ropes which do indeed connect them back to the sun. These are sunward particles originating from the planets which stream back in the direction of the primary.
But why don’t we all just be patient and see if we can get something back from Juno.

No, Zeke, the planets do not send particles back to the sun.

Any one who is interested in the connections we are talking about can research flux transfer events.
FTEs.
They occur every 8 minutes on earth, and are described as a portal between the sun and earth that are brief, bursty and powerful.
The structure of these events are helical.
Here is a description of FTEs from Saturn:
These twisted helically structured magnetic fields are called flux ropes or “flux transfer events” (FTEs) and are observed at Earth and even more commonly at Mercury. The conditions that allow FTEs to be generated at a planet worsen with distance from the Sun, however they have been observed at all the planets out to Jupiter. The Cassini spacecraft has been in orbit around Saturn since 2004, and after many years analyzing the data collected, Cassini has observed the first FTE at Saturn. The observed magnetic signature was successfully compared to that of a model to show that Cassini indeed observed a flux rope at this giant magnetosphere, and that the spacecraft passed close to the structure’s center. It is also estimated that the flux rope could be up to 8300 kilometers wide.
These are possibly sunward. Any ways, FTEs are a question.

here it is again
Electric currents flow in a flux rope are bi-directional and so providing for the electromagnetic feedback . Two currents are separate entities in the layered plasma and do not cancel out (a very crude analogy would be electric current in a twisted pair)
http://ase.tufts.edu/cosmos/pictures/Sept09/Fig8_7.MagCloud.gif

crosspatch

Not really sure I am buying this because the length of a solar cycle can vary by quite a large amount. 11 years is only the average. The alignments of the planets is pretty regular. Solar cycles can vary from 9 to 14 years, that is a pretty huge variation so some solar cycles might come full circle some several years after the planets were aligned.

Greg

That measure of the cycle length ( from minimum to minimum ) is very sensitive to relative magnitude of adjacent cycles. This is the reason for the initially curious observations that magnitude of the coming cycle is correlated to length of the preceding cycle.
In reality, the two cycle overlap at minimum so weaker new cycle will make the minimum ( the cross-over of the falling and rising tails of the cycles ) happen later. Conversely, a stronger coming cycle will dominate the falling tail of the previous cycle sooner.
So, to quite an important degree, this measure of cycle length is as much a measure of cycle strength, leading to a greater variability.
Spectral analysis of sunspot data shows there are multiple frequencies, so attempts to assign any one fixed value are naive.

Solar wind doesn’t travel in strait line in respect to solar coordinates, it moves along Parker’s spiral, providing for regularity of both 11 and 100 year quasi-periodicities.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/J-S-angle.gif

No, the solar wind does not move in a spiral, but strictly radially out from the sun, as direct measurements of the wind [and the ion tails of comets] show.

Ian Wilson

There is substantial anecdotal evidence that the Solar sunspot cycle is synchronised with the Barycentric motion of the Jovian planets – which includes the work of Paul Jose (1965) and our 2008 paper [amongst others]:
Wilson, I.R.G., Carter, B.D., and Waite, I.A., 2008,
Does a Spin-Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the
Jovian Planets Govern the Solar Cycle?,
Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia,
2008, 25, 85 – 93.
http://eprints.usq.edu.au/4795/
It was clear to us in 2008 that the synchronisation between the Barycentric motion of the Sun and the sun spot cycle was probably just an artefact of a deeper underlying gravitational/tidal interaction between the planets and the Sun.
The reason that we could rule out a direct link between the Sun’s Barycentric motion and the Sunspot cycle was the simple fact that the Sun was in free-fall about the centre-of-mass of the solar system and as such there could be no internal forces (other than planetary tidal forces) generated within the Sun because of the Principle of Equivalence. This lead us to proposed in our 2008 paper that a spin-orbit coupling mechanism was operating – though at that time we did not know what form this coupling might take.
Between 2008 and 2012, my thinking on this conundrum drifted towards a simple spin-orbit coupling mechanism that involved the planets Venus, Earth and Jupiter. The simple spin-orbital model I developed is outlined here:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/ian-wilson-how-planets-could-be-modulating-solar-activity-the-vej-torquing-model/
The spin orbit model chosen was loosely based upon the type mechanism that operates in the Earth-Moon system that leads to slow down in the Earth’s rotation rate. In this case, the Moon’s tidal field induces tidal bulges in the Earth’s oceans on opposite sides of the Earth. Additionally, the Earth’s rapid rotation rate (24 hours) compared to the lunar synodic (phase) month (29.53 days) ensures that the tidal bulges are dragged off the Earth-Moon line (in the direction of the Earth’s rotation), allowing the Moon’s gravitational field to tug upon the tidal bulges. It is this tugging motion that slows down the Earth’s rotation rate by 2.3 milliseconds per century.
Using this concept I asked myself the question: “What planet applies the strongest gravitational force on the Sun?”. The answer is that Jupiter is by far the largest sources of gravitational force acting upon the Sun. I then asked the question: “Excluding Jupiter, which planets apply the largest tidal forces upon the Sun?”. The answer is that Venus and the Earth are two most dominant sources of tidal force acting upon the Sun.
These two simple questions led to a model where alignments of Venus and the Earth every 0.8 years produced the periodic tidal bulges in the outer layers of the Sun and Jupiter acted as the gravitational force that tugged and pulled on these periodic bulges. The strength with which Jupiter tugged or pulled on the V-E tidal bulges depended on the angle that Jupiter formed with the line of the Earth-Venus-Sun (or Earth-Sun-Venus).
The beauty of this model is that it naturally produced:
a) a 11.07 year spin-orbit cycle which was commensurate with the observed average length between solar minimums which is 11.07 +/- 0.05 years over a period of 410 years.
b) a net increase in the rate of rotation of the outer layers of the Sun that lasts for 11.07 years (i.e. equivalent to the Schwabe cycle), followed by a net decrease in the rate of rotation of the outer layers of the Sun, also lasting 11.07 years – that results in a fundamental cycle of 22.14 years – equivalent to the Sun’s magnetic Hale Cycle.
c) an apparent [but not real] link between the Barycentric motion of the Sun and the periodic slow down and speeding up of the rotation rate of the outer layers of the Sun – a phenomenon that we had noted in our 2008 paper.
The only thing working against the model was the extremely weakness of the planetary tidal and gravitational forces involved. This new paper by Stefani et al. may provide a mechanism that overcome this fundamental objection to the VEJ tidal-torquing model.

Ian, thanks for this comment.
I have noted that there are correlations with the position of the planets and solar activity.
The problem I want to figure out is if this correlation is caused [from the beginning by the sun]
or added cause to the solar activity.
If the latter is the case, it could be that we sometimes could miss a switch – if for some reason the amount of force required is late…. which could lead to a longer warming or cooling Gleissberg half cycle.
You talk about the gravitational force of the planets. Was the centrifugal force included in your calculations? I would think that not only the weight of the planet must be considered but also his speed?
I would appreciate your comment.

Ian Wilson

HenryP,
One way to work out the magnitude and direction of the tidal force upon the surface layers of the Sun that are caused by a planet is to add the gravitational force of the planet (at that point) to the centrifugal forces of the Sun about the Barycentre of the Solar system (at that same point).
All of the particles in the Sun are in free-fall about the Barycentre of the Solar system. This means that there is no net internal differential forces within Sun that are produced by its motion about the Barycentre other than those resulting from tidal forces.

Thanks Ian.
btw
are you the same Ian Wilson who first told the whole world that [CO2] follows warming, it does not cause it? If yes, my congrats to you on noticing that.
I need you to consider this graph
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Polar-Fields-1966-now.png
What it looks like to me is that there are small holes in the graph in 1971 and 2014 which to me actually suggest mini solar cycles. According to my various analyses these two dates are bending points for half the GB cycle. The whole GB cycle is 86.5 years and the amount of incoming energy behaves exactly like a sine wave. So the period 1971 – 2014 is half a GB cycle.
We can represent the average north and south field strengths by a hyperbola and parabola respectively, coming to some dead end stop in 2014. The strengths simply cannot go lower then found in 2014 @ near zero. I would think that at this point the dynamo simply stops and waits for something to happen from outside to happen, to get it to start running again. The graph has to move up again. Hence my prediction that SC 25 will be more or less equal to SC 17.
William Arnold (1985) and myself (2015) point to the alignment of Saturn and Uranus. Like the stated earth/venus/jupiter connection on the Schwabe this would suggest that various planetary forces cause certain solar activities which would affect warming and cooling [of earth]
The implication of a causal relationship is that, in the short term of a lifespan, if something were to happen with a planet or with the balance of weight in the solar system, we would be in serious problems either with earth getting too hot or too cold.
Where do you stand on this? I would like to hear your view on this. Many thanks.

Crispin in Waterloo

Ian: just a quibble about the ‘no other forces’. Doesn’t that statement rely on considering the sun as a billiard ball – i,e, rigid?
I understand from reading things not referenced above that the displacement of the denser centre of the sun relative to the outside diameter, induced by a change in the position of the barycentre, is the main mechanism for creating effects within the sun, not only tidal forces and resonance.
You have twice mentioned that there is nothing but tidal force to consider, but the sun is quite floppy. The barycentre of the solar system is sometimes in the centre of the sun, sometimes well outside the corona, and sometimes it is displaced vertically outside as well. That is what Landscheidt was talking about at the end of his life – that the major effect, though gravitational in origin, was to displace the centre of the outside gas shell from the gravitational centre of its mass.
The speed with which this transition takes place creates very large but variable displacements of gas about the sun. Whether there is a resonant component of this displacement I do not know. Probably.
There is an Earthly equivalent of this effect. When the Earth is struck by a high latitude high velocity bolide, it causes the lithosphere to shake relative to the solid mantle. This results in a wobble that dampens completely only after a long time (an impact about 3100 BC is still traceable). When the Earth mostly stabilises, after a short time, the lithosphere will have a slight change in the position of the North Pole. For a 1/2 degree displacement, sea level at 45 Deg N and S will change 1000 ft in a single day and stay there. This is caused by the ‘flinging’ of oceans away from the poles. Change the pole a bit, and the sea level changes a lot at 45 Latitude and nearly not at all at the equator and poles.
If the Earth’s axis were being pulled about by a resonant cause, there would be clear evidence of it in the pattern of tides plus the absolute height of tides at 45 degrees latitude as the water sloshed around. But changes of the position of the pole are not common.
The sun has a lot of gases sloshing around. The major contribution (or force) is the shifting of the denser core relative to the outside diameter as most of the sun is ‘sloshable’ whereas on Earth the oceans are only a small fraction of the total mass.

@ Crispin in Waterloo
What often puzzles me is the multiplicity of authors and large number of papers trying to explain the electromagnetic events by mechanical forces, and in the process totally ignoring those of electric and magnetic fields. Perhaps one day some may discover that magnetic and electric forces are many orders of magnitude stronger than gravity.

The conductive solar wind acts as a Faraday cage keeping electric and magnetic effects away from the sun. It is wrong to use the word ‘electromagnetic’ in this regards. Electromagnetic effects are the effects of sunlight, e.g. TSI on the Earth.

Common garden solar wind is swept out of the way by much faster and magnetically much stronger magnetic flux tube.
http://cdn.phys.org/newman/csz/news/800/3-scientistsun.jpg
This is an artist’s rendition of an expanding model CME flux rope, which is about to impinge on the Earth.
The tube itself is a ‘Faraday cage’ keeping solar wind out.
The ends of the tube are attached to the source and both the magnetic field and electric currents are providing bi-directional connection between sun and the planetary magnetospheres.
Older crop of the solar scientist may not like unsettling their last centaury ‘settled’ science, but that is reality. Dr. Hathaway also said in an email ‘nothing can come back to sun due to the solar wind’ ignoring the fact that as said above “solar wind is swept out of the way by much faster and magnetically much stronger magnetic flux tube”.
Dr. Svalgaard says the same, but also said further above that there is no electric current in the flux tube, while these currents are actually measured, and I quote ” NASA’s fleet of THEMIS spacecraft discovered a flux rope pumping a 650,000 Amp current into the Arctic.” and that is just for the earth’s pole, for a Jupiter’s pole multiply that by many times ( Jupiter’s magnetic moment is about 18,000 times larger than the Earth’s)
These NASA named ‘portals’ provide feedback paths between sun and planets.
So how the feedback works:
Flux tube works its way unobstructed by solar wind, through otherwise near vacuum of space, once it hits a powerful magnetosphere (as Jupiter’s ) flux tube is ‘short-circuited’ (magnetic reconnection -generating aurora) and loading its solar’s flux tube generator.

So full of half-truths that it is hard to know where to begin.
1) the flux tubes are part of the solar wind and do nor ‘sweep’ the solar wind away. If the speed of the flux tube is higher [as some are] the solar wind is compressed in front of the flux tube.
2) the counterstreaming electrons are generated by shock waves either in the corona or further out in the solar wind
3) the flux tubes do not ‘pump’ currents into the Arctic. The magnetic field in the flux tube reconnects with the Earth’s magnetic field and generate the current locally at the Earth. No Earth, no current.
4) you can see how the currentis generated and how strong it is in the appendix of http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic-Response-to-Solar-Wind.pdf
5) the solar wind expands radially, not along any curved spiral field lines.
We have gone over this many, many times, but you are hard of learning, so probably won’t learn anything either, this time.

Greg

Ian Wilson;

the observed average length between solar minimums which is 11.07 +/- 0.05 years over a period of 410 years.

Time between solar minima vary a lot more than that. What sort of “average” are you quoting here? You give very precise figures but you are very vague about what it represents.
Could you clarify please.

Sunspot cycles length (minimum to minimum) change with the centenary cycles. In the fast centenary cycles average length was 10.4 years, while in the slow centenary cycle average length was just over 11 years.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SS.gif

Ian Wilson

Greg,
There is no magic here. I just took the quoted dates of minimum from a reliable source and determined the mean and standard deviation.

Sorry Greg,
You can see the logic that I used to determine the the 11.07 +/- 0.05 years at the end of this blog post:
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/v-e-j-tidal-torquing-model-maunder.html

Greg

Thanks for the replies Ian. So it is nothing like a std dev nor any other meaning usually attributed to +/- notation. As Vuk’s graph shows the variation is far greater +/- 0.5 year may be more like it.

0.05 = year is obviously (possibly printing) error, since it comes to only 18.25 days which is only 2/3 of one solar rotation.

Smokey (Can't do a thing about wildfires)

From the paper: “The article will conclude with a summary, and a dismayingly long list of problems that are yet to be solved before the proposed mechanism of planetary synchronization of the solar dynamo might get a chance to become accepted.”
In other words, “Even if what we’re describing seems correct, there’s a ton of work to do before we can call this ‘proven’, so nobody get excited yet.” Beautiful, especially given the persuasiveness of their report.
Also, this gem: Yet, first attempts to link solar variability to planetary motion trace back to times of a milder “climate” of scientific disputation. So satisfying to see that subtlety is not yet a lost art.
I think I’m going to save this paper for further study, for real….

steveta_uk

Dumb question no doubt, but here goes anyway:
I thought that for a resonant response, the frequency of the response had to over the longer term be precisely in sync with the cause – else you get syncing for some time then a period when it goes haywire before a resync.
So for the sun to be responding to the alignment of the 3 planets named, then since the alignment frequency is known to a very tight limit, then the sunspot cycle must over time also be be responding in the same way.
Surely this is extremely easy to verify? It either does, or does not, keep in sync over extended numbers of cycles.

Smokey (Can't do a thing about wildfires)

That isn’t wrong, but it’s important to remember that laser-precise alignment between these worlds isn’t needed either to produce the effect, necessarily. Also, remember also that sunspot cycles also are not quite regular enough to set one’s clock by, and may in fact be more likely to line up with the VEJ system as a result. Finally, there are other shorter & more powerful cycles going on in the Sun itself which overlap this effect (if real) which may by turns dampen, enhance, alias (that is, offset in time) or otherwise modify this effect.
There’s a lot of data to crunch here, and reading solar physics papers (et al.) is only my hobby, not my jorb. ^_^ Looks plausible at this point though. This IS Dr. S’ jorb though, and I know he’ll have plenty to say once he gets through it. Can’t wait!

Steveta_uk,
Remarkably, if the first minimum of Solar Cycle 25 occurs in 2021 ± 2 years, it will indicate a re-synchronization of the solar minima with a VEJ cycle length of 11.07 +/- 0.05 years over a 410 year period.
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/why-does-solar-cycle-keep-re.html

Greg

Since you give yourself a margin of four years, the idea of “synchronisation” is rather loose. Don’t get too excited about having made a falsifiable prediction on that basis.

Ian Wilson

Greg,
Take minimum 0 to be the one in 1610.8 as the start of cycle -12.
37 minima have occurred after minimum 0 by the time you get to the minimum at the end of cycle 24.
[which we expect to occur sometime around 2020]
Assumptions that:
1. the driving mechanism that synchronises the solar sunspot cycle has a fixed period equal to that of the VEJ Cycle of 11.07 years.
2. the spacing between adjacent minima of the sunspot cycles (i.e. the length of the sunspot
cycle measured from minimum to minimum) drift about this fixed period. However, over time
the length of the sunspot cycle averages out to the fixed period of the driving mechanism.
[This is what I mean by re-synchronisation to the driving mechanism over the long term]
Ask yourself the question – When will minimum at the end of 36 solar cycles (i.e. from solar cycle -12 to solar cycle 24) occur for a given fixed sunspot cycle length?
Fixed Length of Sunspot Cycle____Year of Minimum at end of Cycle 24
(minimum-to-minimum)
(10.00 x 37) + 1610.8 __________= 1980.8# untenable values
(10.50 x 37) + 1610.8 __________= 1999.3#
(10.90 x 37) + 1610.8 __________= 2014.1#
_
_
_
(11.00 x 37) + 1610.8 __________= 2017.8
(11.01 x 37) + 1610.8 __________= 2018.17
(11.02 x 37) + 1610.8 __________= 2018.54
(11.03 x 37) + 1610.8 __________= 2018.91
(11.04 x 37) + 1610.8 __________= 2019.28
(11.05 x 37) + 1610.8 __________= 2019.65
(11.06 x 37) + 1610.8 __________= 2020.02
(11.07 x 37) + 1610.8 __________= 2020.39
(11.08 x 37) + 1610.8 __________= 2020.76
(11.09 x 37) + 1610.8 __________= 2021.13
(11.10 x 37) + 1610.8 __________= 2021.50
(11.11 x 37) + 1610.8 __________= 2021.87
(11.12 x 37) + 1610.8 __________= 2022.24
(11.13 x 37) + 1610.8 __________= 2022.61
(11.14 x 37) + 1610.8 __________= 2022.98
_
_
_
(11.2 x 37) + 1610.8 ____________= 2025.2# untenable values
(11.5 x 37) + 1610.8 ____________= 2035.7#
(12.0 x 37) + 1610.8 ____________= 2054.8#

Greg,
You could have used 1611.5 instead of 1610.8 since:
The first solar minimum in the telescope era was the first minimum for Cycle -12 starting 1610.8.
The corresponding zero acceleration was in ~ 1611.5 (a difference of 0.8 years, which is probably about the size of the errors involved in setting the date of this minimum). So my best estimates for the solar minimum at the end of cycle 24 are sometime between about 2020.4 and 2021.1 since:
(37 x 11.07) + 1610.8 = 2020.39 ~ 2020.4 and
(37 x 11.07) + 1611.5 = 2021.09 ~ 2021.1

ulric lyons

Venus, Earth and Jupiter do keep phase with sunspot cycles, with the alternating syzygy types somewhere around the sunspot maxima. But that’s all, it doesn’t indicate where each sunspot maximum actually occurs, and can’t indicate where grand solar minima occur.

Just published by European Space Agency: Magnetic oceans and electric Earth
“When salty ocean water flows through the magnetic field, an electric current is generated and this, in turn, induces a magnetic response in the deep region below Earth’s crust – the mantle.”
http://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/images/2012/10/magnetic_field_sources/12062588-3-eng-GB/Magnetic_field_sources_node_full_image_2.jpg
unfortunately the authors have left sun out, but it is essential part of that illustration.
Perhaps Dr. Svalgaard would like to comment on veracity of the claims or otherwise.
ESA article is here:
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Swarm/Magnetic_oceans_and_electric_Earth

Of course, it is correct that currents are introduced in the mantle. The EUV [not magnetism or electric currents] from the Sun is responsible by creating the conducting ionosphere as explained here: http://www.leif.org/research/Radio-Ionosphere-Magnetism-and-Sunspots.pdf
The effects are very small, only about 1/1000 of the main geomagnetic field.

As your link says: “ESA’s Swarm satellites have not only measured this extremely faint field…”

The SC24’s polar magnetic field shows an unusual ‘overshoot’ of type not seen before.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF.htm
(here shown as total intensity N+S, i.e. taking polarity sign in account)
vukcevic: Do you still think that SC25 is going to be stronger than SC24
lsvalgaard: SC25 will be a bit stronger than SC24.
What I can see from the above linked polar fields graph I would say that DR.S has made his prediction a bit too early, i.e. SC25 may be weaker than SC24.

I don’t think it is an overshoot.
you have to re-calculate your formula
I predict that from 2014 the magnetic field strength will look like the mirror image [of your graph before 2014]
{I am not good at geometry – I hope you will figure out the new equation}

Henry
Sun is not run by a clockwork, it is an oscillator loosely synchronised by a weak electro-magnetic feedback from the gas giants. Feedback wax and wanes for number of reasons often as the heliosphere comes under pressure externally i.e. galactic magnetic field (read Carla’s comments).
Equation shows an idealised situation all being equal, with specific orbital numbers (you should be able to recognise) therefore it is not meant to be changed for any minor deviation from the idealised case it is meant to represent.

It does not matter how ‘loosely’ it is
from the results I have so far it does not look like there is a grand minimum coming up
i.o.w
business as usual\
SC 25 is going to be more or less equal SC 17
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/sidc-ssn/from:1972/to:2016/offset:10/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1927/to:2016/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1927/to:1972/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1927/to:2016/trend
[note that we had a double solar cycle around 1971 which probably explains most of my off set amount]
:::you have to adapt or change your graph.
Unless Ulric can calculate [from the planets’ position] that there is a grand min. coming? [ I only studied the Saturn-Uranus connection]

The SC24’s polar magnetic field shows an unusual ‘overshoot’ of type not seen before.
As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about. What is happening is that theSouth pole is now tipped away from the Earth and so we cannot see the sharply peaked magnetic field at the pole. This happens every year in September. If correct for this projection effect [see Figure 1 of http://jsoc.stanford.edu/data/hmi/polarfield/ ] you can see that there is no decrease or overshoot effect.
It is precisely this apparent ‘overshoot’ [when it happens at both poles] that is the sign that the polar fields are stable and can be used for prediction of the next cycle. We are not there yet, as the North polar fields are not showing the ‘tipping’ effect yet [happens every year in March]. The North polar fields are sill increasing, so everything points to a SC25 somewhat stronger than SC24.

we will see

Greg

“A 27.2-day temporal running average is then performed. ”
Amazing how attached some otherwise knowledgeable scientists are to the 19th century’s favourite “filter”, despite the horrible distortions it induces and the face it leaves much of higher frequencies it is intended to remove.
When all this had be done with pencil and paper, there was a good excuse for using running averages since properly filters require a lot more calculation. Now we have computers.

it leaves much of higher frequencies it is intended to remove.
Greg, this is not a noise removal thing. We only see half of the Sun. To get an average of the signal over a full solar rotation we average over 27 days [one rotation]. We are not interested in ‘removing’ anything, but rather in ‘adding’ things up. We want to get the average flux density over the whole rotation. If I measure the temperature every day for a month, it would make sense to compute the monthly average, just as we do for the polar magnetic flux.

Carla

lsvalgaard October 5, 2016 at 2:56 pm
The SC24’s polar magnetic field shows an unusual ‘overshoot’ of type not seen before.
—————————————————-
Dr. S., the overshoot is the magnetic field strength depicted in Vuk’s graph. It exceeds what Vuks has calculated as expressed by the red line. So, the magnetic field is stronger than what Vuks figured it should be. Link below with original comment. Well that’s what I think he means?
…”””vukcevic October 5, 2016 at 12:35 pm
The SC24’s polar magnetic field shows an unusual ‘overshoot’ of type not seen before.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF.htm …”””
_________________________________
Now what I would like to ask you is, what the devil are you talking about?
…”””What is happening is that theSouth pole is now tipped away from the Earth and so we cannot see the sharply peaked magnetic field at the pole. This happens every year in September. If correct for this projection effect [see Figure 1 of http://jsoc.stanford.edu/data/hmi/polarfield/ ] you can see that there is no decrease or overshoot effect.
It is precisely this apparent ‘overshoot’ [when it happens at both poles] that is the sign that the polar fields are stable and can be used for prediction of the next cycle. We are not there yet, as the North polar fields are not showing the ‘tipping’ effect yet [happens every year in March]. The North polar fields are sill increasing, so everything points to a SC25 somewhat stronger than SC24.”””…
From your link I don’t see the Northern Polar field increasing…
Tipping effect?

That you don’t want to see something, does not mean it is not happening. To summarize: seen from the Earth, the sun’s axis is tipping back and forth during the year. That induces an apparent [i.e. not real] variation of the observed polar fields, which is the ‘overshoot’. We can correct for this, and when we do, we see the real variation of the polar fields as shown here http://jsoc.stanford.edu/data/hmi/polarfield/
It should be clear that the southern field has stabilized and that the northern field is still rising.
That this does not match Vuk’s curves just means that they are wrong.

In this comment lsvalgaard October 5, 2016 at 2:45 pm
Dr. S suggests that flux tubes don’t contain electric current until reconnection takes place.
“The magnetic field in the flux tube reconnects with the Earth’s magnetic field and generate the current locally at the Earth. No Earth, no current.”
He obviously is wrong, and I wonder how is he going to dig his way out.
Here are some quotes from prominent solar scientists:
R.P. LEPPING et al, from Laboratory for Solar and Space Physics NASA-Goddard Space Flight Center
A summary of WIND magnetic clouds for years 1995-2003 : model-fitted parameters, associated errors and classifications
“MCs (magnetic clouds/flux tubes) are 1/4AU in diameter, have a broad distribution of axial directions with a slight preference for alignment with the Y-axis(GSE), have axial fluxes of 10^21Mx, have axial current densities of about 2μA/km2, and carry a total axial current of about a billion amps.
Hironori Shimazua,b,c, MotohikoTanaka: A flux rope requires a large electric current to maintain its magnetic field…..the flux rope is maintained only by the electron current. This assumption is reasonable because the proton current alone cannot make a structure smaller than the proton cyclotron radius. Protons are assumed to have no bulk drift except for thermal motion…..In the initial equilibrium, the electrons move along the magnetic field lines, and this electric current generates the magnetic field of the flux rope.

This is the usual chicken and egg deal. What creates what? The heliospheric current sheet also ‘carries’ an enormous current, required to reverse the magnetic field across the sheet. The crucial point is that the magnetic field maintains the current by causing charges [in casu: electrons] to gyrate. An electric current as we usually think about it flows along an electric field from one collection of charges to a collection of the opposite charge, in the process shorting the current, unless there is a constant renewal of the charge separation, e.g. by a dynamo process.
The whole subject is treated extremely well by Gene Parker’s book ‘Conversations’, of which Chapter one is here: http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s8454.pdf
“It is here that a fundamental misunderstanding has become widely accepted, mistaking the electric current j and the electric field E (the E, j paradigm) (Parker 1996a) to be the fundamental physical entities. Steady conditions often can be treated using the E, j paradigm, but the dynamics of time-dependent systems becomes difficult, if not impossible, because of the inability to express Newton’s equation in terms of E and j in a tractable form. That is to say, E and j are proxies for B and v, but too remote from B and v to handle the momentum equation. So it is not possible to construct a workable set of dynamical field equations in terms of j and E from the equations of Newton and Maxwell. The generalized Ohm’s law is often employed, but Ohm’s law does not control the large-scale dynamics. The tail does not wag the dog. This inadequacy has led to fantasy to complement the limited equations available in the E, j paradigm, attributing the leading dynamical role to an electric field E with unphysical properties. Magnetospheric physics has suffered severely from this misdirection, and we will come back to the specific aspects of the misunderstanding at appropriate places in these conversations. The essential point is that we live in a magnetohydrodynamic universe in which the magnetic field B is responsible for the remarkable behavior of the gas velocity v, and vice versa.”

That was a valiant effort to dig yourself out.
It is sad that the generations of astrophysics students were educated by following Parker’s flawed view of the electricity-magnetism relationship.

Leif Svalgaard

I would rather go with Parker than with the self-delusional Vuk

“self-delusional Vuk” has two degrees in electronic engineering, and spent all of his working life practising the same.
Astrophysics students should spent the first month of their studies doing project on atmospheric electrical discharge / lightning / and its effects on the nearby electric supply lines, it should clear their mind about ‘electric vs magnetic’ chicken and egg problem.

Proves my point.
“Parker is arguably the world’s leading authority on solar wind and the effects of magnetic fields in the heliosphere, and his originality of thought and distinctive approach to physics are very much in evidence here. Seeking to enrich discussions in standard texts and correct misconceptions about the dynamics of these large-scale fields, Parker engages readers in a series of “conversations” that are at times anecdotal and even entertaining without ever sacrificing theoretical rigor. The dynamics he describes represents the Maxwell stresses of the magnetic field working against the pressure and inertia of the bulk motion of ionized gases, characterized in terms of the magnetic field and gas velocity. Parker shows how this dynamic interaction cannot be fully expressed in terms of the electric current and electric field.”
“Nobody has contributed more, or more deeply, to our understanding of the physics of astrophysical magnetofluids than Eugene Parker. Conversations on Electric and Magnetic Fields in the Cosmos provides those of us who have had the privilege of learning directly from him a chance to revisit the elegant insight, structure, and breezy wit that Parker brings to the subject. For those who have not had that privilege, this book provides lasting opportunity to visit with a master.”–Eugene H. Levy, Rice University
“This small book, which describes the basic physics that governs the electrodynamics of the cosmos, is graced by insights the author gleaned during a lifelong fascination with the subject matter. We owe to him the explanation of many natural phenomena including how the solar wind blows and why its magnetic field lines form Archimedian spirals. Another of his creations, the α-Ω dynamo model affords us our understanding of how the magnetic fields of planets are maintained against resistive decay and why the Sun’s magnetic field reverses every eleven years.”–Peter Goldreich, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton
“This is a book by one of the leaders in the field of plasma astrophysics. Parker sets the record straight on many misunderstandings concerning electric and magnetic fields in the cosmos. The book also presents a revealing picture of the author’s thinking and displays how he was able to arrive at such original solutions to so many important astrophysical problems.”–Russell M. Kulsrud, author of Plasma Physics for Astrophysics”

” The essential feature for the production and existence of magnetic field is the high electrical conductivity, i.e., the inability to support an electric field in the moving frame of reference of plasma or liquid planetary interior. This is all so foreign to the situation in the lower terrestrial atmosphere where we reside, the air being an excellent electrical insulator. Here we see none of the magnetic effects, the atmospheric winds blowing freely through the geomagnetic field. Instead, we see such powerful electrostatic phenomena as lightning, driven by potential differences of millions of volts. The tropical thunderstorms charge Earth to some 3–4 x10^5 V negative with respect to the ionosphere and the space beyond. So there is a downward directed electric field of the order of 1 V/cm [BTW a voltage of just 1 V accelerates an electron to 600 km/sec] here in the lower atmosphere, diminishing upward to the ionosphere at about 100 km altitude. The high density and low temperature of the atmosphere create this unique situation. Indeed, it would appear that the formation of life is possible only in such a situation of low temperature and, hence, negligible electrical conductivity. So, living things can discover the general magnetic character of the cosmos only by remote observation. Only in the physics laboratory can the magnetic plasma conditions be duplicated to some degree.”
This is why your education and experience count for nothing in space physics.

Conversations on Electric and Magnetic Fields in the Cosmos.
Ah, Parker talking to himself (no joke intended), at least he had sense to put them in right order in the title of his book.
Did following Parker made you say that there is no electric current in the magnetic flux tube?
while RP Lepping, the NASA’s NASA-Goddard Space Flight Center expert, says not only there is current there but he claims total axial current of about a billion amps.
As usual I’ll let you have the last word on this one.

You have [in spite of my many attempts to explain it] not understood anything. [it doesn’t look like you have even read ‘Conversations’]. The flux tube is twisted [originating at its source]. A twisted magnetic field generates a local electric current, just like the opposite magnetic fields in the Heliospheric Current Sheet does. In the ret frame of the plasma there is no large-scale electric field. The critical point is that the magnetic field is the primary and the current a secondary consequence. The current is not like the current flowing in the power line from the generating plant to your house, but is a drift current caused by electrons gyrating in place around a magnetic field line, just like a water molecule in an ocean wave just moves in a circular path without moving laterally across the ocean.
And as usual, you are just running away when your lack of understanding is exposed.

Hironori Shimazua,b,c, MotohikoTanaka: “A flux rope requires a large electric current to maintain its magnetic field…..the flux rope is maintained only by the electron current …….this electric current generates the magnetic field of the flux rope”.
perhaps you should read some of the up to date papers written as result of satellite observations and consider why they are right or wrong rather than clinging to the mid last century outdated Parker’s musings on the magic magnetics.
I’ll give way to other who might wont to contribute on anything solar.
It was pleasure, see you soon some other time some other place.

What happened to ‘last word’? Anyway, your quote illustrates the misconception Parker warns about.
A large electric current requires a large electromotive force. What maintains the current?

Hironori Shimazua,b,c, MotohikoTanaka: “A flux rope requires a large electric current to maintain its magnetic field…..the flux rope is maintained only by the electron current …….this electric current generates the magnetic field of the flux rope”.
perhaps you should read some of the up to date papers written as result of satellite observations

As usual, you do selective quoting of irrelevant papers. The Shimazu & Tanaka paper is about a simulation [not up-to-date observations] of small flux tubes generated by the interaction between Venus and the Solar wind. In your quote “A flux rope requires…” you left out ‘small’. A correct quote should have been “A small flux rope…” showing a basic dishonesty.
Their simulated flux tube was set up to be generated by an initial electric current, hence no wonder that it is maintained by the current.

ulric lyons

The timing of each sunspot maximum can be plotted very closely by when the inferior conjunctions of Earth and Venus are in closer syzygy with Uranus, and in even numbered cycles with Jupiter roughly in syzygy with Uranus, and in odd numbered cycles with Jupiter roughly in quadrature with Uranus. When the Ju-Ea-Ve triplet slips enough out of sync with Uranus is when a solar minimum occurs, the triplet then do a similar progression with Neptune instead of Uranus for remainder of the solar minimum until they can physically gain the original sync with Uranus again. Which is why there are a couple of very short solar cycles in Maunder, because the Ju-Ea-Ve triplet return faster to Neptune than to Uranus. Thereby one can plot every solar minimum start date and duration, and the timing of most sunspot maxima to within a year. Anyone with TheSky or Alcyone astronomy software can easily confirm this, ideally at 291.961 day steps fixed to the Earth-Venus syzygies.

henryp

Thx. This is great and confirms my own finding. The going out of sync causing extra cooling is what I would expect when the relationship – i.e position of planets versus solar activity – is cause to the solar activity – i.e. not originally caused by the sun. I am sure
that would be quite upsetting to some people…..

ulric lyons

Solar science suffers in the same way climate science does, they both assume the natural variability is internal. Let them be upset.

davidgmills

So based on this your prediction for Solar Cycle 25 is? Larger than 24 like Dr. Svalgaard, the same, or smaller?

ulric lyons

A smaller cycle as it’s still solar minimum, but I would leave the finer details to Leif until I could legitimately give such detail.

ulric lyons

For example I can see an immediate reason for an every fourth cycle pattern, because because of the alternating Jupiter-Uranus syzygies. That would predict weaker cycles at 1969 and 1927, but it doesn’t work every time historically so I would have to find out why.

@ulric
I am reluctant on relying too much on SSN before 1900 due to various factors, e.g.
how big a is a spot? What to do when you have overcast conditions for months?
etc.
However, history do point to prolonged periods of cooling and warming which would hint at “missing a switch” every so other time when things go a bit out of sync.
as to myself and a few others
we have studied the Uranus – Saturn alignment
http://oi64.tinypic.com/5yxjyu.jpg
I agree that the other planets also have an influence – i.e. correlation to solar activity –
as suggested here in this post
but I can see from the actual solar polar field strengths that we did make the switch in 2014,
so theoretically – following the correlation – SC 25 will be more or less equal to SC 17
What would make you think we will have an extended minimum, i.e SC 25 even weaker than SC 24/?

I am reluctant on relying too much on SSN before 1900 due to various factors, e.g.
how big a is a spot?

Today [and after 1900] we use telescopes of the same type [in some cases even the very same ones] as before 1900, so the SSN record is good at least back to the 1820s.
What to do when you have overcast conditions for months?
First of all, you never have that, second: there are observers all over the world and they don’t all have overcast at the same time.
You have been told this many times. Are you hard of learning? Or do you discount the record because it doesn’t fit with your ideas. BTW, Gleissberg based his cycle mostly on the SSN record that you discount.So Gleissberg was on shaky ground according to you?

It is a given that a [good] scientist may reject a series of data, from before ‘his’ time, if he cannot double check such data on the hand of his own collected data.\
Anyway, indeed, we did discuss your ancient data many times and my main problem with them, besides a host of historical issues, is that I still don’t know how big a solar spot is and how to count when smaller spots merge to a bigger spot. ????
Better if we stick with the solar polar magnetic field strengths (SPMFS)?
You showed me last time that maxima occur in line with the [lowest] magnetic field strengths [in an SC] showing correlation going down 1969 to present. When overlaid, you showed linear lines going down.
I think that was wrong. It was clear that both SSN and the absolute solar magnetic field strengths were going down following a quadratic equation. As predicted by myself they would have to come to some dead end stop in 2014, which was the end of the sine wave starting in 1927.
Gleissberg and a few others were out on the length of the GB sinewave cycle. They thought it was 88 years instead of the 86.5 years as determined by myself and a few others.
It does not seem like a big difference but it does place the time of lowest SPMFS at 2014.
The actual dead end stop – which was confirmed by my results for maxima on 54 terrestrial stations- would indicate some sort of electrical switch on the sun which occurs every 43 years.
Your theories as explanation for that switch would be much appreciated.

s that I still don’t know how big a solar spot is and how to count when smaller spots merge to a bigger spot.
I doesn’t matter that you don’t know. It matters that the people actually counting the spots know. And it is not hard. Even you could do it [if you try]. Here is today’s drawing from Kamzelhoehe: http://cesar.kso.ac.at/main/cesar_start.php?date=2016-10-09
Try to count the spots.
Your theories as explanation for that switch would be much appreciated.
What switch? There isn’t any.

I am clueless as to your spot counting.
Is there anyone here besides dr.No who actually understands it?

I’ll accept that you are clueless when it comes to the sunspot record. My little grandson looked at the drawing I referred you to and counted the spots with ease…

eehhh
family
it does not count
really

What nonsense is that? The example just shows that a 7-yr old can do what you are clueless about.
But as I said, I’ll accept you being clueless in this [and many other matters].

leif says
What switch? There isn’t any.
henry says
the switch that leaves holes in your SPMFS graph
i.e. ending 1971 and 2014comment image
looking like mini solar cycles?

What ‘holes’? There are no holes in the graph:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Polar-Fields-Since-1966.png

henryp

Ja
lets ignore the presence of the holes…
How dumb.

ulric lyons

HenryP, from what I can gather there, your 1919 superior conjunction caused supposed cooling from 8 years later, and your 1965 superior conjunction caused supposed warming from 6 years later. That’s not a good start, and it would make sense if you could show what they were doing at the time and not several years later.

obviously there an apparent [more or less constant] delay on the push/pull [electrical] switch
hence the correlation
either it is the position of the planets or it was so from the beginning of time
you tell me?

ulric lyons

Obviously you can just invent a push/pull switch and a delay, but that is definitely an anti-correlation that you have presented between the 1919 and 1965 events.

@ulric
I repeat my question
What would make you think we will have an extended minimum, i.e SC 25 even weaker than SC 24/?

ulric lyons

It doesn’t make any difference as to whether SC25 is slightly weaker or slightly stronger than SC24, as two weak cycles is not an extended minimum.

henryp

What is ext min?
When last did it occur?